weu offshore foundations report extract 2013

WEU Offshore Foundations Report 2013

The ultimate guide to assessing market opportunities, cost-reduction strategies and commercial viability in the changing foundations landscape

Report highlights include:

Foundation Market Sizing, Share and Project PipelinenComprehensive overview of the

offshore foundations landscape size (MW) and share by turbine, substation, HVDC converter station and met mast foundations; geographical market; and project status; including identification of commercial opportunities ‘up for grabs’ on projects

Foundation Installation Options, Concepts and DesignsnTechno-economic evaluation of the

complete foundations portfolio including commercial deployment trajectories, vessel suitability and availability, installation logistics and supply-chain explained

Foundations Scorecard nAssessing the technological suitability”

and commercial viability of the foundations portfolio for water depths of up to 30m and up to 60m using the 7 main weighting categories and an additional 30 sub-categories

RepoRt ex

tRa

ct

Wind offshoRe foundations RepoRt 2013 | 2

RepoRt ex

tRa

ct

Industry OverviewThe offshore wind energy industry stands at an important stage in its development. Sustained

growth demonstrated in the year-on-year additional capacity coming on-line (the global installed

capacity produced over 18 terawatt hours of electricity in 2012 compared to approximately 12

terawatt hours in 2011) is coupled with key changes in the offshore landscape as new markets

are set to enter the industry, projects move to deeper waters farther offshore, and turbine unit

capacities continue to increase. Set against this backdrop is the more enduring pursuit to secure

cost reductions in offshore wind energy and in doing so secure the long-term success and viability

of the industry.

The offshore foundations landscape will not only be shaped by these key expansions and changes

but the technological and commercial development of wind turbine foundations – as well as other

substructures – will play a pivotal role in reducing both CAPEX and LCOE. Based on over 12,000

pieces of data, company case-studies and industry interviews, 1270+ survey responses, proprietary

and secondary material, this report provides a comprehensive techno-economic assessment of

the global foundations portfolio (pre-commercial and commercial options) and the key industry

insights, market-by-market sizing, forecasts and terrain/technology configurations essential to

constructing a business strategy best positioned to optimize commercial opportunities in this

growing but increasingly competitive sector.

Leading companies who have contributed

■■ Universal Foundation■■ Principle Power■■ Keystone Engineering Inc. ■■ Mainstream Renewable Power■■ Technip


RepoRt ex

tRa

ct

n Market sizing: Complete and up-to-date offshore wind energy capacity data by geography (global, continental

and country breakdown) and project status (operational, under construction, construction authorised, consent

authorised, consent application submitted, concept/early planning, and development zone), also including share

and size (MW) of dormant, failed and cancelled projects by country market.

n Market share: Percentage of global operational and under construction market share by offshore wind

developer, operator and owner company

n foundation Market sizing, share and project pipeline: Comprehensive analysis of the offshore founda-

tions landscape size (MW) and share by turbine, substation, HVDC converter station and met mast foundations;

geographical market; and project status; including identification of commercial opportunities where projects

have yet to have decided on foundation type.

n foundations – installation options, concepts and designs: Techno-economic evaluation of the complete

foundations portfolio (Floating, Suction Bucket, Monopiles, Gravity-Based, Jacket, Tripod, Tripile, High-Rise Pile

Cap) including commercial deployment trajectory, vessel suitability and availability, installation logistics and

supply-chain explained.

n capex, opex, Lcoe and Balance of plant data: Up-to-date and complete cost data across the lifespan of an

offshore wind farm including viable strategies for cost reductions.

n foundation scorecards: Configuring which foundation type is best suited for which terrain based upon the

following parameters; water depth, seabed hydrogeology, distance to shore, serialised manufacturing, cost,

logistics, erection, O&M costs and track record.

Who should buy this report:n Foundation designers, installers and suppliersn OEMsn Utilities/IPPsn Developers n Logistics – vessels, barges and haulage n Insurers and financiers

Features and benefits


RepoRt ex

tRa

ct

List of figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12List of tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232. Offshore wind energy market overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2.1. Installed capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 2.2. Capacity under construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 2.3. Future projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 2.3.1. Worldwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 2.3.2. Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 2.4. Dormant and cancelled projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 2.5. Market share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 2.5.1. Operating wind farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44 2.5.2. Wind farms under construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .463. Foundations market overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 3.1. Turbine foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 3.2. Substation foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 3.3. HVDC converter stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54 3.4. Met-mast foundations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 3.5. Global and regional market outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57 3.6. Drivers of change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 3.6.1. Offshore wind farm landscape evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 3.6.2. Cost reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 3.6.3. Supply chain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 3.7. Political and industrial climate for innovations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 3.8. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .674. Foundations – installation options, concepts and designs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 4.1. Technological overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70 4.2. Industry overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71 4.3. Oil and gas parallel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73 4.4. Current foundation landscape. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74 4.4.1. Turbines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76 4.4.2. Commercial substation foundations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81 4.4.3. Commercial met-mast foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81

Contents


RepoRt ex

tRa

ct

4.5. Surveying the pre-commercial landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82 4.5.1. Floating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83 4.5.2. Suction bucket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84 4.6. Technical pros and cons of foundation technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .855. Vessels and barges – configuring suitability and assessing availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 5.1. Commercial foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88 5.1.1. Monopiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88 5.1.2. Gravity base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90 5.1.3. Jacket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 5.1.4. Tripod/Tripile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 5.2. Pre-commercial foundations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93 5.2.1. Floating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93 5.2.2. Suction bucket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .936. Foundation scorecard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 947. Case studies 112 7.1. Principle Power – Floating foundation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95 7.2. Keystone Engineering – Varied foundation selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96 7.3. Universal Foundation’s commitment to the suction bucket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .978. Industry learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 989. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99APPENDIX A – Vessels in use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101APPENDIX B - Vessels under construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103APPENDIX C - Vessels in planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104APPENDIX D – Scorecard methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105


RepoRt ex

tRa

ct

List of FiguresFigure 1: Cumulative and Annual Offshore Wind Installed Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Figure 1: Offshore wind LCOE breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Figure 2: Potential for cost reduction in offshore wind – all respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Figure 3: Potential for cost reduction in offshore wind – utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Figure 4: Potential for cost reduction in offshore wind – developers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Figure 5: Potential for cost reduction in offshore wind – executives drawing most revenue from the UK . . 20

Figure 6: Potential for cost reduction in offshore wind – responses from executives drawing most revenue from Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Figure 7: Offshore wind CAPEX breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Figure 8: Offshore wind project landscape. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Figure 9: Worldwide installed capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Figure 10: European installed capacity by country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Figure 11: Worldwide capacity under construction by country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Figure 12: European capacity under construction by country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Figure 13: Continental breakdown of new market entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Figure 14: Regional market outlook responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Figure 15: Market penetration within the next five years – responses from executives drawing most revenue from the UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Figure 16: Market penetration within the next five year – responses from executives drawing most revenue from Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Figure 17: Market share of current installed capacity by wind farm developer. . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Figure 18: Market share of current installed capacity by wind farm operator . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Figure 19: Existing wind farm ownership by developer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Figure 20: Wind farm capacity under construction by developer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Figure 21: Wind farm capacity under construction by owner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Figure 22: Comprehensive offshore wind foundation type landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Figure 23: Market share of operating turbine foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Figure 24: Market share of turbine foundation under construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Figure 25: Project pipeline foundation type uncertainty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Figure 26: Foundation technology landscape of consent authorised projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Figure 27: Operational foundation types by capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Figure 28: Operational foundation types by water depth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Figure 29: Offshore substation foundation selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Figure 30: Known offshore substation foundation landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Figure 31: Offshore HVDC converter station – DolWin Beta Gravity Base Foundation . . . . . . . . . . 48

Figure 32: Offshore HVDC converter station – Borwin Beta Jacket Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Figure 33: Foundation selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Figure 34: Operational foundation type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Figure 35: Number of met masts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Figure 36: Known met-mast foundation type breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Figure 37: Average rating for anticipated five-year market share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52


RepoRt ex

tRa

ct

Figure 38: Average rating for anticipated ten-year market share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Figure 39: Under construction foundations by capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Figure 40: Under construction foundation types by water depth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Figure 41: Importance of technology as a key to cost reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Figure 42: Offshore wind project lifecycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Figure 43: Offshore wind industry ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Figure 44: Offshore oil and gas project lifecycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Figure 45: CAPEX breakdown, balance of plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Figure 46: CAPEX breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Figure 47: OPEX breakdown. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Figure 48: Backfilling with multi-purpose barge at Thornton Bank I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Figure 49: Scour protection layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Figure 50: Ramboll’s Anholt substation in Denmark. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Figure 51: Global Tech 1 self-floating substation installed in 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Figure 52: Tripod structure for NAREC demonstration platform and met mast . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Figure 53: E.ON and Nordic AB’s self-installing jacket – basis for movable met mast . . . . . . . . . . 79

Figure 54: Suction bucket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Figure 55: Suction bucket depth comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Figure 56: Installation time distribution of bucket at Horns Rev II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Figure 57: Jack-up barge by GeoSea installing monopile foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Figure 58: Kraken by Seajacks, designed for the North Sea oil and gas industry and suitably equipped to support offshore wind installation activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Figure 59: Scaldis Salvage & Marine Contractor’s heavy lift vessel Rambiz used to install jacket foundations for the Walney 1 Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Figure 60: Jacket foundations at Alpha Ventus placed on pre-installed piles by Heerema Marine Contractors’ Thialf . 89

Figure 61: Jack-up vessel INNOVATION at Global Tech I wind farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Figure 62: A2SEA SEA INSTALLER in Esbjerg, Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Figure 63: Jumbo with transition piece installation at Anholt wind Ffarm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Figure 64: Sea fastening of monopiles on transport barge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Figure 65: Rambiz lifting the first concrete gravity base Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Figure 66: STRABAG carrier dedicated to complete system transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Figure 67: STRABAG terminal for gravity base foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Figure 68: Jacket structure tugged to Alpha Ventus site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Figure 69: Free-floating vessel by Teekay and A2SEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Figure 71: Wind Lift 1 unloading transition piece on foundation piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Figure 72: Floating turbine Wind Float 1 being towed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Figure 73: Keystone Engineering’s twisted jacket foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Figure 74: Keystone Engineering’s Twisted Jacket Installation Procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102


RepoRt ex

tRa

ct

List of TablesTable 1: Continental breakdown of installed capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Table 2: Continental breakdown of capacity under construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Table 3: Continental breakdown of capacity with consent authorised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Table 4: Continental breakdown of capacity with consent application submitted . . . . . . . . . . 29

Table 5: IEA Global offshore wind market outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Table 6: Awarded DOE funding for offshore wind farm development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Table 7: Inactive offshore wind project capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Table 8: Offshore wind foundation technology landscape, operating worldwide. . . . . . . . . . . 53

Table 9: Offshore wind foundation technology landscape, under construction worldwide . . . . . . . 53

Table 10: Offshore wind foundation technology landscape, consent authorised worldwide . . . . . . . 54

Table 11: Offshore wind foundation technology landscape, consent application submitted worldwide . . 54

Table 12: Potential cost saving opportunity offered by foundation innovations. . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Table 13: Monopile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Table 14: Offshore wind example projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Table 15: Gravity base. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Table 16: Jacket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Table 17: Tripod/Tripile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Table 18: Spar floating foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Table 19: Semi-submersible floating foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Table 20: Suction bucket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Table 21: Suction bucket depth comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Table 22: Offshore wind turbine foundations pros and cons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Table 23: Vessel charter day-rates for existing turbine and support structure installation . . . . . . . . 92

Table 24: Monopile and transition piece installation schedule using jack-up vessel . . . . . . . . . . 93

Table 25: Scorecard results at 30 m. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Table 26: Scorecard Results at 60m. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102


RepoRt ex

tRa

ct

identifying gaps in knowledge, defining focus and refining contentAt the crux of WEU’s research process are the 25+

in-depth industry interviews conducted with a cross-

section of offshore wind energy executives to identify:

■■ Key industry trends

■■ Challenges and opportunities currently facing the

industry

■■ Significant information gaps

■■ The precise data and analysis required by

companies to optimize success in the offshore

wind energy sector

Methodology

Supplier 2

Insurance 2

Ports & Harbours 2

Foundation Specialist 3

Installation Contractor 3

OEM (Turbine) 4

Service Provider 2

Legal 2

Utility/IPP 4

Cable Specialist 2

Developer 2

In-depth interviews broken down by company type

Example Information Requests■■ “How will existing foundation technologies

perform as projects move farshore, to deeper

waters and adopt larger turbine MW capacities?”

■■ “Which pre-commercial foundation opportunities are

being developed, how commercially viable are they,

what is the cost-reduction value of each option, and

how willing are the utilities and developers to invest in

such opportunities at the commercial level?”

■■ “How will the foundations landscape alter in

accordance to the key shifts in offshore farm

characteristics, as new offshore markets emerge

and new technological options come to market?”

Wind Energy Update’s Offshore Foundations Report 2013 responds to the most topical information

needs of the wind energy industry, representing 4 months of research (primary and secondary) and

culminating in over 100 pages of high-quality data and analysis, 75 figures and 26 tables.

industry Research:


RepoRt ex

tRa

ct

Report production:

Methodological approachesThe methodological approaches adopted over

the course of this report have been framed by the

pursuit to meet the information needs outlined in

the original 25+ in-depth industry interviews.

Quantitative Analysis industry data: Over 12,000 pieces of data have

been collated from a combination of proprietary and

published sources, and verified and analysed by our

expert authors to provide the most comprehensive,

convenient and digestible facts and figures on market

sizing and market share by country, foundation market

sizing and share by technology and project status.

Weu’s offshore foundations survey (february 2013): 1270 + responses from industry executives

providing unparalleled insight into the foundation

designs being backed for success in the near and

long term, the offshore markets companies are

currently drawing most revenue from and the

markets they are looking to enter in the next five

years, and an understanding of how important

innovation in foundation technology is believed to

be within the broader pursuit of reducing the cost

of offshore wind energy. Information is also filtered

by location and company type adding exceptional

nuance to the analysis.

foundations scorecard: To assess the suitability

and commercial viability of the foundation

technologies examined over the course of the report,

a scorecard has been developed for water depths

of up to 30m and up to 60m using the following

key weighting categories and an additional 30

sub-categories:

■■ Siting ■■■■Design

■■ Fabrication ■■■■Installation

■■ Maintenance ■■■■Decommissioning

■■ Overall

Qualitative Analysis industry case studies and interviews:

Case-studies with the leading foundation design

companies providing unique insights including

commercial development trajectories, techno-

economic credentials, timelines for deployment, as

well as interviews with developers to understand

technology preferences, routes to uptake and

associated risks.

secondary sources: Additional analysis includes

secondary research conducted by our analysts. A

comprehensive review of industry and academic

journals, conference presentations, online publica-

tions, news articles, government policy documents,

company press releases, and proprietary literature

and materials providing a strong foundation from

which to contextualise the report findings and

highlight points of corroboration and departure.

Where applicable, all secondary research sources are

appropriately cited within the report.

This report has been researched and written by a

team of highly-qualified and impartial experts and

reviewed by 3 highly-regarded industry specialists

to ensure that only the highest quality and most

relevant information is published.

expert knowledge:


RepoRt ex

tRa

ct

Offshore foundations are not only necessary to erect

wind turbines, but also for other platforms such as

met-masts, substations and accommodations quarters

for O&M crews. Since its inception, more than three

decades ago, the industry has predominantly relied

on monopiles for venturing offshore. Driven by the

necessity to reduce CAPEX and LCOE, the industry has

since then explored several foundation concepts which

are now an integral part of the commercial landscape.

That said, with the large cost contribution of founda-

tions in offshore wind projects, it remains quintessential

to seek alternatives solutions for sustaining market

growth, farther out at sea and in deeper waters.

In the past, the industry perceived foundations as a

mere balance of plant component, purchased off the

shelf: a sound rational for locations where monopiles

suffice, but not anymore in a conjuncture where

profound examination is now required to choose from

available foundation types. As delivery schedules of

foundations become tighter and tighter, the industry is

shifting towards a buyers’ market, meaning that utilities

and developers are gaining leverage over OEMs.

For the moment, firms producing subsea foundations

for the offshore wind sector are limited in number and

the market is dominated by large steel mills, oil and gas

fabrication yards and construction companies, which

3.

Foundations market overview

chapter summary■■ Today’s offshore wind industry is dominated by monopile foundations, constituting 66.5% of operating

wind farms and 64.3% of wind farms under construction. ■■ Jackets and gravity base types of foundations follow with 5.0% operating, 5.7% under construction and

15.9% operating, 2.9% under construction. ■■ Tripods have a limited presence in the operating landscape, with 0.3% of the total, but reach 10.3% in

projects under construction.■■ Of the operating wind farms, 63% of foundations are submerged in waters of less than 30 m, and

supporting turbines of 2 to 5 MW.■■ The situation for offshore wind farms under construction differs in terms of water depth, where 38% of

the projects are to be installed in waters of more than 30 m.■■ Of the known foundations linked to offshore wind substations, jackets strongly dominate the market

over monopiles with 51% to 30% market shares, respectively.■■ For substations, the situation differs with mobile jack-ups dominating over jackets with 57% market

penetration over 29% for their counterpart.■■ Of the known met masts used or to be used in the offshore wind industry, 44% are erected using

monopiles. Many alternative technologies are also deployed for demonstration purposes, due to the lower loads inherent to their operation.


RepoRt ex

tRa

ct

Tata Steel and TAG Energy Solutions in the UK and

Dillinger Hütte in Germany.

Even though, the current depths for offshore wind

farms have proven to be more cost effective for

monopiles at greater water depths, for larger turbines

and varying soil conditions, particularly in Germany and

UK Round 3 projects, other types of foundations are

also becoming competitive. However, standardisation

is needed for jacket sections (serial approach with cast

steel nodes instead of batch technique) and transition

pieces (TP) to reach more cost effective solutions. Bladt

Industries and BiFAB (UK) are the market leaders in the

jacket foundations. BiFAB has been rapidly growing

since entering the offshore wind market with the

manufacturing of jacket structures for the Beatrix wind

farm as well as Ormonde and Thornton Bank 2 and 3.

Aker Solutions (Norway) entered the wind market by

manufacturing the six tripod structures of Alpha Ventus

in their Verdal yard. Recently, the company supplied

48 steel jackets and piles for the Nordsee Ost offshore

wind farm project in the North Sea. Bremerhaven-

based WeserWind (Germany), owned by German steel

have required relatively little investment to join this

industry. Recent experience has demonstrated that

irrespective of the type of foundation required, factories

appear capable of increasing production in a relatively

short time (one to two years), but not without longer-

term confidence (five to 10-year outlook) and significant

investment.

The monopile is relatively simple to manufacture and

there is already a reasonable degree of automation

in their manufacturing process. So far, production

has largely been limited to two consortia: the joint

venture of Sif Group (Netherlands) and Smulders Group

(Belgium), and the partnership between Erndtebrücker

Eisenwerk (EEW) (Germany) and Bladt Industries

(Denmark). Earlier this year, Smulders faced bankruptcy,

raising concerns in the industry. However, Smulders has

expressed confidence in its ability to bounce back, and

has put offshore foundations at the centre of its future

business. The monopiles for the Greater Gabbard wind

farm were produced by Chinese manufacturer Shanghai

Zhenhua Heavy Industry (ZPMC). A number of other

players are also seeking to enter the market, including

Figure 23: Comprehensive Offshore Wind Foundation Type Landscape

Source: [1] WEU, 2013

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Num

ber o

f fou

ndat

ions

Operating Under construction

Consent authorised

other 2 34 68

tripile 1 80 256

tripod 6 120 128

floating 7 2 9

hRpc 206 40 0

Gravity Base 291 34 69

Jacket 92 67 293

Monopile 1202 748 1820


RepoRt ex

tRa

ct

depths and turbine sizes for the great majority of projects,

together with the ease of financing intertwined with

their track record, it is not surprising that 64.3% of the

foundations under construction are also monopiles.

In shallow waters and under special conditions (i.e.

presence of sea ice in winter), especially in the Baltic

Sea, concrete gravity bases have also been used

successfully given the geotechnical advantage,

accounting for 16.4% of the currently operational

turbines. Even though most of these are for shallow

water applications, the first stage of the Thornton Bank

offshore wind farm used concrete gravity bases in much

deeper waters off the Belgian coast, but at relatively

high cost (associated with the peculiarity of the project),

using 3,000 tonnes of concrete plus substrate ballast.

Concrete material prices are generally much less volatile

than steel and improved designs by experienced civil

engineering firms are on the way which are taking

a more holistic approach than before. Based on

such potential, the gravity base may become a very

competitive solution in the coming years. However,

developers are still waiting for such improvements to

processor Georgsmarienhütte, is also manufacturing

jacket and tripod supporting structures. A consortium

of WeserWind and EEW manufactured the tripods and

associated piles for the Global Tech 1 offshore wind

farm. In addition, other companies such as Harland &

Wolff (UK), Shepherd (UK), Offshore Group Newcastle

(UK) and Heerema (Netherlands) have announced their

interest in this market.

Bard Group’s patented tripile foundation, manufactured

in series by the firm’s subsidiary Cuxhaven Steel

Construction GmbH in Cuxhaven, has only been

deployed commercially at the Bard Offshore 1 wind

farm. Moreover, Bard recently announced that despite

its extensive efforts to attract new investments and

projects, the Cuxhaven plant failed to secure sufficient

contracts to sustain operation and will therefore be

shutting down at the end of April 2013.

Gravity base foundations have also been used, mostly

for shallow water wind farms and particularly in the

Baltic Sea. These are produced by large building

and civil engineering firms and large infrastructure

contractors, such as MT Højgaard and Aarslef (Denmark)

and Hochtief (Germany). Moreover, there are many

solutions offered from leading market contractors such

as Strabag (Germany), GBF Consortium, COWI and

Hochtief/Costain/Arup. Concrete gravity base founda-

tions are designed for larger turbines and deeper waters

and are proposed for more exposed conditions such as

the North Sea, having first been deployed at Thornton

Bank 1 in 2009.

For the operating, under construction and consent

authorised project pipeline worldwide, a compre-

hensive breakdown of wind turbine foundation

technology is shown in Figure 22, demonstrating the

dominance of monopiles and the emergence of several

alternatives.

3.1. turbine foundationsTo date, 66.5% of operating offshore wind turbines have

been erected using monopiles, either driven into the

sea bed or fitted into drilled sockets and grouted into

place as required. Considering the limited range of water

Figure24: Belwind Monopiles

Source: [45], Contractor World)


RepoRt ex

tRa

ct

share of such structures has however risen, and the

experience gained from 99 operational pieces will be

further increased by 267 pieces under construction,

corresponding to approximately 23% of the foundation

structures under construction.

High-Rise Pile Cap (HRPC) foundations – while

considered by some not to be truly offshore foundation

types – do have a relatively high share of the market, at

11.5% of the operational projects. HRPC is a derivative

of an onshore foundation type and is limited to soft

soils and shallow waters. This type of foundation has

especially been preferred in the mud flats of China,

while its future application is limited by the number of

suitable offshore sites.

come through as commercial solutions, or large-scale

demonstration projects to prove the technology and

justify investments, and therefore, the share of gravity

base structures will remain minimal in the next three to

four years.

For larger turbines and in deeper waters, the diameter

and thickness of monopiles increases in such a manner

that scaling becomes cost prohibitive. At around 30

to 35 m water depth, alternative designs typically

become competitive, including tripods and tripiles

but especially jackets. It is much easier to design a

stiffer jacket structure for large turbines in order to

meet natural frequency requirements, giving such

structures an edge over monopiles. The still low market



Figure 25: Market Share of Operating Turbine Foundation

Figure 26: Market Share of Turbine Foundation Under Construction

Jacket 5.1%

Jacket 5.8%

HRPC 11.4%

HRPC 3.4%

Monopile 66.5%

Monopile 64.3%

Other 0.1%

Other 2.9%Unknown 3.4%

Tripod 0.3%

Tripod 10.3%

Tripile 0.1%

Tripile 6.9%

Gravity Base 16.1%

Gravity Base 2.9%

Floating 0.4%

Floating 0.2%


RepoRt ex

tRa

ct

n Pages: 105

n Price: £1950 (standard price)

n price: £1320 (launch price)

Launch price expires 11th March 2013 it is then $1950

Four ways to order:www.windenergyupdate.com/offshore-foundations-report

Scan and email this form back to: [email protected]

Or fax: +44 (0)870 238 7255

Steve Johnson, Account Manager, +44 (0)20 7375 4334

Payment details:

Name (as it appears on card):

Card Number:

Type of card:

Expiry date: Security Code:

oRdeR youR RepoRt in Less than 60 seconds

First name

Last name:

Company

Telephone:

Email:

Address:

City

Zip/Postcode

Report Name

Quantity

Order your copy today at: www.windenergyupdate.com/offshore-foundations-report

Just fill in this form and access the knowledge you need to develop your knowledge of offshore Wind foundations

About Wind Energy Update (WEU)Wind energy update is the reference point for over 35,000 senior executives working in wind power generation. We’re the worldwide leaders in O&M knowledge, connections and B2B conference delivery.

Our impartial perspective allows us to comment freely and express views on what’s happening and why.

Our international events explore industry opportunities, challenges and emerging best practices tailored for executives working in wind energy.

Wind Energy Update is part of FC Business Intelligence Ltd.


RepoRt ex

tRa

ct

Thought leadership

End of Warranty Wind Farm O&M Options Report 2012Improve your levelized cost of energy, increase reliability and productivity with new retrofitting and repowering strategies.

■■ 253 pages■■ 49 tables ■■ 67 graphs ■■ 22 figures■■ $2895 USD

Offshore Wind Operations and Maintenance Report 2011The true costs, downtimes and failure rates of modern and future wind farms

■■ 100 pages■■ 66 figures■■ 29 tables■■ $1995 USD

Offshore Wind Turbine Supply Report 2011-2012Identify key drivers in supply chain strategies of Wind Turbine OEMs.

■■ 100+ pages■■ 68 figures■■ $1695 USD

Offshore Wind Installation & Construction Report 2011How to install and construct farshore, deepwater wind farms on time and cost efficiently.

■■ 100+ pages■■ 4 case studies■■ 67 figures■■ 29 tables■■ $2095 USD

Wind Energy Operations & Maintenance Report 2011Maximize wind power production, minimize turbine downtime and plan for cost effective on and offshore wind O&M.

■■ 100+ pages■■ 59 figures■■ $2095 USD

weu offshore foundations report extract 2013

Documents