FY 2006 DOE Wind and Hydropower Program Peer ReviewDenver Marriot West,

Golden CO, USA May 9-11, 2006

Walt MusialLeader-Offshore Projects

National Wind Technology CenterNational Renewable Energy Laboratory

walter_musial@nrel.gov

Offshore Technology Offshore Technology DevelopmentDevelopment

DOE Offshore Wind Program:A Brief History

• LWST Phase II RFP modified to include offshore with a program goal of 5 cents/kWh by 2012.– (1 system development, 1 component, 3 conceptual)

• Horns Rev and Nysted wind farms commissioned

• August 2003, DOE Secretary Abraham requested white paper on feasibility of offshore wind.

• DOE program begins gathering deepwater information to address longer term US vision.

• June 2004, offshore projects develop problems; broader program indicated.

• DOE identifies multiple technology pathways

Current Status of Offshore Industry

Offshore 804-MW of 60,000 MW+ world-wide – less than 2% 11-GW+ offshore is projected for 2010 Offshore has affected current onshore systems Offshore will continue to influence European markets.

Sweden3%

Netherlands2%

Ireland3%

Germany1%

Denmark53%

United Kingdom

38%

United States5%

France1%

Canada6%

Belguim2%

Poland1%

Finland2%

Denmark3%

Germany49%

Ireland6%

Netherlands2%

Sweden4%

Spain4%

United Kingdom15%

Current Future - 2010

http://www.hamburg-messe.de/Scripte/allgemein_Info/Bestellung_DEWI-Studie/Studie_WindEnergy_en.htm?menu=Visitor

Predicted Growth of German Wind Energy Markets

Land-based wind sites are not close to coastal load centers

Load centers are close to offshore wind sites Two market approach is needed

Graphic Credit: Bruce Bailey AWS Truewind

Why Offshore Wind in the US?

Graphic Credit: GE Energy

% area class 3 or above

US Population Concentration U.S. Wind Resource

U.S. Offshore Wind Energy OpportunityU.S. Offshore Wind Energy Resource

Region 0 - 30 30 - 60 60 - 900 > 900New England 10.3 43.5 130.6 0.0Mid-Atlantic 64.3 126.2 45.3 30.0Great Lakes 15.5 11.6 193.6 0.0California 0.0 0.3 47.8 168.0Pacific Northwest 0.0 1.6 100.4 68.2Total 90.1 183.2 517.7 266.2

GW by Depth (m)

Resource Not Yet Assessed

Wind Energy Cost Trends

1981: 40 cents/kWh

• Increased Turbine Size• R&D Advances• Manufacturing

Improvements

2006: 4 - 6 cents/kWh2012: 3.6 cents/kWh

2006: 9.5 cents/kWh

2014: 5 cents/kWh

• Multi-megawatt Turbines• High reliability systems• Infrastructure Improvements

Land-basedClass 4

OffshoreClass 6

Coastal Energy Prices Are Higher with No Significant Indigenous Sources

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

So u rc e : EIA Ce n su s D iv is io n

Elec

trici

ty P

rices

- A

ll Se

ctor

s (c

ents

/kW

h)

C o asta l S ta tes w ith S ig n ifica n t O ffsh o re Win d

In lan d S ta tes an d S ta tes With No S ig n ifica n t

O ffsh o re Win d

DOE/NREL Offshore Wind Energy Program: Approach

Offshore Industry

European Wind Energy Experience

DOE Offshore Wind Energy

Program

European Collaborations• NREL/RISØ Co-Operating Agents for International

Energy Agency Offshore Annex – XXIII.• Eight Active Countries

Annex 23 Operating AgentsRisø and NREL

Subtask 1 (Risø)Experience with critical deployment issues

Subtask 2 (NREL)Technical Research for deep water (>30m)

Research Area # 4Offshore Code Comparison

CollaborationUSA

Research Area # 1Ecological Issues and Regulations

NL

Research Area # 2Electrical System Integration

UK

Research Area # 3External Conditions, Layouts and

Design of Offshore Wind FarmsDK

Annex 23 Operating AgentsRisø and NREL

Subtask 1 (Risø)Experience with critical deployment issues

Subtask 2 (NREL)Technical Research for deep water (>30m)

Research Area # 4Offshore Code Comparison

CollaborationUSA

Research Area # 1Ecological Issues and Regulations

NL

Research Area # 2Electrical System Integration

UK

Research Area # 3External Conditions, Layouts and

Design of Offshore Wind FarmsDK

Offshore Code Comparison Collaborative (OC3)

Baseline Model Dynamics Comparisons (8 codes)

Horns Rev- Corner Turbine Enhancements?

Wind Direction

Offshore array modeling and analysis can open new siting options both offshore and onshore

DOE/NREL Offshore Wind Energy Program: Approach

Offshore Industry

European Wind Energy Experience

DOE Offshore Wind Energy

Program

Offshore Oil and Gas Industry: The Link to Offshore Wind Energy

Offshore Industry Collaborations are Essential

• MMS regulatory authority

• Offshore industry needs to diversify

• IEC insufficient for MMS/U.S. structural certification

(API standards)

• Infrastructure owned by offshore industry

• 50 years of offshore experience

Joint Activities with Offshore Industry

Minerals Management Service• DOE/MMS Memorandum of

Understanding• Advisory Relationships Established• Proposed Rulemaking Comments• Scoping Meetings – Upcoming

Joint Activities with Offshore Industry• Joint Industry Project

– Purpose: Determine requirements for offshore safety and certification.

– Participants: US Offshore Wind Developers, Offshore construction, DOE, MMS

• Offshore Technology Conference (OTC) – Wind Session 150 attended – Invited for 2007– High level of interest

• SeaCon Studies

DOE/NREL Offshore Wind Energy Program: Approach

Offshore Industry

European Wind Energy Experience

DOE Offshore Wind Energy

Program

Deep Water Wind Turbine DevelopmentOffshore Wind Technology Development

90.1 GW >500 GW 183.2 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

SupportingResearch

andTesting

(LaboratorySupport)

Figure 18. Offshore Wind Technology Research Efforts

Test Validation Design Basis

Public/ PrivateCost-SharedPrototypes

FieldVerification

With CommercialProjects

Concept Studies(SeaCON)

Off

shor

e In

dust

ry P

artn

ersh

ips

Off

shor

e In

dust

ry P

artn

ersh

ips

Field testing, cost modeling, and reliability and O&M mitigation research

Design tools, codes, standards, test expertise, analysis

Prototype design and testing support, contract management

Offshore industry expertise, focus and guidance

Offshore Technology Pathway Strategy

Laboratory SeaCon

(Subcontracts)

Skeleton: Offshore Technology Development Pathway

Management and SupportSupporting Research and Testing

SeaConTest Bed Development

Public/Private PartnershipsField Verification

Yr 1 Yrs 8 to 17

Program Goal

Current Offshore Wind Program Activities Enabling Research – Coupled Codes (Jonkman),

wakes, controls, rotors, drivetrains, reliability Resource Assessment – Offshore mapping, boundary

layer, wind/wave correlations Environmental Support – (Ram, Energetics) LWST II Subcontracts

o GE System Development - $27M/ $8M DOEo GE Ultralong blade- component (canceled)o Concept Marine Associates, MIT, AWS Truewind

Offshore Wind Collaborative (OWC) Testing Support and Facilities (Simms) TVP Arklow Banks SeaCon Studies

Sea-Based Concept Studies (SeaCon)

• DOE/NREL sponsored studies underway:

Objectives:

– Use offshore O&G experience - form partnerships

– Define requirements for infrastructure and technology

– Narrow focus on best technology options

– Establish basis for test bed and system development

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

ElectricalInfrastructure

15%

Operation andMaintenance

25%

SupportStructure

24%

Engineering and

Management3%

Turbine33%

derived from NREL cost model and CA-OWEE report 2001

Offshore Economic Model DevelopmentOffshore Economic Model Development

Infrastructure Assessment

Fixed- Bottom and Floating

System Scaling

Fixed-bottom Support

Structures

Turbine Optimization (Fixed and Floating)

Grid and Transmission Options

Floating Platforms

O&M and Accessibility

Test Validation of Design Basis Detailed Design

for Test Bed

Environmental and Regulatory Factors Assessments

Life Cycle Cost Elements

Anchor StudyDesign Basis

SafetyStandards External

Conditions

Design BasisSafety

Standards External Conditions

Design Basis•Structural Safety•Offshore Standards •MET Ocean Conditions•Array Effects

Offshore Reliability

SeaCon Studies Connectivity

Sea-Based Concept (SeaCon) Studies

1. Offshore cost and economic modeling2. US offshore infrastructure

assessment 3. Offshore reliability models4. Anchoring and mooring studies5. Turbine design optimization 6. Operation and maintenance 7. Offshore grid system 8. Fixed bottom support structures 9. Floating platforms10. Environmental assessments 11. External conditions  12. System scaling studies

ElectricalInfrastructure

15%

Operation andMaintenance

25%

SupportStructure

24%

Engineering and

Management3%

Turbine33%

BOS66%

Blades4%

Other Rotor2% Drive train

Nacelle18%

Marinization4%

Tower5%

Controls1%

SeaCon Phases Phase 1 – Baseline parametric studies-FY06 Phase 2 – Component Scaling FY07 Phase 3 – System Optimization and Scaling FY08

0

1

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160Water Depth (meters)

Subs

truct

ure

Cos

t

Monopiles Gravity Foundations

Tripods, Jackets, Trusses

Floating Structures

Shallow Water Technology

Transitional Technology

Deep Water Technology

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

Transitional Depth Foundations 30-m to 60-m Depths

Tripod Tube Steel

Guyed Tube

Spaceframe, Jacket, or

Truss

Talisman Energy Concept

Suction Bucket

183.2 GW potential

Floating Foundations >60-m Depths

Dutch tri-floater

Barge Spar Mono-hull TLP

Concept Marine

Associates Concrete

TLP

SWAY

>500 GW potential

Strategies for Minimal Life Cycle Cost Reliability versus O&M

• Understand the relationship between OPEX and CAPEX

• Close the loop between design and operations– High reliability systems

– Design for low cost in-situ repairs

– Avoid collateral damage.

– Integrated CM and self diagnostics

• Benefit Offshore and Onshore

Designer

Operator

ElectricalInfrastructure

15%

Operation andMaintenance

25%

SupportStructure

24%

Engineering and

Management3%

Turbine33%

40

60

80

100

406080100

Accessibility

Ava

ilabi

lity

Mature Offshore Turbine

Onshore Marinized Turbine

Onshore offshoreRemote/Severe

Offshore Turbine Availability

Increasing Site Severity and Distance from Shore

Engineering Challenge

Offshore Component Costs are Low Relative to Total Project

BOS66%

Blades4% Other Rotor

2% Drive trainNacelle

18%

Marinization4%

Tower5%

Controls1%

All of the energy

Cost of Energy

Can we afford more expensive rotors?

Most of the loads 4% of the cost

Offshore Resource Mapping Current 1000-GW• 0-5nm excluded• 5-20nm 67% exclusion• 20-50nm 33%

exclusion• Alaska and Hawaii

excluded• SC to Mexico excluded• Class 4 excluded • No state boundaries

Updates in progress New maps by AWS Truewind Exclusions not assumed Class 4 - 7 Resource by 10-m depths All States (except FL, AL) State boundaries Distance from Shore

0-3nm – State waters 3-6nm – MMS/State zone 6-12nm – MMS High Viewshed 12-50nm – Low Viewshed

Wind/Wave mapping for site specific design

Bottom conditions Exclusion criteria

0

1

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160Rotor Size

Cos

t per

MW

SubstructureEnergy per Area

Turbine Costs

Installation

Operation and Maintenance

Grid and Electrical Infrastructure

1

SeaCon Phase 2 and 3: Offshore Scaling and System Optimization – How Big?

High capacity offshore infrastructure enables larger

machines.

Offshore Design Drivers

Enablers for larger turbines

Lightweight structural materials

Load reduction/Increased energy

Reliability and predictive maintenance Verification and testing System weight reduction Onshore benefits

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 collaborations are essential • Three technology pathways identified• Shallow water pathway has begun

Wind can potentially supply 20% of electric energy in United States