windspeed project: making space for offshore wind powerpolicy/growth modelling vii.key messages....

EWEA 2011, 15th March

WINDSPEED project:

Making space for offshore

wind power

Lachlan Cameron, ECN

EWEA 2011, Brussels, 15th March

www.windspeed.eu


I. Methodology

II. Default case

III. Sensitivity examples

IV. Scenarios

V. Spatial results

VI. Policy/growth modelling

VII. Key messages


Spatial potential(DSS tool)

Policy/growth constrained potential(RESolve-E model)

Economic potential(NetOp/COMPETES)

I. Methodology


I. DSS 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


I. DSS spatial inputsCables & 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


WINDSPEED Decision Support System

Default map


Size of area(1,000 km2)

Percentage of WINDSPEED area*

Theoretical generation

(TWh)

Suitable for new OWE 120 33% 1,100

Exclusion: existing/planned OWE 28 8% n/a

Exclusion: shipping 75 20% 634

Exclusion: oil and gas 47 13% 405

Exclusion: fisheries 105 29% 916

Exclusion: military zones 47 13% 389

Exclusion: cables/pipelines 31 8% 265

Exclusion: sand extraction 6 2% 48

Exclusion: nature areas 42 11% 351

Exclusion: marine wildlife 34 9% 273

15 1284%

* Excluding areas in territorial waters

II. Default case



Percentage of ‘remaining area’


(TWh)

Suitable for new OWE 120 33% 1,100

Exclusion: existing/planned OWE 28 8% n/a

Exclusion: shipping 75 20% 634

Exclusion: oil and gas 47 13% 405

Exclusion: fisheries 105 29% 916

Exclusion: military zones 47 13% 389

Exclusion: cables/pipelines 31 8% 265

Exclusion: sand extraction 6 2% 48

Exclusion: nature areas 42 11% 351

Exclusion: marine wildlife 34 9% 273

Hard Firm Soft


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

II. Key spatial drivers

Labelled bubble size represents the total excluded area in TWh


III. Sensitivity: Shipping

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230

Cu

mu

lati

ve e

xclu

ded

po

ten

tial

(TW

h)

Levelised Production Cost (€/MWh)

IMO plus high density (default)

default - buffer increased 500m



default - buffer decreased 500m



IMO only

IMO plus medium and high density


III. Sensitivity: Oil & Gas

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

radius1nm

radius2nm

radius3nm

radius4nm

radius5nm

radius6nm

Ge

ne

rati

on

Po

ten

tial

(TW

h)

Differing helicopter clearance radii

Change in total excluded potential versus baseline of 5nm clearance

Change in potential suitable for OWE versus baseline of 5nm clearance


III. Sensitivity observations Shipping: relatively hard constraint, dominant in areas with low cost OWE. Buffer

modification has limited effect. IMO widths match anticipated OWP spacing

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

Fisheries: largest constraint but relatively ‘soft’. Opportunity for co-use with OWE

Military: firm constraint via negotiation – need to set realistic level of exclusion

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

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

Natura 2000: firm 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


• OWE is not prioritised. Current use patterns take preference

• No offshore meshed grid

• OWE limited to depths and distances in line with current ambitions

• OWE is prioritised

• No offshore meshed grid

• OWE limited to depths and distances in line with current ambitions

• OWE is not prioritised and development is largely limited to areas further from shore

• Moderate offshore meshed grid develops

• With/without 70m depth limit

• OWE is prioritised

• Comprehensive offshore meshed grid develops

• With/without 70m depth limit


IV. Scenario Design

Feasibility

CostsPotential


IV. Density

• 2 MW/km2 – provides an adequate distance between each farm to mitigate the impact of inter wind farm wakes

~12km


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


V. Results


0

500

1000

1500

2000

140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230

Cu

mu

lati

ve S

uit

able

Cap

acit

y (T

Wh

)


Little will Little wind

Going Solo

In the Deep

In the Deep - 70m depth constraint

Grand design

Grand design - 70m depth constraint

V. Supply curves

182GW

82GW

80GW

26GW


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

BE DE DK NL NO UK

Incr

emen

tal s

pat

ial c

apac

ity

(GW

)

No will No wind (< 200 €/MWh) No will No wind (> 200 €/MWh)Going Solo (< 200 €/MWh) Going Solo (> 200 €/MWh)In the Deep (< 200 €/MWh) In the Deep (> 200 €/MWh)Grand Design (< 200 €/MWh) Grand Design (> 200 €/MWh)

V. Results by country – incremental spatial capacity


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

BE DE DK NL NO UK

Incr

em

en

tal s

pat

ial c

apac

ity

(GW

)

No will No wind (< 200 €/MWh)Going Solo (< 200 €/MWh)In the Deep (< 200 €/MWh)Grand Design (< 200 €/MWh)

V. Results by country – incremental spatial capacity


Spatial potential(DSS tool)

Policy/growth constrained potential(RESolve-E model)

Economic potential(NetOp/COMPETES)

VI. Non-spatial constraints


VI. REsolve-E

Policy-based demand for

renewable electricity

Supply curves

based on

technology

costs & potentials

• Risk

• Transaction

costs

• Lead times

years

• Technology mix

• Trade flows

Scenarios


VI. Overview potentials

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Little willLittle wind

GoingSolo

In theDeep

GrandDesign

Cap

acit

y [G

W]

Policy/growth constrained potential

Spatial potential > 70 m

Spatial potential


VI. Maps of potentials

In the DeepSpatial constraint

In the DeepSpatial & policy/growth constraint


VIII. Key messages - spatial• The assumed density of the installed wind parks is relatively low. There

are many potential opportunities for co-use/integration

• Limited new nearshore OWE after 2020 without spatial prioritisation

• Scenarios with an offshore grid have 2 – 3 times the spatial potential of the scenarios that use radial connections

• Floating technologies double the total spatial OWE potential

• For most countries only a fraction of the indicated suitable areas are used due to policy/growth constraints

• Differences in the OWE costs and potentials between countries hints at the value of an offshore-grid


III. Sensitivity: Oil & Gas

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

145 155 165 175 185 195 205 215 225 235

Cu

mu

lati

ve e

xclu

ded

po

ten

tial

(TW

h)


exclusion radius 1nm




exclusion radius 5nm (default)



II. Default case


Percentage of WINDSPEED

area


(TWh)

Total WindSpeed area 432 100% 3,726

Exclusion: distance to shore 63 15% 490

Exclusion: too small 2 0.5% 16

Exclusion: depth 0 0% 0

Remaining area 368 85% 3,219

windspeed project: making space for offshore wind powerpolicy/growth modelling vii.key messages....

Documents