Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Offshore Wind Power and the Challenges of Large Scale Deployment
Walt Musial
Manager Offshore Wind and Ocean Power Systems
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Inaugural Meeting of the North American Wind Energy Academy August 7th - 9th, 2012 Photo: Baltic I – Wind Plant
Germany 2010 Credit: Fort Felker University of Massachusetts Amherst
William E. Heronemus University of Massachusetts
Circa 1973
UMass has Pioneered Offshore Wind Energy
Alpha Ventus – RePower 5-MW Turbine
Siemens 2.0 MW Turbines Middlegrunden, DK
Vestas 2.0 MW Turbine Horns Rev, DK
• 51 projects, 3,620 MW installed (end of 2011)
• 49 in shallow water <30m
• 2-5 MW upwind rotor configuration (3.8 MW ave)
• 80+ meter towers on monopoles
• Modular geared drivetrains
• Marine technologies for at sea operation.
• Submarine cable technology
• Oil and gas experience essential
• Capacity Factors 40% or more
• Higher Cost and O&M have contributed to project risk.
Offshore Wind Power 3 National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Offshore Wind Projects Cumulative And Annual Installation;
The U.K. And Denmark Account For Nearly 75% Of Capacity
‐
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
‐
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
Cumulative Installed Ca
pacity
(MW)
Annu
al In
stalled Ca
pacity
(MW)
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Offshore Wind Power 4 National Renewable Energy Laboratory
30
25
Offshore Wind Projects Installed, Under Construction, and Approved
Capa
city
(GW)
20
15
10
5
0
3,620 MW 3,500 MW
25,585 MW
Installed Under Construction Approved
Offshore Wind Turbine Market Is Becoming Increasingly Diversified
Fuji Heavy Shanghai Electric GE Enercon Areva
Siemens 44%
Vestas 10% Repower
6%
Sinovel 5%
Areva 15%
BARD 11%
Goldwind 2%
Iberdrola 3%
China Energine 3%
1%
Mingyang 0%
Siemens 48%
Vestas 39%
Repower 6%
vel %
WinWind 2%
1% 1% 0% BARD 0%
0%
Nordex 0%
Goldwind 0%
Installed Capacity ~3,620 MW
Projected Near-Term Capacity*
* Includes projects under construction and approved projects that have announced a turbine manufacturer 6
Installed capital costs have increased substantially from 2005 levels
Weighted-average cost of planned offshore wind projects = $4,862/kW
Offshore Wind Cost of Energy Reduction Scale of Global Deployment • Learning Curve • Volume Production • Supply Chain Maturity • Deployment and Field
Experience
Risk Reduction • Permitting • Construction Delays • Ops – Reliability & Production • Financial and Market
Uncertainty
Technology Innovation • Turbine Optimization • Balance of Station • Offshore Grid • Array optimization • Integration
Mature Market Cost
Scale
Risk
Technology
Time
Initial Cost
Present Year
Larger scale is needed to achieve lower offshore wind cost
Larger Turbine Sizes Large Scale
Increased Wind Deployment Plant Sizes
National deployment targets in the E.U., U.S., and China call
for ~86 GW of offshore wind to be installed by 2020 Ca
pacity
(MW)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.7
3.0 1.3
30.0 86.3 China
USA
10.0 EU 18.0 46.3
10.0
6.0
5.2
Offshore Wind Power 11 National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Offshore Wind Technology is Depth Dependent
Offshore Wind Power 12 National Renewable Energy Laboratory
‐10
0
hi
Near-term offshore wind projects will be installed in deeper waters and further from shore
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
20 40 60 80 100 120
Dep
th (m
)
Distance to Shore (km)
200
210
220
Shallow Water
Transitional Water
Deep Water
Installed Project
Under Construction
Approved Project
Bubble size represents project capacity
Near-shore Far-shore (DC power export technology becomes competitive)
Offshore Wind Power 13 National Renewable Energy Laboratory
‐10
0
hi
Near-term offshore wind projects will be installed in deeper waters and further from shore
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
20 40 60 80 100 120
Dep
th (m
)
Distance to Shore (km)
200
210
220
Shallow Water
Transitional Water
Deep Water
Installed Project
Under Construction
Approved Project
Bubble size represents project capacity
Near-shore Far-shore (DC power export technology becomes competitive)
Offshore Wind Power 14 National Renewable Energy Laboratory
‐10
0
hi
Near-term offshore wind projects will be installed in deeper waters and further from shore
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
20 40 60 80 100 120
Dep
th (m
)
Distance to Shore (km)
200
210
220
Shallow Water
Transitional Water
Deep Water
Installed Project
Under Construction
Approved Project
Bubble size represents project capacity
Near-shore Far-shore (DC power export technology becomes competitive)
Cape Wind
Offshore Wind Power 15 National Renewable Energy Laboratory
‐10
0
hi
Near-term offshore wind projects will be installed in deeper waters and further from shore
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
20 40 60 80 100 120
Dep
th (m
)
Distance to Shore (km)
200
210
220 Floating Technology Demonstration Projects
Shallow Water
Transitional Water
Deep Water
Installed Project
Under Construction
Approved Project
Bubble size represents project capacity
Near-shore Far-shore (DC power export technology becomes competitive)
Cape Wind
Offshore Wind Power 16 National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Common Foundation Types Used in Shallow Water (0-30m depths)
Monopiles Gravity Base 73% of Current Installations 21% of Current Installations
Offshore Wind Power 17 National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Cape Wind 468-MW Wind Plant - Massachusetts
Location: Nantucket Sound, MA
Turbine Size/Description: 130 Siemens 3.6 MW wind turbines
Expected Deployment 2013 Date : Foundation Type: Monopiles
Average distance from 9.5 miles shore Average Water Depth 11-m
Expected Energy 1.5 Billion KWh/yr production Approximate Budget: $ 2.6 B USD
The Cape Wind project is the first and only offshore wind project to receive a license to begin construction in U.S. federal waters The project will produce 75%
of the electricity for Cape Cod and the Islands.
Transitional Water Depths Need Multi-pile Support Structures (30-60m)
Tripod Type Jacket or Truss Type
Offshore Wind Power 19 National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Multi-pile foundation designs are gaining market share as larger turbines are installed in deeper water
72.7%
20.9%
5.3% 1.0%
0.1%
58.0%
12.8%
28.9%
0.3%
Projected Near-Term Capacity*
~10,070 MW
Installed Capacity ~3,620 MW
Gravity bases are not represented in the near-term plans of developers
* Includes projects under construction and approved projects that have announced a foundation design 20
Turbine Scaling Trend Based on Current Installations: Generator size, rotor diameter, and hub height are increasing 10.0 130
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.2 2.8 3.1 3.9 3.9 4.1 4.2 4.9
Weighted Average Capacity (right axis)
Individual Project Capacity (left axis)
Weighted Average Rotor Diameter (right axis)
Weighted Average Hub Height (right axis)
0.0 (10) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
9.0
Rotor D
iameter
and
Hub
Height (m)
110
90
70
50
30
10
Rated Ca
pacity
(MW)
Offshore Wind Power 21 National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Offshore Turbines Sizes are Expected To Continue To Grow
Source : Jos Beurskens - ECN Netherlands Offshore Wind Power 22 National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Large Offshore Turbine Technology (5-10 MW)
Challenges • Mass scaling laws limit conventional designs • Installation vessel capacity limits design
options • Composite technology for large machines is
unproven
Enabling technologies for large machines • Ultra-long blades/rotors • Downwind rotors • Direct drive-generators (possible HTSC) • High reliability integrated systems • Innovative deployment systems • Special purpose vessels
Offshore Wind Power 23 National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Blade Scaling Critical for Large Turbines The need for larger blades is driving advanced material,
manufacturing, and design innovations
Commercial Wind Turbine Blade Weights
App
rox
Bla
de W
eigh
t (kg
) 50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Historic trend O
fOy = 1.5336x2.3183
ffshore Blades
fsho
Onshore
re Blades
Quadratic Scaling Can this be achieved?
Blades
0 20 40 60 80 100 Blade Length (meters)
Offshore Wind Power 24 National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Offshore Trend Toward Direct Drive Generators
Goldwind
Graphic: Courtesy of American Superconductor
Siemens Wind Power
• Conventional gear driven turbines offered lightest and lowest cost but have had suffered high maintenance costs
• Direct drive generators (DDG) promise higher reliability due to fewer moving parts
• New designs promise lighter weight
• Most OEMs are developing 5-7MW class DDGs wind turbine (or medium speed)
Offshore Wind Power 25 National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Electric Grid and System Integration
Challenges • 54-GW by 2030 of Offshore Wind • Constrained land-based grid in high
population density coastal regions • Variable power delivery and
establishing capacity value • Up to 80% of Offshore Insurance claims New Offshore Grid Technologies • Offshore backbones for power delivery • HVDC for long distance power • Aggregate offshore wind plants • Cable protocols
HVDC Power Networks Credit: KEMA
Baltic 1 Substation
Proposed Super-grid for European Offshore Wind
Offshore Wind Power 26 National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Offshore Metocean Characterization Tools Challenges • High cost of MET masts has inhibited
widespread metocean characterization • Marine boundary layer (wind shear,
stability, and turbulence) is not well characterized
• Resource assessments rely on sparse measurements for validation
• External design conditions for turbines Floating wind LIDAR; The Natural Power Sea are not well understood
New Technology for Metocean Characterization:
• Remote sensing (LIDAR, SODAR) • Measurement campaigns for
metocean conditions at hub height • Improved weather models • Integration of multiple data sources for
validation (e.g. satellites, met towers) • Improved forecasting
ZephIR (from http://blog.lidarnews.com)
Offshore Wind Power 27 National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Offshore Wind Turbines in Atlantic and GOM Must be Designed for Hurricanes
• Wind Turbines are often Type Certified before site conditions are known
• High uncertainty in predicting hurricane probability and intensity
• U.S. Hurricane conditions can exceed IEC Class 1A wind specifications
• New Standards and Protocols will address Hurricane Design
Typical characteristics of hurricanes by category Scale Number Winds
(Category) (Mph) (Millibars) (Inches) Surge (Feet) Damage
1 74-95 > 979 > 28.91 4 to 5 Minimal
2 96-110 965-979 28.50-28.91 6 to 8 Moderate
3 111-130 945-964 27.91-28.47 9 to 12 Extensive
4 131-155 920-944 27.17-27.88 13 to 18 Extreme
5 > 155 < 920 < 27.17 > 18 Catastrophic
Table 1. Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale, modifed from Simpson (1974).
Offshore Wind Power 29 National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Breaking Waves: A potential design driver
• Breaking waves can occur when wave height approaches water depth (critical at some locations)
• Design must consider occurrence during extreme 50/100 year return storms
IEC 61400-3 Breaking
Wave Model is not
validated
• Breaking waves can double the load magnitude
• Validation data is needed to improve and validate the model.
b = maximum elevation of the free water surface R = radius of the cylinder = curling factor 0,5
where: C = wave celerity Hb = wave height at the breaking location
Offshore Wind Power 30 National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Ice Loading Design and Mitigation
Ice Force •Thickness •Strength •Velocity •Fracture Mode
Induced Mechanical Vibration Resonant Frequency Shift
Excitation Lock-in
Base Load Force
Baltic Sea – Windpower Monthly Cover Photo Feb 2003
Wind Turbines at Nysted with Ice Cones
Offshore Wind Power 31 National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Floating Offshore Wind Turbines
Graphic: Glosten Photo: Principle Photo: Hywind/Statoil Associates, PELESTAR Power Inc. SPAR TLP SEMI-SUBMERSIBLE
Summary of Challenges and Opportunities
• Initial costs are high due to smaller scales, higher risk, and immature technology
• Global scale deployment is needed for cost reduction
• Stable policy incentives are needed to offset first adopter cost challenges
• Technology innovations are needed to lower cost and expand siting options
• Unique environmental conditions require optimized turbine designs
• Mature costs realized through scale and innovation.