Far and Large Offshore Wind innovation program (FLOW) FLOW contribution to cost reduction. 15 June 2016

Transcription

1 Far and Large Offshore Wind innovation program (FLOW) FLOW contribution to cost reduction 15 June 2016

2 FLOW Objectives FLOW started in 2010 with the following objectives: 1. A significant contribution to 20% reduction in cost in 2015 compared to Risk reduction 3. Acceleration of Offshore Wind

3 Changes to Offshore Wind in the Netherlands between Main differences for offshore wind in the Netherlands between now and 2010: In 2010: Developer was responsible for net connection to shore Developer was responsible for studies to obtain permits Concession areas were completely different from concession areas now (2015) Above changes are included in the calculation for determining the cost reductions

4 3 virtual FLOW demonstration windfarms A. Nearshore waterdepth = 15 m; distance to port = 10 km B. Offshore (Hollandse Kust) waterdepth = 25 m; distance to port = 25 km C. Far-offshore (Ten Noorden van Waddeneilanden) waterdepth = 35 m; distance to port = 85 km

5 In 5 years over 50 FLOW projects 13 FLOW partners a total budget of 47 M Euro carried out > 50 projects divided over 5 R&D themes from scientific research projects (TRL 2/3) to demonstration (TRL 8/9) R&D Themes Windfarm design Support Structures Electrical systems and grid integration Turbine development Societal R&D lines All FLOW projects ending between TRL 6 9 were included in the cost reduction calculations for the virtual windfarms TRL:

6 FLOW innovations applied in the 3 virtual demonstration windparks C FLOW development Cost Elements adressed B A A B C WTG 3 MW (100 m) WTG 3 MW (100 m) WTG 5 MW (126 m) WTG 3 MW (100 m) WTG 5 MW (139 m) WTG 7 MW (164 m) WTG 3 MW (100 m) XD 5 MW 2B 6 MW DEVEX Man time [FTE] Export cable supply cost [ /m] Onshore cable supply cost [ /m] Cost OHVS (incl. foundation) [ ] Onshore substation cost [ ] Average annual WTG O&M costs [ ] Average annual monopile O&M costs [ ] Average annual jacket O&M costs [ ] Average annual E-infra O&M costs [ ] Wind farm non-availability [%] Wake losses[%] WTG OPEX Yield

7 Nearshore virtual demonstration windpark Concession area Water depth Distance to port Situation 2010 FLOW virtual demo park 2015 A, Nearshore Hollandse Kust 15 m 10 km Wind turbine type WTG type I: 3 MW WTG Type I: 3 MW Foundation type Monopile FLOW Monopile: Raised flange connection NMS Screen 1) Optimised scour protection 1) Based on the assumption that Dutch legislation would permit no longer restrictions on piling period due to the use of a NMS screen Cost Elements adressed Jackup foundation installation spread weather downtime [%] Construction time period [years] Monopile weight [t] Secondary steel of MP weight [t] MP/TP installation spread dayrate cost [ ] MP/TP installation time [days/wtg] Scour protection supply and installation cost [ ] Monopile weight [t] + FLOW innovations in all windparks

8 Nearshore virtual demonstration windpark 11% 2010 Nearshore, 3 MW WTG 2015 Nearshore virtual FLOW demo park All cases are project finance based. Debt ratio of 70% with an interest rate of 5,5%; the equity share of 30% with an interest rate of 14,9% is taken into account. Debt term is 15 years.

9 Offshore virtual demonstration windpark Concession area Water depth Distance to port Wind turbine type Foundation type Situation 2010 FLOW demonstration park 2015 B (Hollandse Kust) 25 m 25 km WTG type I: 3 MW Monopile XD-type 5 MW FLOW Monopile Raised flange connection NMS Screen 2) Optimised scour protection 2) Based on the assumption that Dutch legislation would permit no longer restrictions on piling period due to the use of a NMS screen, see Appendix C.2. Cost Elements adressed Nacelle mass (including hub) [tons] Tower mass [tons] Blades mass [tons] Jackup foundation installation spread weather downtime [%] Construction time period [years] Monopile weight [t] Secondary steel of MP weight [t] MP/TP installation spread dayrate cost [ ] MP/TP installation time [days/wtg] Scour protection supply and installation cost [ ] Monopile primary steel weight [t] Average annual WTG O&M cost [ ] Ideal Energy yield [MWh/y] + FLOW innovations in all windparks

10 Offshore virtual demonstration windpark 8% 20% 2010 Offshore, 3 MW WTG 2015 Offshore, 5 MW (139 m) WTG 2015 Offshore, virtual FLOW demo park All cases are project finance based. Debt ratio of 70% with an interest rate of 5,5%; the equity share of 30% with an interest rate of 14,9% is taken into account. Debt term is 15 years.

11 Far offshore virtual demonstration windpark Concession area Water depth Distance to port Wind turbine type Situation 2010 FLOW demonstration park 2015 C, Boven Waddeneilanden 35 m 75 km WTG type II: 5 MW (126 m) WTG type III: 7 MW Foundation type Jacket Gravity base foundation Cost Elements adressed Nacelle mass (including hub) [tons] Tower mass [tons] Blades mass [tons] Baseline jacket supply cost [ /t] Baseline jacket piles supply cost [ /t] Baseline jacket secondary steel supply cost [ /t] Piles weight [t] Jacket installation spread dayrate cost [ ] Jacket spread mob-demob time [days] + FLOW innovations in all windparks

12 Far-offshore virtual demonstration windpark 9% 21% 2010 Far-offshore, 5 MW (126 m) WTG 2015 Far-offshore, 7 MW WTG 2015 Far-offshore virtual FLOW demo park All cases are project finance based. Debt ratio of 70% with an interest rate of 5,5%; the equity share of 30% with an interest rate of 14,9% is taken into account. Debt term is 15 years.

13 Conclusions FLOW has met the objective of 20% cost reduction between The many FLOW projects with TRL < 6, not included in the calculation are estimated to add an extra 10% cost reduction in the years to come (5-10 years)