While bottom fixed offshore wind (BFOW) has matured and is now fully commercial despite having limitations in certain water depths and geologies, FOW is now seen as the answer to exploiting deepwater sites with abundant wind resources. The costs and uncertainty associated with FOW technology remain high (Figure 1). However, not so long ago, fixed offshore wind structures were considered a risky
investment but the technology and cost pricing has matured and is now deemed very competitive. It is anticipated that a similar progression will be seen in the FOW space, resulting in a rush for the best development sites. In recent years, many wave and tidal projects have struggled to progress from concept to development due to costs and uncertainty. To avoid similar issues with future FOW projects, Xodus has launched a working group on the bankability of the technology. The industry collaboration was created following the award of a three-year research project on the costs around FOW. The study, led by the global engineering consultancy through the IDCORE programme, is in partnership with the Universities of Edinburgh, Strathclyde and Exeter, as well as the Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS). The study, entitled ‘Improving the bankability of floating offshore wind projects’, has identified six key issues surrounding the journey from concept to commercialisation. To address these issues and enable best industry outcomes, Xodus invited developers and technology suppliers to engage with the study from the outset:
FFTechnological unknowns: With very few ‘live’ FOW
Figure 1. Xodus Group has developed a sophisticated LCOE GIS modelling tool to compute and visualise the costs of fixed and floating offshore wind in UK waters.
operations across the world, there are understandably numerous technological unknowns. In addition, the development of new turbines is typically not well understood and with so many foundation designs and parameters to consider, choosing what is the most technically and economically feasible can be complicated.
>> Firstly, on the design side, there is a choice between a proven design or taking a chance on an unendorsed turbine, which may prove considerably cheaper. Certification will help here. Either way, it will need to be industrialised for serial production, which is key for rapid deployment. >> As some foundation designs are better suited to certain environments, there needs to be significant research towards how the mooring will work, as well as a better understanding of the interaction between the floater and the turbine. Consideration of which transmission system to be used is important, as is the potential to use novel technology such as dynamic cables. >> With significant time devoted to the planning stage, there is huge potential to reduce the current cost of foundations.
FFSupply chain: Using Scotland as an example, there are
Figure 2. The so-called ‘gold mines’ of floating offshore wind.
46 ENERGY GLOBAL WINTER 2020
currently no Scottish ports able to carry out the work, so this would need heavy investment – £200 million at least – to be comparable with other European ports. While the supply chain does not have the specialist experience at the moment, this will only come with a pipeline of projects. It must be remembered that this will also impact CfD local content requirements, the location of turbine installations, and overall costs.