WINDSPEED

SPatial Deployment of offshore

WIND Energy in Europe

June 2011

Project duration: 09/2008 – 06/2011

Contract number: EIE/07/759/S12.499460

www.windspeed.eu

Brief project overviewI. The problem

II. The objectiveRoadmap to offshore wind deployment in the Central & Southern North Sea (BE, DE, DK, NL, NO, UK) with a realistic yet ambitious target for 2030

III. The activitiesDecision Support System (spatial planning tool) that determines offshore wind energy potential and cost in relation to non-wind sea functions and environmental aspects

Scenario analysis – addressing OWE potentials – that identifies opportunities for additional space for offshore wind deployment in light of other sea use functions

Possible grid configurations to accompany future offshore wind deployment

Project Partners

Energy research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN)

GL Garrad Hassan

SINTEF Energy Research

Deutsches Zentrum für Luft-und Raumfahrt e.V. (DLR)

SPOK ApS

Wageningen IMARES

We@Sea

Stiftung Offshore Windenergie

Coventry University Enterprise

WP6: Roadmap and policy

recommendations

WP6: Scenario analysis of spatial

priorities

WP4: Develop Decision Support

System (DSS)

WINDSPEED approach

WP3: Inventory of current and future

sea uses

Stakeholder consultation

WP2: Cost inventory of

offshore wind energy

WP2: cost inputs

Bathymetry

Geological Conditions

Storm Surge

Spring Tidal Amplitude

Mean Wave Height

Extreme Wave Height

Staging Ports

Grid Connection Points

Ave. Wind Speed at 90m

shading indicates levelised production cost

Bottom-up site specific cost model developed for the entire study area for use in the DSS

WP3: spatial inputs

Cables & Pipelines

Military

Sand Extraction

Shipping Density

Shipping Routes

Oil & Gas Platforms

Fisheries

Nature Conservations Zones

Fish species richness

Benthic value

Bird Sensitivity

Existing and Planned OWP

Spatial usage patterns and nature values were collected for the entire study area and harmonised for use in the DSS along with exclusion rules that dictate how each sea use function interacts with OWE

shipping Marine wildlife vulnerability Military zones

WP4: DecisionSupport System

Example output mapExample output plots

User interface

A GIS based Decision Support System (DSS) was developed. The DSS maps the available spatial information regarding the existing and forecast sea use functions in the North Sea as influenced by the user-driven cost model and spatial strategies to determine available space and costs for offshore wind farms. This process negotiates available space on the basis of user-defined criteria, i.e. the user of the software can change the spatial prioritization/ extent of each sea use with regards to OWE.

WP6: density assumptions

2 MW/km2 – provides an adequate distance between each farm to mitigate the impact of inter-windfarm wakes (plus the possibility of integrated planning with other sea use functions)

~12km

48

916 405

389

634

351265

273

150

160

170

180

190

200

210

40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Ave

rage

leve

lised

pro

du

ctio

n c

ost

(€

/MW

h)

Percentage overlap with other sea use functions

sand extraction

fisheries

oil and gas extraction

military areas

shipping exclusions

nature conservation areas

cable or pipelines

marine wildlife preservation

WP6: key spatial drivers

Labelled bubble size represents the total excluded area in TWh

WP6: initial observations Shipping: relatively inflexible constraint, dominant in areas with low cost OWE.

Buffer modification has limited effect. IMO widths match anticipated OWP spacing

Oil & gas: regulatory constraint – but a changing one so important to scale for decommissioning

Fisheries: largest constraint, highly changeable. Opportunity for co-use with OWE

Military: possible compromise via negotiation – need to set realistic level of exclusion

Cables/pipes: regulatory constraint that is growing – need to scale up

Sand extract: small constraint – Dutch law will restrict this to territorial waters

Natura 2000: inflexible constraint with some potential for OWE – countries have different conservation philosophies.

Marine wildlife: soft introduced constraint – currently doubles Natura 2000 areas

Planned/known OWP: hard constraint – little opportunity for obvious reasons

WP6: scenario designA set of four scenarios were developed within a two dimensional framework. The two dimensions reflect, firstly, various spatial allocation priorities and interaction regimes for OWE and, secondly, differing viewpoints on technology development and costs. These two dimensions reflect two of the key uncertainties that impact the future deployment of offshore wind energy.

DriverLittle will, Little wind

Going Solo In the Deep Grand Design

Existing OWP common across scenarios – based on NREAPs and known plans

Sand extract. P P

Military zones P P

Natura 2000 P P

Shipping P P

Oil & Gas P PP P PP

Cables / pipes OO O OO O

Fisheries P P

Marine wildlife

Technology P P

Grid P P

= baseline assumption for OWEP = assumptions give more OWEO = assumptions give less OWE

WP6: spatial results

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

BE DE DK NL NO UK

Spat

ial c

apac

ity

(GW

)

Grand Design

In the Deep

Going Solo

The maps show the large impact that technology related exclusions, such as permissible water depths and distances to shore, have on the available areas for new OWE. They also show the relatively high level of spatial ‘congestion’ close to the coast of most of the WINDSPEED countries when additional space for OWE is not prioritised, as well as how this can change when some level of synergy and/or compromise is sought with non-wind sea use functions.

The overall spatial potential for OWE in the WINDSPEED study area was determined by combining the results of the DSS, which looks for new areas for deployment, with knowledge of existing and proposed offshore wind parks

Total potential spatial capacity in the WINDSPEED area for each of the countries in each of the 4 scenarios

WP6: key messages - spatial• There is limited potential for incremental OWE capacity across most of the southern portion of the North Sea by focussing on

relatively near-to-shore and radially connected wind parks without prioritisation of space for OWE.

• Changes in the level of prioritisation that is given to new OWE – in terms of looking for co-use with some existing sea uses or assuming some level of compromise on the extent of other certain uses – were found to make a large difference to the potential for incremental OWE; particularly for generation at low to moderate delivered electricity costs. Tied closely to the ability to find new space for OWE is the need to integrate planning of certain existing sea use functions with wind parks.

• Relaxing the constraints on the permissible maximum distance to the coast – in anticipation of connecting these far from shore areas via an offshore grid – significantly increases the spatial potential. The In the Deep incremental spatial potential is roughly five times that of the Little Will Little Wind scenario (in effect matched scenarios, as both do not spatially prioritise for OWE) and the Grand Design scenario identifies more than three times the incremental spatial potential as the Going Solo scenario.

• There are potential co-use opportunities for OWE and certain sea use functions, due to the low average installed density of windturbines that is assumed. The corridors between neighbouring parks can be utilised by other sea use functions such as shipping and fishing. Relatively low densities of OWE (at a macro scale) are thus not only necessary to preserve the level of wind resource, but also allow integration or co-use of some other sea uses.

• Realising floating technologies effectively doubles the total spatial OWE potential in both the In the Deep and Grand Design scenarios. The utilisation of this would be contingent on cost effective floating solutions becoming available. Moreover, theadditional capacity is concentrated almost exclusively in the UK and Norway, which suggests that the drive for such technology will likely have to originate in these countries.

Spatial potential(DSS tool and existing and proposed parks)

Policy/growth constrained potential[1st order potential](RESolve-E model)

Economic potential[2nd order potential](NetOp/COMPETES)

WP6: methodologySpatial considerations alone do not determine a viable economic capacity in 2030. So, the impact of constraints related to policy support, supply-chain restrictions, transmission and electricity market integration where also investigated.

In the first step, policy initiatives and growth restrictions were addressed; giving a so called first order economic potential.

In the second step, limitations in transmission capacity, particularly between countries, and hour-by-hour market integration with respect to other sources of generation were accounted for; a so-called second order economic potential, or final economic potential

0

500

1000

1500

2000

140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230

Cu

mu

lati

ve p

ote

nti

al g

ener

atio

n (

TWh

)

Levelised Production Cost (€/MWh)

Little will Little wind

Going Solo

In the Deep

In the Deep - 70m depth constraint

Grand design

Grand design - 70m depth constraint

WP6: OWE costsThe cost model in the DSS provides information on the cost and potential of incremental areas for OWE. The plot below shows the supply curve for new OWE (outside identified existing or planned wind parks) for the entire WINDSPEED area.

WP6: grid connectionsThe scenarios fall into two broad categories in regards to the connection philosophy assumed for future OWE. The first is for radial connections only, whereby countries continue to connect individual parks back to shore with HVAC or HVDC technology as seen today. The second is a mix of radial connections (for near shore resource), along with an offshore meshed grid where further from shore OWE clusters are directly interconnected using HVDC technology (see below).

Illustration of the key components of an offshore grid: In the Deep

[left] and Grand Design [right]

WP6: offshore grid value

0,00

100,00

200,00

300,00

400,00

500,00

600,00

700,00

BE DE DK NL NO UK

Gen

erat

ion

(TW

h)

Demand In the Deep supply (min)

In the Deep supply (max) Grand Design supply (min)

Grand Design supply (max)

Larger overall capacities of OWE can be connected as a result of improved balancing across the region. This is due to differences in wind regime in different locations and improved flexibility in supply (e.g. northern hydropower).

Cross-border bottlenecks due to limits in onshore transfer capacities are reduced as OWE can flow to the point of demand directly rather than back to shore via a radial connection and through conventional transmission lines. Some countries can act as OWE exporters.

Substantial reduction in operational costs is found in Grand Design with respect to In the Deep. This benefit is a consequence of the higher installed capacity of offshore wind. This leads to more grid investments and more meshed offshore grid configuration, allowing the transfer of (remote) wind power to load centers in a flexible and efficient manner.

WP6: economicpotentials

Map of economic potential in the WINDSPEED area for each scenario: Little Will Little Wind [bottom left], Going Solo [top left], In the Deep [bottom right] and

Grand Design [top right

WP6: economic potentials

Overview of the different potentials for the six WINDSPEED countries in 2030. The minimum of the economic potential is indicated by (-), the maximum by (+)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

LWLW Going Solo In the Deep Grand Design

Cap

acit

y [G

W]

Spatial Spatial > 70 m 1st economic 2nd economic (-) 2nd economic (+) Overview of total 2030 estimated capacities in the WINDSPEED study area for each of

the 4 scenarios

WP6: cooperationTo realise significant low cost OWE potential and balance the spatial needs of existing cross-border sea uses - such as fishing, shipping and nature value - coordination between member states will be necessary. An optimum configuration of offshore wind parks – with corridors between them to regenerate wind resource – is highly compatible with these sea uses in terms of co-existence but requires high level planning.

A second key area for cooperation is in relation to grid infrastructure. A large degree of cooperation will be needed in order to implement infrastructure of this scale given the many cross-border aspects. These aspects relate not only to cross-border infrastructure but also to coordinating OWE planning in the different member states in support of the grid. This is important both in terms of locations and timing of developments.

A third area, which will be triggered by an offshore grid, is the implementation of one or more of the three cooperation mechanisms introduced in the Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC). These will need to be operationalised in a manner that supports the development of large clusters of OWE of the type envisaged in combination with an offshore grid.

However cooperation in relation to North Sea OWE deployment holds a number of potential benefits including:

• Accommodation of the co-use of OWE and cross-border sea uses such as fisheries and shipping while optimising the yield from offshore wind parks (through a decrease in wind resource degradation).

• Prevention of potential litigation issues stemming from the alignment of parks close to national EEZ borders and wake effects.

• Most appropriately address of cumulative effects on nature conservation and marine wildlife preservation in accordance with the ecosystem approach.

• Creation of the enabling conditions for the development of an offshore grid to:­ improve reliability of power supply and allow more sophisticated power balancing options to be implemented with large quantities of OWE in the North Sea;

­ make further offshore areas more accessible and potentially alleviate some aspects of near shore competition with other sea uses, most prominently shipping and ports;

­ reduce the need for onshore transmission reinforcements between countries and the associated problems of public acceptance; and

­ allow countries with lower cost OWE opportunities to export to neighbours.

• Deliverance of lower overall average OWE costs through the opportunities that cooperation provides for increased deployment and, as a result, improved benefits of scale and learning.

WP6: recommendationsAmbitions & support schemes

• Extension of current approach with national binding targets for RES to 2030 (or beyond), coupled with stronger requirements for countries to establish accompanying NREAPs in a coordinated manner.

• Implement cooperation mechanisms in the context of offshore wind parks with connection to different national markets.

Maritime Spatial Planning

• Continued designation of suitable areas for OWE.

• Revisit MSP with a view to finding additional space for OWE deployment as well as an optimal layout and siting of new wind parks, addressing co-use opportunities and opportunities for compromise, cumulate effects and clustering of OWE.

• Establish policy guidelines at EU level on stepwise approach towards a transition from national MSP to transnational MSP in areas where increased coordination is beneficial.

Grid configuration

• Pilot schemes to test possible solutions with a view to establishing long term changes in the regulatory framework for establishing an offshore grid

• Establish policy guidelines on how to share costs and benefits, including indirect costs and benefits, of cross-border offshore grid.

• Establish a dedicated transnational regulatory framework for offshore grid

• EC continue to play role as facilitator and provide funding to offshore grid projects, which are considered to be projects of European interest.

R&D and cost reduction

• Dedicated demonstration programme for offshore renewable technologies in at EU level.