Floating Offshore Wind Turbines: Challenges And Opportunities

2y ago
24 Views
2 Downloads
2.26 MB
54 Pages
Last View : 17d ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Camden Erdman
Transcription

Floating offshore wind turbines: challengesand opportunitiesSeminar VIMikel De Prada GilAssociate Researcher (IREC)This project has received funding from the EuropeanUnion's Horizon 2020 research and innovationprogramme under Marie Sklodowska-Curie grantagreement No 675318

Outline Challenges and opportunities of floating wind– Motivation– State of the art– Key challenges and opportunities– Floating Offshore Wind Vision Statement EU H2020 LIFES 50 Project2

Outline Challenges and opportunities of floating wind– Motivation– State of the art– Key challenges and opportunities– Floating Offshore Wind Vision Statement EU H2020 LIFES 50 Project3

Motivation Landkarte mit animation 91% More than 91% of all offshore wind capacity is installed in European waters, with anaverage depth of 27 meters Shallow waters are scarce and limited in space Higher wind speeds far offshore Bottom-fixed wind turbines face technical and economic feasible limits withincreasing water depths4

Motivation Floating wind turbines are the promising solution Low constraints to water depths and soil conditions Harness the vast wind resources far offshore Leverage existing infrastructure and supply chain capabilities from the offshore O&Gand BFOW industry Opportunity for France, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Scotland, USA, Japan, Taiwan 5

Market potentialThe offshore wind market has so far been dominated by countries with relativelyshallow water depths ( 50m) . however, there is extensive wind resource in deep water locations ( 50mdepth) suitable for floating wind foundationsSource: Carbon Trust6

State of the artFloating wind foundation typologiesSource: EWEA (2013)Mooring 7Ballaststabilized(90-700m)

State of the artFloating wind foundation typologiesSource: Carbon Trust8

State of the artReview of Existing Floating Wind ConceptsSemi-Submersible- WindFloat (Principle Power)- VERTIWIND (Technip/Nenuphar)- SeaReed (DCNS)- Tri-Floater (GustoMSC)- Nautilus (Nautilus)- Nezzy SCD (Aerodyn Engineering)TLP- PelaStar (Glosten Associates)- Blue H TLP (Blue H Group)- GICON-SOF (GICON)- TLPWind (Iberdrola)Spar-buoyOther concepts- Hywind (Statoil)- Sway (Sway A/S)- WindCrete (UPC)- Hybrid spar (Todaconstruction)- Deepwind spar (Deepwindconsortium)- Hexicon (Hexicon)- SKWID (Modec)- WindLens (Riam/KyushuUniversity)There is no clear winner with regard to which is most likely to be deployed at scale in the future, but a range of leadingdevices suitable for different site conditions, and influenced by local infrastructure and supply chain capabilities.9

State of the artReview of Existing Floating Wind ConceptsGeographical origin and typology offloating wind conceptsTypologiesunderdevelopment10

State of the artWind Review of Existing Floating Concepts A large number of different floating wind turbine concepts exist ranging fromearly designs to prototypes and pre-commercial projects Most advanced projects are:Source: WindEurope 201711

State of the artHywind Scotland - the world’s first floating wind farm12

State of the artCapital Expenditure (CAPEX)13

State of the artOperational Expenditure (OPEX)Cost of minor repairs: Expected to be similar (analogous methods of turbine accessby crew transfer vessel)Cost of major repairs: BFOW: Require expensive jack-up or dynamic positioning vessels (longermobilisation timeframes but rapid repairs once available) Floating: They can be disconnected from their moorings and towed back to shoreto conduct repairs at port (slower repair process but rapid mobilisation ofstandard tug boats)Net impact: Similar downtime, and associated lost revenue. Reduced charter rates and mobilisation costs for standard tug boats Lower weather dependency for repairsOPEXCost benefit will be heavily influenced by site conditions, particularly in relation to distance from shore and met-ocean conditions.14

State of the artLevelised Cost of Energy (LCOE)𝐿𝐶𝑂𝐸 𝐶𝐴𝑃𝐸𝑋 acity factor:- Onshore 25-30%- Bottom-fixed offshore 40%- Statoil’s 2.3MW Hywinddemonstrator 50%Source: Carbon Trust15

Cost Competitiveness of Floating WindCost Reduction Potential (from prototype to commercial scale)Source: Carbon TrustCost reductions can be achieved through a combination of:-Learning effects (gaining maturity)Benefiting from economies of scaleDesign standardisation (less constrained by water depth than BFOW)Targeted RD&D initiatives to overcome common industry challenges16

Key challenges and opportunitiesKey market barriersChallengesMitigationPerception that fixed-bottom offshore wind Demonstrate that LCOE for floating windsites need to be exhausted before industry in deep water can be lower than fixedmoves to deeper floating wind.bottom foundations.Lack of awareness in industry of the Public support for full-scale prototypestechnology options and LCOE potential of of the most promising concepts tofloating wind.demonstrate cost reduction potential.Financial risk(bankability)ofnewtechnologyNeed for investor commitment.Engagement with banks on pilot andpre-commercial projects.Lack of access to high quality simulationInvestment in test facilitiesfacilities at an affordable cost.17

Key challenges and opportunitiesFabrication challengesSource: Carbon Trust18

Key challenges and opportunitiesO&M challengesSource: Carbon Trust19

Key challenges and opportunitiesPrioritisation of key technical barriersSource: Carbon Trust20

Key challenges and opportunitiesOpportunities for component-level RD&D initiativesSource: Carbon Trust21

Key challenges and opportunitiesOpportunities for component-level RD&D initiativesSource: Carbon Trust22

Key challenges and opportunitiesOpportunities for component-level RD&D initiativesSource: Carbon Trust23

Floating Offshore Wind Vision StatementSource: www.ieawind.org/task 26 public/PDF/062316/lbnl-1005717.pdf24

Outline Challenges and opportunities of floating wind– Motivation– State of the art– Key challenges and opportunities– Floating Offshore Wind Vision Statement EU H2020 LIFES 50 Project25

EU H2020 LIFES 50 Project“Qualification of innovative floatingsubstructures for 10 MW wind turbines andwater depths greater than 50 m” Duration: 06/2015 – 10/2018Total budget: 7.3 M Led by Sintef Ocean (previously MARINTEK)LIFES50 has 12 partners:- 7 Research partners- 4 Design/industry partners 26- 1 Classification society

External Advisory Group (EAG)Members Statoil (Utility) Siemens (Wind turbine manufacturer) NREL (Research Institute) EDF (Utility) ABS (Classification Body)Interaction Invited and participated to Annual meetings Invited and participated at the Evaluation Workshop Skype meetings Face-to-face meetings27

EU H2020 LIFES 50 ProjectObjectives Optimize and qualify to a Technology Readiness Level(TRL) of 5, two innovative substructure designs for10MW turbines Develop a streamlined and KPI (key performanceindicator) based methodology for the evaluation andqualification process of floating substructuresScope Floating wind turbines installed in water depths from50m to 200m Offshore wind farms of large wind turbines (10MW) –identified to be the most effective way of reducingcost of energy in short termSkype meetings28

EU H2020 LIFES 50 ProjectApproachPhase I Evaluation29Phase IIEvaluation

EU H2020 LIFES 50 ProjectFloating Substructure Concepts30

EU H2020 LIFES 50 ProjectImplementationWP8 (Dissemination)WP7 (Design Practice)4 DesignsTRL 4-55MWWP1ConceptDevelopment4 DesignsTRL 310MWWP2ConceptEvaluation2 DesignsTRL 310MWWP3ExperimentalValidation2 DesignsTRL 410MWWP5IndustrializationWP4 (Numerical Tools)Objectives:WP6 (Risk) Multi-criteria evaluation of 4 floating substructure designsOutcome: Demonstration of the feasibility and competitiveness of the substructure designs Selection of the 2 best performed designs for further development up to TRL5312 DesignsTRL 510MW

EU H2020 LIFES 50 ProjectWP2: Concept EvaluationEvaluation baseline: 3 wind farm sizes (50, 5 and 1 WT) (500MW, 50MW and 10MW) 3 selected sites (input from WP1)Golfe de Fos, FranceGulf of Maine, USAWest of Barra, ScotlandModerateMet-ocean conditionsMediumMet-ocean conditionsSevereMet-ocean conditionsWater depth: 70mDistance: 38kmWater depth: 130mDistance: 58kmWater depth: 95mDistance: 180km32

EU H2020 LIFES 50 ProjectMulti-criteria it: /MWhGlobal Warming PotentialUnit: Kg CO2 equiv.EnvironmentalEconomic70 %Primary EnergyLCASelection ofthe two bestperformedconceptsRankingUnit: MJ equiv.Abiotic Depletion PotentialUnit: Sb equiv.Technological RiskRiskUnit: dimensionlessTechnical KPIs will be considered to verify and check the consistencyof the data provided and results obtained33Environmental10 %Risk20 %

WP2 overviewEvaluation Workshop March’17MS3 – Evaluation methodology ready (M16)MS4 – Phase 1 qualification performed (M19) M22MS5 – Phase 2 qualification performed (M40)34

EU H2020 LIFES 50 Project35

EU H2020 LIFES 50 Project36

EU H2020 LIFES 50 ProjectMenuImport of Data:1. Automatically - EXCEL file2. Manually – Tool37

EU H2020 LIFES 50 ProjectLCOE Module38

EU H2020 LIFES 50 ProjectEnergy ProductionLevelized Cost of EnergyLife Cycle APEXDecommissioningOperation &MaintenanceOPEXDECEX39

EU H2020 LIFES 50 ProjectLCOE ResultsDetailed breakdown of costs and energy losses40

Experimental HIL testingOpposite for wind tunnel, withcalibrated hydro model.41

Wave Basin – SINTEF OCEAN42

Wind Tunnel - POLIMI43

HexaFloat Robot6-DoF Robotic Platform for Wind Tunnel Tests of Floating Wind Turbines44

Thank you for your attention!Questions?Contact:mdeprada@irec.cat45

Back-up46

State of the artMooring ple:DCNSSeaReed Synthetic fibres or wire which use the buoyancyof the floater and firm anchor to the seabed tomaintain high tension for floater stability. Long steel chains and/or wires whose weight andcurved shape holds the floating platform in place Small footprint Large footprint Vertical loading at anchoring point Horizontal loading at anchoring point Large loads placed on the anchors – requiresanchors which can withstand large vertical forces Long mooring lines, partly resting on the seabed,reduce loads on the anchors Very limited horizontal movement Some degree of horizontal movement Hightensionlimitsfloatermotion(pitch/roll/heave) to maintain excellent stability Weight of mooring lines limits floater motion, butgreater freedom of movement than taut-leg Challenging installation procedure Relatively simple installation procedure47

State of the artAnchoring systemsProject and sitespecific, oftendictated by theseabedconditions48

Key FindingsConclusions Most influencing parameters are CAPEX related Substructure, turbine, anchor and mooring cost have largest influence Cost optimized design needed and to be considered at early design stage Optimized manufacturing processes and upgrade of port facilities Offshore substation cost has also a large influence Further research on floating substation is required to study mutual behaviourPower cables length and cost possess increased influence with distance Further study and cost optimization of high capacity dynamic power cablesSevere metocean conditions posses a significant influence Requires a more robust structure and specialized vessel spreadInstallation and transportation cost Could be decreased with higher experience in the sectorMaintenance cost and in particular failure rate are also important Only a few prototypes have been operated Lack of experience with mainteanance activities on FOWT Better understanding of loads and motions acting on FOWT and increased operation will decrease uncertainty49

State of the Art Major research projects: INFLOW Lifes50plus DeepWind Fukushima FORWARD Floating Wind Joint Industry Project led by Carbon Trust, DNV-GL OC3 (Offshore Code Comparison Collaboration) , OC4, OC5Validation and comparison of different FOWT modelling codes Most known modelling tools: SIMA Workbench - SINTEF OCEAN HAWC2 with SIMO/RIFLEX - DTU DeepLines Wind - Pincipia IFPEnergies Nouvelles FAST - NREL SIMPACK - SIMPACK AG/USTUTT Bladed - DNVGL LCOE tools: Different assumptions used50

Cost Competitiveness of Floating WindCost Reduction Potential (from prototype to commercial scale)- Technology improvements & design optimization (reduce structural mass, developmodular designs suitable for serial fabrication, )- Learning effects- Supply chain improvements (optimise fabrication lines, improving port facilities, )- Design standardisation (less constrained by water depth than BFOW)- Increasing energy yield (flexibility to site location enables access to areas with better windresource)Rate for cost reduction? it will depend on public and privatesupport to provide:- Secure and stable regulatory framework- Sufficient RD&D financing to support innovation- Targeted RD&D programmes to overcome common industry challenges51

State of the ArtLeverage existing shipbuilding facilities, but modified to align with the serialproduction needs of the offshore wind industrymost of the decommissioning activities willbe carried out onshore, reducing costs,risks and environmental impacts.- Floating offshore wind has a very positive cost-reduction outlook.- An increase in offshore wind installations is needed in order to meet renewableelectricity generation targets set by the European Commission.- Floating offshore wind will take advantage of cost reduction techniquesdeveloped in bottom-fixed offshore wind thanks to the significant area of overlapbetween these two marine renewable energy solutions.- FOW projects can also have a smaller impact on environmental surroundingswhen used in far-from-shore projects, as noise and visual pollution will be less ofa concern in deep, remote offshore marine areas.52

Technical & market barriersDespite its immense potential, there has not been a single utility-scale FOWproject commissioned yet. Technology is no longer a barrier, but there areother challenges to overcome if FOW is to move quickly into the mainstream ofpower supply. Two major and interlinked challenges are access to investmentsand political commitment.- Need for investor commitment: Projects require significant investments andtheir bankability could be eased through financial instruments that address longterm uncertainty, such as guarantees and other hedging instruments.- FOW also needs sustained investments in R&I to accelerate cost reduction- Political commitment is needed to incentivize industry and investors.53

Key challenges and opportunitiesInstallation challengesSource: Carbon Trust54

10MW turbines Develop a streamlined and KPI (key performance indicator) based methodology for the evaluation and qualification process of floating substructures Scope Floating wind turbines installed in water depths f

Related Documents:

Vertical axis wind turbines appear to be promising for the condition of high as well as low wind speeds. Offshore wind turbines have recently been substantiated efficacious for generating electricity due to high wind power. A detailed numerical analysis is conducted in this work on an offshore floating type Darrieus wind turbine at different .

boat wind turbines and make them facing the wind [3]. The number of blades of boat wind turbines is often 3. Three-bladed boat wind turbines can produce power at low wind speed and can be self-started by the wind. This paper is focused on three-bladed boat wind turbines with passive yaw motion.

WIND TURBINES Wind Turbines AP-Power-Wind Turbines-13a Wind power is popular. The market for wind turbines is expanding rapidly and with it is an increasing demand for turbines to be i

Common concerns about wind power, June 2017 1 Contents Introduction page 2 1 Wind turbines and energy payback times page 5 2 Materials consumption and life cycle impacts of wind power page 11 3 Wind power costs and subsidies page 19 4 Efficiency and capacity factors of wind turbines page 27 5 Intermittency of wind turbines page 33 6 Offshore wind turbines page 41

Floating Offshore Wind Will be Developed Where Waters Are Too Deep for Current Fixed-Bottom Technology 80% of offshore wind resources are in waters greater than 60 meters Floating wind enables sites farther from shore, out of sight, with better winds! Floating wind technology is expected to be at deployed at utility scale by 2024.

Offshore wind is the logical next step in the development of wind energy. With higher wind speeds offshore and the fact that turbines can be placed out of sight, offshore wind helps increase the amount of renewable energy signifi cantly. Off-shore wind has been developed through pilot projects in the 1990s and has seen

Offshore wind farms are also not subject to the same planning constraints as onshore farms and, if sited sufficiently far offshore, have a lower visual impact " " Offshore Wind in the UK Wind energy resources are abundant and exploitable1, and supplied 9.4% of the UK's electricity needs in 20142. Offshore wind is

Offshore wind farm status GW 10.4 7.7 2.6 2.3 1.7 0.3 25.0 % 42% 31% 10% 9% 7% 1% 100% UK Germany Netherlands Belgium Denmark Rest of Europe Total Turbines 2,292 1,501 537 399 559 112 5,400 Triton Knoll west offshore substation and jackup vessel Neptune 04 Offshore wind operational report 2020 05 Offshore wind operational report 2020 Offshore .