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

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.

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

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)
Compensation (reactive power)
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

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

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

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
5


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

The project description and the calculations performed are of initial nature and
must be further consolidated.

Number of rows 5 966 10.7
WTGs per row )* 16 478 5.3

Type of foundation Monopile
Ice risk (yes/no) No
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
Cable roll out/Wash down, variable 46534 2,327 50 10
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

75,000 313

Figure 2 The sum is based on project calculations, but division into different parts is a rough
estimate.

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

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


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

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.


10


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

WTGs per row )* 8 686 7.6

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:
Total number of WTG connectors 24 600 25,000 8
Off shore HV station 0 150/30 kV - 15,000,000 -
On shore
Other fixed costs 500 500,000 7
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.

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


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.


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


Figure 4 Operation cost used in calculation. The resulting 1.2 €c/kWh is a little more than DK utilities

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.


14

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.

15


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

WTGs per row )* 15 Average 600 6.0
Size of WTG 3.5 MW 95 100

WTG-size (MW, rotor diameter, hub height) 3.5 100 95 Debt#1 Debt#2 Debt#3 Debt#4 Debt#5
Installation cost
SUM 94,500 1575 450

Grid connection:
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
On shore
Total 25,692 122

Figure 2 No detailed specifications available. Needs detailed analyses.

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


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.


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



calculations are not included. The feasibility is not looking to promising, more investigations that indicate
reduced costs or better energy production will be needed.

19


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.


20

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

Total installed power 52.5 MW Distance in RD
Number of rows 1 x x
WTGs per row )* 15 600 6.0
Size of WTG 3.5 MW 95 100


Foundation, specification and cost estimate: 52.5 MW
WTG-size (MW, rotor diameter, hub height) 3.5 100 95 Debt#1 Debt#2 Debt#3 Debt#4 Debt#5
Installation cost
SUM 23,625 1575 450

Grid connection:
On shore
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
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


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.


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


Additionally 2% of total income is added for rent to Crown Estate.

tax credits from loans.


24


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

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

Number of rows 1 0 -
WTGs per row )* 4 1000 8.7
Figure 1 No experience with 5 MW WTGs so far, so the 2-3 MW experience is just up scaled.
WTG-size (MW, rotor diameter, hub height) 5 115 110 Debt#1 Debt#2 Debt#3 Debt#4
Installation cost
SUM 10,000 2500 500

bottom conditions are available so far. Due to the low number of WTGs rater high p.u. price is assumed.
Grid connection:
Sea cable, from wind farm to shore 1500 38 300 CU Cable 150 100 8
On shore
From shore to HV-grid 11500 38 1,035 90 52
Total 2,560 128

Figure 3 In this calculation a 38 kV cable to nearest assumed 150 kV grid is included. Needs detailed
analyses.

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


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.


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


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.

tax credits from loans. Note only a part of the subsidy price is inflated with 2% inflation (safe price dev.)


29

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

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

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

Recently uploaded

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