Concept Marine Associates

8/6/2019 Concept Marine Associates

1/25

Sierra Club Northeast Committee

Fall Regional Conference

Colebrook, Connecticut

October 13, 2007

Tom GrayAmerican Wind Energy Association

[email protected]

Offshore Wind PowerOffshore Wind Power


2/25

2

Disclaimer

These slides draw heavily on presentationsprepared by Walt Musial of the National

Renewable Energy Laboratory and by theU.S. Department of Energy.

--Tom Gray, AWEA


3/25


4/25

4

Offshore Wind in Europe Well Established

Major multinationals integral part of market Europe produces 2.8 billion kWh (enough for250,000 U.S. households) offshore annually

805 MW operational, in 8 countries, from 24projects with 402 wind turbines Additional 108 MW operational in 2006 UK approved 2,600 MW for construction by 2008

UK plans 7,000 MW by2010 Denmark approved 200 MW for construction by

2009, plans 3,000 MW by 2030 Germany plans 25,000 MW by 2020


5/25

5

Why Move Offshore?

Higher-quality wind resources Reduced turbulence

Increased wind speed

Greater capacity value (?)

Economies of scale Avoid logistical constraints (tunnels,

curves) on turbine size

Proximity to loads Many demand centers (cities) are

near the coast

Increased transmission options Access to less heavily loaded lines

Potential for reducing land useand aesthetic concerns


6/25

6

Potential Issues

Jurisdictional issues Federal, state, local

Higher capital costs

Increased maintenancecosts

Service by boat or helicopter

Ice damage

Corrosion

Shipping lanes andunderwater environment

Underwater power lines

Public perception


7/25

Land-based wind sites are not close to

coastal load centers

Load centers are close to offshore wind sites

Two-market approach is needed

Grap

Credit: Bruce Bailey AWS Truewind

Why Offshore Wind in the US?

Grap icCredit: GE Energy

% area class 3 or above

US Population ConcentrationU.S. Wind Resource


8/25

8

Coastal Energy Prices Are Higherwith No Significant Indigenous Sources

0

2

4

6

0

12

14

16

18

PacificNo

ncon

tiguo

us

NewEn

gland

Midd

leAtlan

tic

Pacific

Con

tiguo

us

WestS

outh

Central

U.S.

Total

SouthA

tlantic

Moun

tain

EastNo

rthCentral

WestN

orth

Central

EastSo

uthC

entral

Source: EIACensus Division

ElectricityPrices-AllSec

tors(cents/kWh)

Coastal States

with Significant

Offshore Wind

Inland States and States

With No Significant

Offshore Wind


9/25

U.S. Offshore Wind Energy OpportunityU.S. Offshore Wind EnergyResource

Regi 0 - 0 0 - 60 60 - 900 > 900

ew gl 10. 4 .5 1 0.6 0.0i - tl ti 64. 126.2 45. 0.0

reat Lakes 15.5 11.6 19 .6 0.0

Calif r ia 0.0 0. 47.8 168.0Pacific rt wes 0.0 1.6 100.4 68.2

tal 90.1 18 .2 517.7 266.2

ept (m)

Resource Not Yet

Assessed


10/25

Wind Energy Cost Trends

1981:40 cents/kWh

Increased Turbine Size

R&D Advances ManufacturingImprovements

2007: 5 - 9 cents/kWh

2012: 3.6 cents/kWh?

2007:9-12 cents/kWh

2014: 5 cents/kWh

Multi-megawatt Turbines

High reliability systems

Infrastructure Improvements

Land-based

Class 4

Offshore

Class 6


11/25

11

US Offshore Projects

Project State MW StatusCape Wind MA 420 DEIS Soon

IPA NY 150 On HoldWinergy (Plu Island) NY 10 ?

Southern Co pany GA 10 No PlansW.E.S.T. TX 150 Test WT?Buzzards Bay MA 300 FeasibilityNew Jersey NJ 350 Govt Boost

Hull Municipal MA 15 FeasibilityDelaware DE 600 In Appeal

Total 2,455


12/25

12

Environmental Issues

Fishing: We welcome fishing right off theplatforms and they do!

Oil Leakage: None to date furthercontainment possible if needed.

Impacts on sea life: None apparent.Artificial reefs have attracted fish.

Aesthetics: 94% ofDanish public favors.


13/25

13

Environmental Issues

Birds: Typically flyaround wind farms.

Noise: Turbinesinaudible beyond500m.


14/25

14

Offshore Oil and Gas Industry:The Link to Offshore Wind

Energy


15/25

15

Offshore Industry Collaborations areEssential

MMS regulatory authority

Offshore industry needs to diversify

Infrastructure owned by offshore industry

50 years of offshore experience


16/25

16

Current Offshore Wind Program Activities

Enabling Research Coupled Codes (Jonkman),

wakes, controls, rotors, drivetrains, reliability Resource Assess ent Offshore mapping,

boundary layer, wind/wave correlations

Environ ental Support (Ram, Energetics)

LWST II Subcontractso GE System Development - $27M/ $8M DOE

o GE Ultralong blade- component (canceled)

o Concept Marine Associates, MIT, AWS Truewind

Offshore Wind Collaborative (OWC) Testing Support and Facilities (Si s)

TVP (Turbine Verification Project) Arklow Banks

SeaCon (Sea-Based Concept) Studies


17/25

Win

d

x

y

1:Surge

2:Sway

3:

Heave

4:Roll

5:Pitch

6:Yaw

z

Wav

es

Barge TLP

Spar

Mooring

System

Ballast

HydrostaticRestoring

Waterplane

Moment

Waterplane

Moment

LWST Phase 2 Concept Studies $200K each

AWS Truewind MIT CMADevelopment of Atmospheric

Profiling and Modeling Techniques

To Evaluate the Design and

Operating Environment of Offshore

Wind Turbines..

Semi-Submersible

Platform and Anchor

Foundation Systems

for Wind Turbine

Support

Offshore Floating Wind

Turbine Concepts: Fully

Coupled Dynamic Response

Simulations


18/25

18

Funding $27M+

$8M DOE Funding

Awarded February 2006

4Phases I - Planning and Preli inary Design

II- Detailed and Final Design

III- Prototype Fabrication

IV- Prototype Installation and Testing

First Turbine Opti ized for Offshore Operation

GE Global ResearchLWST System Development Subcontract

Multi-megawatt Offshore System Development

Baseline Turbine GE 3.6Arklow Banks


19/25

Offshore Wind Cost ElementsOffshore turbine 33% of the life cycle cost vs. 59% onshore

Electrical

Infrastructure

15%

Oper ation and

Maintenance

25%

Support

Structure

24%

Engineering

and

Management

3%

Turbine

33%

derived from NREL cost model and CA-OWEE report 2001


20/25

SeaCon Phases Phase 1 Baseline para etric studies-FY06

Phase

2 Co ponent Scaling FY

07

Phase 3 Syste Opti ization and Scaling FY08

0

1

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Water epth ( eters)

Su

structureCost

MonopilesGravity Foundations

Tripods, Jackets, Trusses

Floating Structures

Shallow WaterTechnology

TransitionalTechnology

DeepWaterTechnology

Phase 1 Example: What foundations work best at various depths?


21/25

21

eep a er n ur neDevelopment

Offshore Wind TechnologyDevelopment

90.1 GW >500 GW183.2 GW

DOE Goal:

30 to 60-m Class 6 winds

5 cents/kWh by 2016

DOE Goal:

0 to 30-m Class 6 winds

5 cents/kWh by 2014

Shallow Transitional Deep


22/25

22

Transitional Depth Foundations30-m to 60-m Depths

TripodTube

Steel

Guyed

Tube

Spaceframe,Jacket, or

Truss

TalismanEnergyConcept

Suction

Bucket

183.2 GW potential


23/25

23

Floating Foundations>60-m Depths

Dutch

tri-floater

Barge Spar Mono-hullTLP

ConceptMarine

AssociatesConcreteTLP

SWAY

>500 GW potential


24/25

24

Offshore Component Costs are LowRelative to Total Project

BOS

66%

Blades4%

Other Rotor

2% Drive trai

Nacelle

18%

Marinization

4%

Tower5%

Controls

1%

All of the energy

Cost of Energy

Can we afford more expensive rotors?

Most of the loads

4% of the cost


25/25

Summary Near term US offshore projects needed

Environmental, regulatory, and public perceptions

are drivers in US.

Significant R&D is necessary to lower costs

Offshore O&G industry experience and collaborationsare essential

Three technology pathways identified

Shallow water pathway has begun

Wind can potentially supply

20% of electric energy in United States

Documents

Concept Marine Associates