OFFSHORE WIND Kosten heute und morgen welche Potentiale zur Kostensenkung gibt es

Transcription

1 OFFSHORE WIND Kosten heute und morgen welche Potentiale zur Kostensenkung gibt es Koordinierungsstelle Erneuerbare Energien 15th of November 2012, Paris Botschaft der Bundesrepublik Deutschland Norbert Giese, REpower Systems SE

2 Agenda General Overview about OFFSHORE WIND Results of Crown Estate study: Offshore Wind Cost Reduction Pathway Study

3 Offshore market in 2011 worldwide Total Installations ,371 WTG MW - 53 projects - 9 countries (only Europe) - Leading Markets so far: UK + DEN Dominated by Onshore turbines improved for Offshore on monopile Source: EWEA

4 Offshore? What kind of offshore? Offshore I Offshore II II Offshore III 1. Near to shore, < 20 km, mainly 5-15 km from the nearest harbour 2. Shallow water, < 20 m, mainly 5-15 m water depth 3. Mainly onshore turbines used with 2-3 MW 4. Strong wind regimes 1. Far from shore, more than 20 km, up to 150 km from the nearest harbour 2. Deep water, up to 60 m water depth 3. Real offshore turbines needed 4. Strong or very strong wind regimes 1. Far from shore 2. Very deep water 3. For the time being floating foundations needed 4. Strong or very strong wind regimes

5 Evolution from 5M to 6M as bankable product Beatrice 2 x 5M (10 MW) Thornton Bank Phase II 6 x 5M (30 MW) alpha ventus 6 x 5M (30 MW) Ormonde 30 x 5M (150 MW) Thornton Bank Phase II II & III III 48 x 6M (295 MW) Nordsee Ost 48 x 6M (295 MW)

6 Track Record and Order Book (as of 14th of September 2012) Turbines installed onshore 9 7 offshore Order Book: Firm orders: Frame work / non binding: - 119

7 Agenda General Overview about OFFSHORE WIND Results of Crown Estate study: Offshore Wind Cost Reduction Pathway Study

8 Challenge for all of us: Cost reduction Kosten / MW installiert (m /MW) 5,5 5,0 4,5 4,0 COE ~ 170/MWh THB 2+3 (B) Alpha Ventus (D) Belwind 1 (B) Duddon Sands (UK) 3,5 3,0 THB 1 (B) Rhyl Flats (UK) Thanet (UK) Greater Gabbard (UK) NSO (D) 2,5 North Hoyle (UK) Robin Rigg (UK) Rödsand 2 (DK) 2,0 Kentish (UK) Burbo (UK) Gunfleet Sands (UK) N.N. (D) N.N. (UK) 1,5 1,0 Scroby Sands (UK) Lynn (UK) COE ~ 120/MWh ~ 100/MWh 0,5 Barrow (UK) Jahr

9 Project Size over time Distribution of commercial offshore wind project size (rated output) installed over time in UK and rest of Europe (2012 estimated)

10 Water Depth over time Distribution of maximum reported site water depth (LAT) over time for commercial UK and rest of Europe offshore wind projects (bubble size reflects wind farm rated output) (2012 estimated)

11 Distance to Port over time Distribution of distance to OMS port over time for commercial UK and rest of Europe offshore wind projects (bubble size reflects wind farm rated output) (2012 estimated)

12 Installed Turbine Size over years Distribution of of size of turbine installed over time for commercial UK and rest of Europe offshore projects (bubble size reflects wind farm rated output) (2012 estimated)

13 Turbine assumptions Turbine The turbine assumptions are: The turbine is iscertified to Class IA to international offshore wind turbine design standard IEC The baseline turbines have a three-bladed upwind, three-stage gearbox, a partial-span power converter, a doubly-fed induction generator, 1500 rpm 690V output, and 88 m/s tip speed The 4MW turbine has a 120m diameter, and a specific rating of 354W/m² (which is is representative of the market-weighted average on wind farms reaching FID in in 2011of four products at this scale available for FID in in 2011, namely the AREVA M , Siemens SWT , REpower 5M (126m) and the Vestas V MW) The 6MW turbine has a 147 m diameter, and a specific rating of 354 W/m 2, and The 8MW turbine hast a 169m diameter, and a specific rating of 354 W/m2

14 Comparison 4 MW in 2011 vs. 6MW in 2020 Anticipated impact of technology innovations for a wind farm using 6MW-Class turbines with FID in 2020, compared with a wind farm with 4MW-Class turbines with FID in 2011

15 Comparison LCOE 4 MW in 2011 vs. 6 MW in 2020

16 Thank you for your attention