See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/262878978

Levelised cost of energy for offshore floating wind turbines in a life cycle
perspective

Article  in  Renewable Energy · June 2014

DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2014.01.017

CITATIONS READS

155 4,410

4 authors, including:

Anders Myhr Catho Bjerkseter

Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU) 3 PUBLICATIONS   156 CITATIONS   
16 PUBLICATIONS   214 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Tor Anders Nygaard

Institute for Energy Technology
38 PUBLICATIONS   658 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Bjørnafjorden View project

Renewable Energy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tor Anders Nygaard on 04 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Renewable Energy 66 (2014) 714e728

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Levelised cost of energy for offshore floating wind turbines in a

life cycle perspectiveq
Anders Myhr*, Catho Bjerkseter, Anders Ågotnes, Tor A. Nygaard
University of Life Sciences (UMB), Department of Mathematical Sciences and Technology, Box 5003, Drøbakveien 31, 1430 Ås, Norway

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This report presents a comprehensive analysis and comparison of the levelised cost of energy (LCOE) for
Received 27 September 2013 the following offshore floating wind turbine concepts: Spar-Buoy (Hywind II), Tension-Leg-Spar (SWAY),
Accepted 18 January 2014 Semi-Submersible (WindFloat), Tension-Leg-Wind-Turbine (TLWT) and Tension-Leg-Buoy (TLB). The
Available online 12 February 2014
analysis features a generic commercial wind farm consisting of 100 five megawatt turbines, at a far
offshore site in a Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) perspective. Data for existing bottom-fixed turbines, both
Keywords:
jacket and monopile concepts are used as reference values for adaptation to the generic wind farm
HYWIND II
parameters. The results indicate that LCOE values are strongly dependent on depth and distance from
TLB
WindFloat
shore, due to mooring costs and export cable length, respectively. Based on the findings, depth is the
LCOE dominant parameter to determine the optimal concept for a site. Distance to shore, Load Factor and
LCA availability are amongst the significant factors affecting the LCOE. The findings also indicate that LCOE of
Floating wind turbines floating turbines applied in large scale and in intermediate depths of 50e150 m is comparable to bottom-
fixed turbines. Floating turbines for increasing depths generally experience increased LCOE at a lower
rate than bottom-fixed turbines. An optimal site, situated 100 km offshore would give LCOE in the range
of V 82.0eV 236.7 per megawatt-hour for the conceptual designs in this paper.
Ó 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction One may argue that the depth limitations for bottom-fixed
turbines exclude the possibility to utilise the vast quantities of
During the last decade, the European wind energy sector has offshore wind resources. For deeper waters, one will need to
grown from an annual energy capture of 23 TWh in 2000 to approach different foundation concepts such as floating platforms.
177 TWh in 2010 [1]. A significant part of this production is land- New concepts deployed in new territories may imply increased
based. However, over the last few years, the number of offshore costs, but floating platforms may also at the same time offer
wind farms is increasing. Important drivers for this include beneficial aspects with respect to improved wind conditions,
increased wind potential and environmental aspects [2]. reduced wave loading, reduced installation cost and less visual
The offshore commercial wind farms are, as of yet, constructed impact.
with bottom-fixed wind turbines. Depending on depth and soil The main barriers for installation of floating wind turbines are
conditions, various concepts are utilised, but most common is the high capital- and operating expenditures (CAPEX, OPEX), but there
monopile. However, at increasing depths, typically around 30 m, has also been a lack of accurate simulation tools capable of ana-
the monopile design reaches engineering limits with respect to lysing and optimising these complex systems. Nevertheless,
pliable diameters and wall thicknesses. For deeper waters, the more increased offshore knowledge through experience with bottom-
expensive jacket foundation is a valid option. It is limited to depths fixed turbines and recent development of simulation codes have
of less than 50 m, not due to engineering limitations, but economic led to the development of several different floating platforms.
viability [3]. The scope of this work is not to assess the mechanical properties
and viability of each concept, but rather to investigate the LCOE of
current state-of-the art offshore floating concepts. We assume
deployment in a large-scale, both for the floating and bottom-fixed
q This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://
wind farms. We use the term ‘floating’ also for concepts where the
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ47 95106883. floater elevation is given by the taut mooring system rather than
E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Myhr). the mean sea level, such as the TLS, TLP, TLWT and TLB.

0960-1481/$ e see front matter Ó 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.01.017
 A. Myhr et al. / Renewable Energy 66 (2014) 714e728 715

2. Approach The following equation is used to calculate the LCOE and is derived
from Ref. [7]:
This work is based on the master thesis of Catho Bjerkseter and Pn It þMt
Anders Ågotnes [4], graduating summer 2013 at the University of t ¼ 0 ðI0 þrÞt
Life Sciences, Norway. Their work consisted mainly in gathering LCOE ¼ Pn Et
(1)
data and the development of a computer tool to aid in the com- t ¼ 0 ðI0 þrÞt

parison of different floating offshore wind turbine concepts. A

thorough review of their work has been conducted and the scope of where It denotes investments at time t; Mt denotes operation and
this work is to present updated findings and results. Much of the maintenance costs at time t; Et denotes energy generation at time t;
same approach is employed; including the complex calculation r denotes the evaluation discount rate; t denotes the time, ranging
methods, but with revised and updated values based on recent from zero to n.
reviews and newly acquired experience. Some new features and The discount rate should reflect the market value of both equity
boundary conditions are also included, in addition to a new and debt. In addition, project risk and return yield should be
concept. considered. This combination is often referred to as Weighted
There are several important parameters to consider when Average Cost of Capital (WACC). For this work, the WACC is set to a
trying to determinate an optimal source for energy production. base case of 10%, with high- and low cases at 8% and 12%, respec-
Local resources, national commitments, emissions and environ- tively, in addition to an assumed inflation interest of 2.5%.
mental impacts are all important. One may discuss the importance Momentary values are stated in Euros and PV and converted to
of each of these factors, but when considering large-scale 2013-Euros (1st of January) before inflation by the Industrial Pro-
deployment, a project is not likely to be completed if at an eco- ducer Price Index (PPI). No contingency is used in the analyses of
nomic disadvantage. Thus, the cost of energy production should the concepts.
presumably be a dominant factor. The approach to obtain this cost Future cost reduction potential was not covered. The model was
of energy is similar to the one described in Ref. [4] and only the compared to existing literature, from both onshore [8,9] and
main important aspects and edited features will be presented in offshore [10e12], in Ref. [4] and produced satisfying results. Addi-
this work. tional comparison to Ref. [13] resulted in limited discrepancies,
When considering the cost of energy, there are several per- especially for the production cost estimations.
spectives and approaches to consider. OPEX and CAPEX are the Six conceptually different floating concepts are investigated in
main features examined to evaluate the economic potential of this work. Variation in underlying conditions typically makes
the project. These factors are often used for initial review of comparison difficult. Two bottom-fixed wind turbine setups are
larger investment projects, but are not suited for distinguishing therefore included for increased value and comparability to similar
between several concepts with significant discrepancies con- work.
cerning the mentioned features. This is especially apparent when It is likely that the different concepts are under different
evaluating capital-intensive projects that will accumulate the stages of development, ranging from small prototypes to con-
income over a longer period e much like the common offshore ceptual phase with full-scale deployment. In this analysis it is
wind farm. When considering a wide time span, in example assumed that all the concepts are fully developed. Cost of
20e30 years, quantification of the expenses in different phases of development and scaling effects are included. Further, a reference
the project becomes important due to capital costs and risk case, consisting of 100 5 MW turbines localised in a 10 by 10 km
placement. This is often referred to as a Life Cycle Cost Analysis grid with a sub-station in its centre, placed 200 km offshore is
(LCCA) or Cradle to Grave (CG) and is both a convenient way and used as a benchmark. The reference case also features a given
widely used method to evaluate the potential economic perfor- turbine tower and topside2. The reference turbine is rated at a
mance [5,6]. power of 5 MW.
For this work, an LCCA analysis will be conducted on each of the The calculation of steps one to three, in addition to step five, is
concepts. The LCCA is divided into five main phases, distinguished handled internally by the developed simulation tool. Step 4, O&M is
by the different operating conditions and capital intensity; partially solved by utilising external software, in example the
Operation and Maintenance Cost Estimator (OMCE-Calculator)
1. Development and consenting (D&C) developed by the Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN)
2. Production and acquisition (P&A) (reference). This simulation tool computes the results prior to
3. Installation and commissioning (I&C) performing sensitivity analysis on high- and low scenarios to
4. Operation and maintenance (O&M) identify the main contributions to risk and uncertainty in each of
5. Decommission (DECOM) the proposed concepts. This results in an optimised suggestion for
which turbine concept that is the most suitable under given con-
To increase the significance of the LCCA concerning concept ditions when differentiated by LCOE.
comparison it is advisable to utilise a levelised cost in order to
define a similar reference for value of money at different stages of a 3. The concepts
project. It is convenient to level the LCCA results by expected en-
ergy production. This allows for a better analysis and evaluation of In total, nine different wind turbine concepts are investigated.
risk and total cost during the life span is often referred to as a The floating concepts consist of four spar concepts, a semi-
Levelised Cost of Energy (LCOE) Analysis. The similar reference submersible and a tri-floater. Ballast, displacement, mooring lines
value of money is obtained by discounting the costs to a given date1 or a combination of these may stabilise a floating system. Floating
by the annuity method. Once obtained, the LCOE may be inter- systems become available in waters from 30 to 40 m and deeper.
preted as the minimum unit price of energy and is a suitable var-
iable in order to evaluate the performance of different concepts.
2
Refers to installation above tower level, usually interpreted as hub-height, and
include nacelle, hub and rotor. Power electronics inside the turbine tower is also
1
Also known as present value (PV). taken as included.
716 A. Myhr et al. / Renewable Energy 66 (2014) 714e728

Fig. 1. Illustration of the different concepts, from left to right; TLWT, WindFloat, TLB B, TLB X3, Hywind II, SWAY, Jacket, Monopile and the onshore reference. The mooring systems
are not to scale in the horizontal direction.

The bottom-fixed foundation concepts consist of a jacket, utilised at The Hywind II system is an optimised version of the original
intermediate depths (30e50 m of water), and a monopile suitable Hywind system that has been operating off the coast of Norway
for shallower water. All of the systems are illustrated in Fig. 1 and since 2009. Data used for the Hywind II in the analysis is based on
then explained briefly. engineering work performed in Refs. [17,19,20] and personal
The conceptual Tension-Leg-Wind-Turbine (TLWT) utilised in communication with representatives from Statoil ASA [21]. The
this work achieves stability through displacement and mooring solution features proven technologies, but with a large mooring
lines. It is developed by the International Design, Engineering and footprint with a three line catenary system similar to WindFloat, in
Analysis Service (I.D.E.A.S) [13] and in based on the Tension-Leg- addition to a relatively high sub-structure steel mass of about 1700
Platform (TLP) system, a favoured solution in the offshore oil- tons to accommodate ballast and sufficient stability.
sector. The TLP concept is well known for its performance, utilis- In 2011, SWAY AS deployed a 1:6 scaled prototype of the coast of
ing vertical tendons to constraint motion along the vertical axis, Norway. The SWAY concept features a tension-leg-spar (TLS) con-
and several similar concepts have been investigated [14]. However, struction with one tendon attached to a suction anchor. Excess
the TLWT features a reviewed and optimised structure and spaced buoyancy ensures tension and acceptable motions for the down-
tri-floater sub-structure. The TLWT may utilise a set of three in- wind rotor assembly. There is no apparent transition from tower
clined tendons under specific conditions, but the setup used in this to floater, and the towerefloater construction is reinforced by an
work features three vertical tendons held by suction anchors. A external wiring system. This allows for optimisation of the body to
second catenary mooring system is used for horizontal station save materials resulting in a total steel mass of about 1100 tons for
keeping and redundancy. the supporting body [19,22].
The WindFloat [15] system by Principle Power was successfully The chosen bottom-fixed reference system is the well-known
deployed with a full-scale 2 MW turbine off the coast of Portugal in jacket structure developed in OC4, the follow up project of
late 2011. The prototype uses buoyancy for stabilisation, implying a Offshore Code Comparison Collaboration (OC3) managed by the
complex and steel-intensive sub-structure with a mass of about International Energy Agency (IEA) Wind Task 27 [23]. Typical jacket
2500 tons, but the concept is favoured for its good towability.3 A structures are complex and labour-intensive due to the lattice
catenary mooring system of four mooring lines, comprising of both construction. It is suited for intermediate water depths, beyond the
steel wire and chain, held by four Drag-Embedded Anchors (DEA), reach of monopiles.
provide the station keeping. The second bottom-fixed reference is the monopile. It is a simple
The Tension-Leg-Buoy (TLB) systems benefit from a stabilising design compared to the jacket substructure. The steel mass rises
system consisting of six taut Dyneema fibre robes held by three sharply for water depths beyond 30 m, affecting the costs and
Vertical Load Anchors (VLA). The high axial stiffness mooring lines installation procedures. A simplified generic system based on
are kept taut by excess buoyancy. The high stiffness results in several existing wind farms is developed to obtain an approxima-
minimal motion, comparable to or even less than for onshore tur- tion of total substructure mass at a given depth.
bines, but also increased mooring cost e especially for increased
depths. TLB B and TLB X3 [16,17], developed at the University of Life
4. Underlying conditions
Science in Norway, are based on the original works presented in
Ref. [18]. The revised versions utilised in this work are derived from
To compute the LCOE for each of the concepts we split the
Ref. [16]. The reason for implementing two different TLB concepts is
common set of underlying conditions and boundaries into three
to identify if one can justify measures to reduce the wave loading
on the structure in order to reduce the total load on the anchors.
Not shown in Fig. 1 TLB X3 features a slim lattice transition piece, Table 1
with an increased complexity factor, located in the wave action Site assumptions for the reference wind farm.
zone. In comparison, the TLB B utilise a more traditional conical Years of development 2013e2018
transition. The total steel mass of the platform is about the same Year of commissioning 2018
(445 and 521 tons respectively). Years of operation 20
Number of turbines 100
Installed capacity 500 MW
Water depth e floating concepts 200 m
Water depth e bottom-fixed concepts 30 m
3 Distance to port and grid connection 200 km
Towability: A factor used to describe how easily a concept may be transported
Average wind speed at hub height 10 m/s
at sea. This factor will take into account the need for support vessels, impact of
Soil conditions Homogenous medium clay
weather conditions, towing resistance and total draft under transportation.
 A. Myhr et al. / Renewable Energy 66 (2014) 714e728 717

categories; 1) The general reference wind farm, 2) General re- Table 3

sources and 3) Vessel specifications. Overview of the quantified losses to form LF based on the chosen PCF.

Wind farm availability 93.8%

4.1. General reference wind farm assumptions Aerodynamic array losses (wake effects) 7.0%
Electrical array losses 1.8%
Other losses 3.0%
It is assumed that installation takes place on a large scale, and
that a resourceful company with general offshore experience, able
to handle the entire supply chain, rich in both capital and general
offshore experience, will handle large parts of the supply chain and rates of the offshore vessels in question and thereby of less signif-
operate the wind farms when completed. icance. Variation is thereby assumed included in the high- and low
Assumptions in Table 1 are used to define the general reference scenarios for the vessel costs. A flat fuel cost of V 640 per ton is
wind farm. The location used is taken as a generic Northern Euro- therefore used in the analysis [4].
pean site. A Weibull probability distribution, derived from Ref. [24] Offshore personnel is assumed to work 182.5 days per year with
and illustrated in figure 30 of Ref. [4] is utilised to quantify wind an annual cost of V 67k, resulting in day-rates of V 370 based on
speed. Wave loading conditions, where appropriate, is based on the discussion in Ref. [4]. High- and low scenarios are set to 8%.
generalised site conditions for the northern parts of the North
Atlantic described in Ref. [25]. 4.3. Vessel specification
The 5 MW reference turbine is derived from the well-known
generic 5 MW offshore turbine developed by the National Renew- Specific vessel costs are limited to vessels in direct use for the
able Energy Laboratory (NREL) [26]. A quantification of materials three last steps of the project, installation, O&M and decommission.
was performed by Raadal et al. [27]. The summarised results are Thus, vessels for weather surveys etc. are not quantified. Due to the
shown in Table 2. The power production is assumed similar to the contract-based nature of each stage, one distinguishes between
Repower 5 MW offshore turbine [28] in which the NREL-reference installation- and service vessels and appropriate tables listing each
is partly based on and the Power Capacity Factor (PCF) is set to category are displayed in Tables 4 and 5 respectively. Installation
53  3% for the high- and low sensitivity. vessels are also assumed used for the decommission phase.
Power output to the grid is substantially less than what one can Additionally, crane vessels for larger maintenance work where
expect from the capacity factor alone. This is due to several sources larger turbine components are resupplied, Cable-laying vessels or
of loss, such as wake losses, losses in the power electronics and AHTS vessels for cable maintenance, PSVs for component and he-
downtime. The resulting grid output factor is calculated to 44.0%, licopters for special transport are assumed to be used, but chartered
corresponding to 3859 annual hours of maximum load, based on at shorter contracts and are not evaluated as fixed costs [4].
the values displayed in Table 3, as discussed in Ref. [4], and often
referred to as the net Load Factor (LF).
5. Basis for life cycle cost analysis
4.2. General resources
LCA results for each given phase of the project are calculated
The overall consumed resources are simplified and quantified to before the LCOE approach is applied. Each phase has several
steel- and fuel consumption as well as needed personnel and quantifiable sub categories presented in Ref. [5]. This section will
commodity resources. One of the main assumptions is that costs for mainly present the results of the discussion and resulting values
the floater and tower structure can be calculated by evaluating the from Ref. [4]. Changes and reviewed evaluations will also be
steel mass only as this covers the majority of the mass in the presented.
different structures. However, power electronics, electric cabling
and mooring are added separately to the cost calculation. 5.1. Development and consenting
Steel prices are volatile and vary greatly between countries,
locations and other various factors. A base price of V 775 per ton for The base case D&C was set to an averaged value of V 104,106k,
bulk steel is assumed. Adding to the complexity, there is a variety of with high- and low scenarios of þ20% and 27%, respectively, for
different grades, quality and transport options. The base case price, the reference wind farm of 500 MW. As there are no available data
including transport cost, is increased by V 225 per ton to account for deep offshore wind farms, the averaged values were derived
for Marine quality treated S355 quality steel. The resulting base from several sources of bottom-fixed sites and will thereby pose
price is set to V 1000 per ton, accordingly. To account for volatility, some uncertainty. Nevertheless, Fig. 2 shows the assumed distri-
the high- and low scenarios are set to 40%. [4]. bution of costs for this initial phase.
During the recent years, bunker fuel cost has experienced as
much as 100% fluctuation compared to the average baseline and
should be considered as particular volatile. However, the overall Table 4
fuel consumption cost is found low compared to the operating day- Approximate day-rates, in thousand V, of the different vessels suitable for instal-
lation purposes, including mean fuel consumption, excluding labour as discussed in
Ref. [4].

Table 2 Vessel type Low-case Reference High-case

Properties for the generic 5 MW turbine. base-case

Rotor diameter 126 m Crane vessel 431 531 631

Hub height 90 m Inshore crane barge 45 55 65
Rotor mass 110 tons (of which 54% steel) Jack-up vessel 161 196 231
Nacelle mass 240 tons (of which 82% steel) Anchor handling, tug and 81 91 101
Tower mass 250 tons (of which 93% steel) supply (AHTS)
Rated speed 11.4 m/s Tug boat 16 17 18
Operational wind speed limits 3.5e30 m/s Platform supply vessel (PSV) 43 46 49
Generator type Double-fed, asynchronous, 6-pole Onshore mobile crane 5 6 7
718 A. Myhr et al. / Renewable Energy 66 (2014) 714e728

Table 5 Table 6
Annual fixed costs, in thousand of V, for maintenance vessels, including mean fuel Production cost estimates for the bottom-fixed substructures [4].
consumption, excluding labour as discussed in Ref. [4].
Monopile Jacket
Vessel type Low-case Reference High-case
Lattice structure Piles
base-case
Material consumption [tons] 1200 510 315
Specialised maintenance vessel 1850 1900 1950
Material cost [V] 1200k 510k 315k
Mother vessel 12,800 13,100 13,500
Manufacturing complexity factor 100% 400% 100%
Manufacturing cost [V] 1200k 2040k 315k
Total production cost [V] 2400k 3180k

a combined floater and tower. A reduced turbine cost of V 6405k,

where the tower is deducted, is employed. High- and low scenarios
are set to 20%.

5.2.1. Substructures
Substructures for the bottom-fixed reference systems are based
on interpolation of available empirical data as it would require
substantial efforts to design specific solutions for the different
Fig. 2. Development and consenting cost breakdown for the 500 MW base-line farm scenarios in this work. For monopiles, it is obvious that both depth
[4]. and soil conditions influence the cost substantially. Scaling of
available empirical data, with respect to turbine size, is solved by
estimated peak thrust forces expected for the relevant rated power.
For the sensitivity study, it is reasonable to assume that D&C is Thus, reference values are all with 5 MW turbine size to obtain an
influenced by the number of turbines to be constructed. Fig. 3 il- equal reference scenario. The reference monopile-substructure is
lustrates the utilised cost to number of turbine dependency. calculated to a mass of 1200 tons, including the transition piece.
Contingencies are not included for this analysis as this is The reference jacket at 30 m is developed for the 5 MW turbine
regarded more of a tool when taking the Final Investment Decision, with a total mass of 825 tons, where of 510 tons is in the main
rather than a basis for the LCOE. The contingency level will also be lattice work and 315 tons is from piles. Costs for the secondary steel
dependent on the available information. The quality of the available components and the transition piece for the jacket are not quan-
information is described through the sensitivity study and the tified, but assumed to be included through the complexity factor
high- and low scenarios that directly influence the LCOE. For low- influencing the fabrication costs [4,29].
ered risk, a construction phase insurance is assumed to V 50k per In this work, manufacturing costs are evaluated through a
MW based on estimations from Ref. [10]. High- and low scenarios complexity factor and related to the bulk steel price. The value
are set to 10%. reflects not only the complexity with respect to fabrication, but
how suitable the design is for mass production. Secondary ele-
5.2. Production and acquisition ments and equipment are also to be included in this factor. Justi-
fication and evaluation of these factors for each of the concepts are
One of the major cost driving components is the turbine. An thoroughly discussed in Ref. [4] and an overview is displayed in
averaged value of V 7475k is used for the tower and the turbine Tables 6 and 7. These tables also feature the assessed material
combined. All of the concepts are in general assumed to use iden- masses per floating concept. The masses are results from compu-
tical turbines and tower configurations. The exceptions are TLB X3, tations, personal consultations, reverse engineering, experience or
SWAY and the bottom-fixed concepts. The interface between floater a combination of these [4]. It is not possible to disclose all of the
and tower is 15 m above the water line for SWAY and 10 m for the material used in the evaluation, but it may be mentioned that no
other concepts. Correction for changes in zero level for the tower is negative feedback has been received from the contacted stake-
made by volumetric interpolation with respect to height and is holders to indicate that any of the concepts are deviating from its
based on the reference turbine tower. The SWAY concept consists of specifications.

Total costs Development and Consenting Costs per MW

€ 900,000,000
€ 800,000,000 €200,000

€ 700,000,000 €180,000
€ 600,000,000
€160,000
€ 500,000,000
€ 400,000,000 €140,000
€ 300,000,000
€120,000
€ 200,000,000
€ 100,000,000 €100,000
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Number of Turbines

Fig. 3. Illustrating the dependency between farm size and D&C, where the total cost is shown in red (Bottom-fixed) and blue (Floating) (left y-axis) and cost per MW is shown in
green (Bottom-fixed) and black (Floating) (right y-axis). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
 A. Myhr et al. / Renewable Energy 66 (2014) 714e728 719

Table 7 Table 9
Production cost estimates for the floating substructures [4]. Calculated line lengths for the base case at 200 m depth.

TLB B TLB X3 Hywind II WindFloat SWAY TLWT Concept Total line length [m] Total line cost [V]

Material consumption 445 521 1700 2500 1100 417 TLB B e upper fibre rope 956 433,987
[tons] TLB B e lower fibre rope 811 440,864
Material cost [V] 445k 521k 1700k 2500k 1100k 417k TLB X3 e upper fibre rope 956 421,031
Manufacturing 110% 130% 120% 200% 150% 130% TLB X3 e lower fibre rope 811 599,804
complexity factor Hywind II e steel wire 1800 81,000
Manufacturing cost [V] 489.5k 677.3k 2040k 5000k 1650k 542.1k Hywind II e chain 150 37,500
Total production 934.5 1198.3k 3740k 7500k 2750k 959.1k WindFloat e steel wire 2640 118,800
cost [V] WindFloat e chain 200 50,000
SWAY e steel cylinder 101 191,313
TLWT e vertical steel wire 528 35,505
TLWT e catenary steel wire 1980 44,550
5.2.2. Mooring TLWT e chain 150 18,750
The perspective of this work is large-scale deployment in soil
conditions consisting of medium clay. This somewhat restricts the
mooring options. For instance, for one-off constructions, dead- The TLB systems make use of synthetic fibre ropes that are
weight anchors may be container shaped and filled with scrap neutrally buoyant in water. Exponential approximation is utilised to
steel as a cheap alternative. This may be acquired at costs down to a estimate the cost per length of the fibre mooring ropes. The base-
tenth of the cost of a high capacity suction anchor. However, the line cost per meter is estimated at V 91.6810.0113D where D is the
sheer amount of scrap metal needed to moor a wind farm of more desired diameter and assumed applicable in a range of 90e
than 100 turbines, where the vertical holding capacity is in the 300 mm. At 75 m the following line thickness is used for the upper
range of 500e1000 tons per anchor, is unrealistic. Advanced anchor and lower lines of TLB B and TLB X3 respectively; 0.1416, 0.1495,
systems are therefore assumed for all of the concepts. The taut 0.1388 and 0.1754 m.
moored TLB concepts each utilise three Vryhof Stevmanta VLAs The reduced anchor loads for TLB X3 could indirectly lead to a
while the catenary systems of Hywind II and WindFloat make use of lower mooring line cost, but at significant depths the minimum line
similar simpler DEAs of the Vryhof Stevshark type. The TLB X3 stiffness due to eigen frequency requirements governs the line
features approximately 10% less resulting anchor force compared to diameter. The TLB system is mainly dependent on the line axial
TLB B and is adjusted by linear interpolation. The redundant stiffness, thus both the length and cross sectional area scale linearly
station-keeping system of the TLWT also uses a similar anchor with depth. The result is a quadratic increase in cost. For the
technology. The vertical tendons of SWAY and the TLWT are held by catenary systems, maintaining the stiffness is not as important, and
high capacity suction anchors. All of the systems are further no scaling of the cross section is applied. However, calculating the
described and evaluated in Ref. [4] while the base case for mass necessary mooring line length to avoid anchor uplift complicates
estimation and cost is displayed in Table 8. High- and low values are the calculations severely also for catenary systems. Some approxi-
25%. mations are performed to achieve a realistic prediction of the
Different mooring lines are utilised for each concept. All of the mooring line length for all concepts as further explained in Ref. [4].
catenary mooring systems utilise a combination of steel wire and Total mooring line lengths and base case costs for the reference
chain while SWAY uses a steel cylinder. Mooring line consumption wind farm in 200 m of water are shown in Table 9. All high- and low
is dependent not only on the number of anchors and mooring lines, cases for the mooring systems is set at 25%. The total line length of
but also depth. Calculating the respective mooring line lengths of the TLB system is calculated with a fixed angle of the upper
the different systems is a complex operation. Thus, some simplifi- mooring lines of 45 . An additional 25 m per line is added to ac-
cations are utilized. For instance, a linear approximation for growth count for the distance between the seabed and anchor. One may
in wall thickness of vertical tendons is assumed for SWAY. Cost is expect that the lower mooring lines would be reduced somewhat in
estimated by bulk price and a complexity factor of 150%  25% is size with increasing depth, due to an increasing vertical compo-
used. nent, but this is not accounted for.
For the catenary systems, cost of the chain is approximated to V
250 and 126.5 kg/m at a diameter of 76 mm suitable for both
Hywind II and the WindFloat. Correspondingly, a 6  41 strand steel 5.2.3. Grid connection
wire with a diameter of 61 mm and a mass of 29 kg/m is utilised for It is natural to distinguish between export cables and inter-array
these concepts. The estimated base cost of this wire is V 45 per cables. The inter-array grid is divided into 20 strands, each ac-
meter. Vertical tendons for the TLWT are assumed of similar type commodating 5 turbines with a 33 kV 300 mm2 copper core con-
for at a depth of 50 m and are increased linearly in order to duction cable. The distance in the reference grid is 1 km between
maintain vertical stiffness with increasing depth. each turbine. Connecting inter-array cable lengths are assumed to
be 1.4 km in length. To adjust for the operating water depth, this is
added to the length. Based on the evaluation and grid description in
Ref. [4] the base case inter array cable cost is set to V 281k/km with
Table 8
Baseline costs for the anchors utilised for each concept. high- and low cases at 15%. Total inter-array cable length for the
base case of 100 turbines is approximated to 191.6 km, resulting in a
Concept Type Mass Complexity Count Total cost
maximal power loss of 0.68% with an average theoretical loss of
[tons] [n] [V]
0.31%.
TLB B Stevmanta VLA 40 870% 3 1042.5k
The export cables are substantially larger and more expensive
TLB X3 Stevmanta VLA 36 870% 3 938.4k
Hywind II Stevshark Mk5 17 670% 3 342k than the inter-array cables. This analysis focus on larger distant
WindFloat Stevshark Mk5 17 670% 4 456k offshore wind farms and Direct Current (DC) is arguably the better
SWAY Suction pile 140 1025% 1 1435k option. For the sensitivity study, the distance to shore is reduced,
TLWT e taut Suction pile 50 1025% 3 1537.5k but Alternating Current (AC) transition will not be considered in
TLWT e catenary Stevpris Mk6 3 1833% 3 165k
order to maintain the overall scenario as argued in Ref. [4]. For the
720 A. Myhr et al. / Renewable Energy 66 (2014) 714e728

Table 10
Estimated installation cost for monopile concept wind turbines [4].

Component Operation Count Duration Unit cost [V] OW Total cost [V]

Substructure installation Quay-side lifts 2.00 0.13 196k 75% 65k

Transportation 0.22 0.82 75% 47k
Substructure installation 1.00 2.00 50% 784k
Stationed personnel 30.0 2.95 370 52% 63k

Turbine installation Quay-side lifts 1.00 0.17 196k 80% 42k

Transportation 0.11 0.82 80% 22k
Turbine installation 1.00 1.20 50% 470k
Stationed personnel 30.0 2.19 370 54% 45k

Total installation cost per monopile wind turbine utilising a specialised jackup-vessel 1538k

Table 11
Estimated installation cost for jacket-type wind turbines [4].

Component Operation Count Duration Unit cost [V] OW Total cost [V]

Substructure installation Quay-side lifts 2.00 0.13 196k 75% 65k

Transportation 0.22 0.82 75% 47k
Substructure installation 1.00 3.00 50% 1176k
Stationed personnel 30.0 3.94 370 52% 84k

Turbine installation Quay-side lifts 1.00 0.17 196k 80% 42k

Transportation 0.11 0.82 80% 22k
Turbine installation 1.00 1.20 50% 470k
Stationed personnel 30.0 2.18 370 54% 45k

Total installation cost per jacket wind turbine utilising a specialised jackup-vessel 1951k

benchmark test, a single 320 kV 1500 mm2 High-Voltage DC system finalisation and testing of the wind farms, are assumed included in
is used with a baseline cost of V 443k/km. Appropriate cross sec- the presented results.
tions and/or dual cables are chosen for the sensitivity analysis,
depending on the optimal solution with respect to optimal values
5.3.1. Bottom-fixed installation
for the LCOE. High- and low values for grid cables are set to 20%.
The installation operation features a high-capacity jack-up
When using HVDC, the current is transformed from AC to DC in a
vessel with 4 days of mobilisation time. 15 employees, working 12-
substation. There is also a need for stepping up the current to a
h shifts, are assumed required to perform the installation, resulting
suitable voltage in order to minimise the losses, in this case from
in a total of 30 workers stationed on the vessel in addition to the
33 kV of the inter array to the 320 kV in the export system. The total
vessel crew. Estimated total installation costs for both monopiles
offshore substation cost for a 500 MW unit, not including instal-
and jackets in the benchmark wind farms are shown in Tables 10
lation, is approximated to V 143.0 M and V 161.7 M for bottom-
and 11, where number of operations, duration in days and Opera-
fixed and floating wind farms, respectively, as discussed in Ref.
tional weather Windows (OW) are also shown. A vessel capacity of
[4]. The equivalent onshore recipient is added a cost of V 71.5 M
nine main turbine components, i.e. pile, substructure component4
regardless of concept. Where suitable, a 1000 MW unit with an
or turbines is assumed. Three hours per quay-side lift and a
estimated cost of V 235.6 M and V 271.7 M for bottom-fixed and
transit speed of 11 knots are also assumed.
floating solutions is applied, respectively.

5.3.2. Floating installation

5.3. Installation and commissioning Several horizontal transportation methods have been suggested
to reduce the installation cost of offshore wind power. This includes
A thorough exploration of the economic aspects of several ap- horizontal transportation of the nacelle and the pre-joining of
proaches to installation of the different wind turbine systems was tower and nacelle [13,19]. It is not evaluated as this is still uncertain
performed in Ref. [4]. For this work, only the approach identified as concepts and require turbine manufacturers to adapt the turbines
the optimal solution for each concept will be commented. Wind significantly. Two main installation strategies were evaluated in
farm commissioning costs, e.g. the costs associated with Ref. [4]; 1) Assembly inshore, towing of complete turbine and 2)
Towing of substructure and assembly offshore. Strategy 2 features
both pre-joined turbines and a strategy where floater and tower is
Table 12 pre-joined, and only the turbine is installed offshore. The options of
Offshore OW and time consumption for components in the lifting strategies [4].
strategy 2 are denoted 2.1 and 2.2 respectively. The main strategies
Component Time Maximum OW [%] 1 and 2 are further expanded by evaluating five different lifting
consumption [h] operational wind strategies for each of the components. Appropriate OWs for the
speed [m/s]
components in the expanded set are shown in Tables 12 and 13.
Individual rotor blade 4 8 43
Assembled rotor 5 8 43
Nacelle 4 10 58 4
By substructure component it is referred to either pile, transition piece and
Tower 6 12 59
jacket. The minor foundation piles for the jacket are taken as one substructure
Complete turbine 12 7 35
component.
 A. Myhr et al. / Renewable Energy 66 (2014) 714e728 721

Table 13
Concept-depending towing speed and OW for AHTS vessels. Similar assumptions are made for the TLB B, TLB X3 and the TLWT.

TLB & TLWT Hywind II WindFloat SWAY

Speed [knots] OW [%] Speed [knots] OW [%] Speed [knots] OW [%] Speed [knots] OW [%]

Self-transport 15 90 15 90 15 90 15 90
Towing complete turbines 4.5 45 3 50 5 55 3.5 45
Towing pre-joined floater and turbine 5.4 50 4.2 55 6 65 3.9 60
Towing only floater horizontally 5.9 65 4.6 60 6.5 70

The most economical viable option was chosen for each concept. 6. Available deck space is assumed to decrease by 1 unit per 100 m
Common assumptions for the analysis are the same as for the of depth
bottom-fixed concepts in addition to the following remarks: 7. OW for transit is 75%, while anchor installation OW is set to 60%

1. Quay-side launch of floaters treated as one qua-side lift One assumes that the DEA and VLA anchors are more suitable
though with an OW of 80% for stacking on deck than the cylindrical suction pile anchors. The
2. Up-ending of floaters take 12 h with 60% OW, applying to all suction anchors for the TLWT is somewhat smaller than the single
concepts except WindFloat large version used for SWAY. However, it also requires three smaller
3. One AHTS can tow either one complete turbine or two drag embedded anchors. For convenience, it is assumed that the
floaters occupied space of one small drag embedded anchor, in addition to
4. All towing operations are assisted by two tug boats the smaller suction pile, equals about half the space occupied by the
5. PSV transit speed is 18 knots with OW of 70% with a capacity larger suction pile fitted for SWAY. Further elaboration on the
of three turbines consumption of deck space for each anchor type is discussed in Ref.
6. Loading of solid ballast for Hywind II, SWAY and WindFloat is [4].
performed inshore by a minor crane vessel with an OW of
60% 5.3.4. Electrical Infrastructure Installation
7. In general inshore OW are increased by 20% compared to Electrical infrastructure is quantified in three sub sections;
operations performed offshore export cables, inter-array cables and the offshore substation. A
8. Time consumption to attach the mooring system is assumed single trenched export cable is assumed at the high- and low case
to six hours per line, OW 55% cost estimations of V 354k/km to V 826k/km. Minimum distance to
9. Four hours of mobilisation for the offshore crane vessel be- the wind farm in the sensitivity analysis is 100 km, hence no scale
tween turbines, OW 65% economics are either expected nor implemented in the analysis.
10. Two hours of mobilisation for the inshore crane vessel be- The inter-array cables are set to a cost of V 190k/km with high- and
tween turbines, OW 75% low cases at 10%.
The offshore substation installation is dependent on the choice
For all of the concepts, inshore assembly, and turbine assembly of foundation. Base cost for the 500 MW units are approximated to
in two parts is advantageous. The two-part turbine lift is by com- V 23.8 M for bottom-fixed wind farms and V 18.6 M for floating,
plete tower and assembled nacelle with rotor. This implies that it is when assuming jacked- and WindFloat (semi-submersible) type
convenient to assemble most of the major parts on ground level, foundations. The corresponding values for the 1000 MW unit are V
minimising lifts and the need for larger crane facilities. In general, 36.6 M and V 28.5 M, respectively. Assumptions for high- and low
offshore assembly of the turbines is three to four times more cases are discussed in Ref. [4].
expensive than inshore assembly and towing of the complete
structure. The total cost to mount the turbine on the TLB- and TLWT
5.4. Total capital expenditures
concepts is calculated to V 768k. For Hywind II, WindFloat and
SWAY the corresponding cost is V 786k, V 644k and V 655k,
Total CAPEX results for the reference scenario is summarised in
respectively.
Fig. 4.
Total CAPEX for the bottom-fixed turbines in the reference
scenario is V 1750e1875 M for the base case. This result is in line
5.3.3. Mooring system installation with existing generic sources, ranging from V 1800 to 1900 M [30e
Logistical operation challenges concerning several vessels 32]. However, these sources are for wind farms closer to shore than
operating within the wind farm at the same time are not consid- the reference scenarios used for this work, but may feature
ered and anchors are assumed installed prior to the arrival of each different interest rates and do also include contingencies, which are
turbine. Turbines are not allowed to share anchors in the not included in this work. Thus, the analysis results seem reason-
economical model. able with respect to the total CAPEX.
Anchors for both catenary- and taut mooring systems are
installed by a sole AHTS. The detailed process of installing each 5.5. Operation and maintenance
specific anchor type is described in Ref. [4]. Key assumptions are as
follows; Calculation and optimisation of O&M and downtime are per-
formed using the OMCE-Calculator, and described in detail in Ref.
1. Eight hours of installation time for each of the DEA [4]. One distinguishes between the floating- and bottom-fixed
2. Nine hours of installation time for each of the VLA wind farms, but the foundation variation of each is not assumed
3. 12 h of installation time to place one suction anchor to influence costs significantly and thereby not evaluated. Three
4. 30 min per 100 m of depth is added to the installation time types of O&M-strategies are used in the optimisation; 1) calendar
5. AHTS available deck space for storage of anchors is 630 m2 based preventive, 2) condition based preventive and planned
722 A. Myhr et al. / Renewable Energy 66 (2014) 714e728

CAPEX breakdown

€ 4,500,000 Installation of wind

€ 4,000,000 turbine
Grid costs (incl.
€ 3,500,000 installation)
€ 3,000,000 Mooring costs (incl.
installation)
€ 2,500,000
Production costs
€ 2,000,000 (incl. tower)
€ 1,500,000 Turbine costs (excl.
tower)
€ 1,000,000
Construction phase
€ 500,000 insurance
Development and
€0
consenting

Fig. 4. Base case CAPEX quantification per MW for each concept in the reference scenario.

Table 14
Table 15
Fixed annual labour cost for the benchmark wind farm [4].
Decommissioning cost in relation to installation cost.
Category Number of Fixed annual Total annual
Description % of installation cost
employees cost [V] cost [V]
Complete wind turbine e floating 70
Offshore O&M technician 60 67k 4020k
Complete wind turbine e bottom-fixed 80
Offshore O&M managers 2 118k 236k
Subsea cables 10
Offshore O&M administrative 6 60k 360k
Substation 90
Onshore technical 3 50k 150k
Mooring systems 90
Total annual 82 4766k

Insurances for the operating phase are also added to the O&M
corrective, and 3) unplanned corrective. The OMCE-calculator im- costs. High- and low cases of V 15e20k/MW are chosen while the
plements opportunity based maintenance strategies.5 The base case is set to V 17.5k/MW [4].
following assumptions were applied;

1) Annual maintenance of 24 h per turbine with three technicians 5.5.1. Personnel, accommodation and port facilities
assisted by small maintenance vessel. A larger preventive This analysis features the choice of a mother vessel, operating
maintenance every 10 years is also assumed, requiring twice the within the wind farm through the operational phase. A team of 60
time. In addition subsurface inspection every 3 years assisted by technicians and two managers, in addition to the vessel crew, work
a diving vessel is required. rotating shifts on fixed contracts to man the mother vessel. Shifts
2) Condition based replacement of smaller components with pre- are 6:00 am to 6:00 pm and maintenance is only initiated if tech-
dictable wear is expected to take eight hours by three techni- nicians can spend a minimum of 2 h on site. For peak workload
cians. Replacement of larger parts is assumed to take twice the scenarios, similar to when performing condition-based mainte-
resources. nance, one assumes additional crew at the rate of V 70 per hour. In
3) All of the operations are expected performed at site. Minor in- addition, an onshore staff of six administrative personnel and three
cidents can be repaired without the assistance of a crane vessel, technicians is assumed for the benchmark wind farm. Estimated
opposed to major repairs, which do. Corresponding expected costs for the different personnel are shown in Table 14.
repair time is 4 and 48 h with the aid of three and six technicians Short-term storage of supplies and crew accommodation is
respectively. solved by the mother vessel, though additional port facilities are
needed. This cost is assumed to V 2.3 M/year as described in Ref. [4]
The failure rate of subsea cables is expected to 0.1 per 100 km/ with high- and low cases at 11%.
year, resulting in a wind farm total availability of 97% and 0%, if
either an inter-array- or export cable fails, respectively. Based on
5.5.2. Vessel and equipment requirements
the results of the OMCE-Calculator, an average of about 870 events
To maintain the offshore wind farm, the following assumptions
per year in category 1 is expected to occur for bottom-fixed and
are made;
floating respectively. Categories 2 and 3 are independent of foun-
dation and contribute 4 and 120 occurrences, respectively. The total
Table 16
downtime accounts for 54,082 and 58,070 h per year for floating Distribution of CAPEX, in percent, with respect to year 0 of commissioning [4].
and bottom-fixed wind farms respectively. The total corresponding
Phase 4 3 2 1 0 1
availability is 93.8% and 93.4% and loss of power production is
143,621 and 155,585 MWh. Development and consenting 56% 10% 11% 11% 12% 1%
Construction phase insurance 0% 25% 25% 25% 25% 0%
Turbine cost, excluding tower 0% 0% 19% 39% 42% 0%
Production cost, including tower 0% 0% 19% 39% 42% 0%
Mooring costs, including installation 0% 0% 0% 40% 60% 0%
5 Grid costs, including installation 0% 20% 75% 5% 0% 0%
Opportunity based maintenance allows maintenance in all categories on several
Installation of wind turbine 0% 0% 0% 36% 64% 0%
turbines simultaneously, thus reducing the mobilization costs of external vessels.
 A. Myhr et al. / Renewable Energy 66 (2014) 714e728 723

LCOE Range
€/MWh

300 287.8

250 243.4 239.0

233.6 232.2 225.4
223.7 225.9

200

150

100 120.5
106.3 106.8 109.3 107.9 110.0 106.5
101.8

50

154.9 156.0 164.6 189.2 159.8 160.6 152.5 160.8

0
TLB B TLB X3 Hywind WindFloat SWAY TLWT Monopile Jacket

Fig. 5. LCOE for the reference wind farm for each of the concepts with indications on both best- and worst-case scenarios.

€/MWh LCOE - Breakdown

190
Decommissioning
170
Annual operation
phase insurance
150
Annual operation &
maintenance
130
Installation of wind
turbine
110
Grid costs (incl.
installation)
90
Mooring costs (incl.
installation)
70
Production costs
(incl. tower)
50
Turbine costs (excl.
tower)
30
Construction phase
insurance
10
Development and
consenting
-10
TLB B TLB X3 Hywind WindFloat SWAY TLWT Monopile Jacket

Fig. 6. LCOE cost breakdown for the base case of the reference case.

1. Two specialised maintenance vessels stationed on the mother is performed with an ATHS that features diving support and
vessel. Average travel time to turbine is set to one hour and the ROV.
vessel is able to transport parts of up to 2 tons. Additional similar 4. Subsurface inspection and repairs are assumed performed by a
vessels are chartered, if required, to perform condition based diving support vessel chartered on the spot market.
maintenance. 5. Helicopter is chartered to transport technicians when required
2. Replacement of larger parts requires a larger crane vessel,
assumed chartered on the spot market. A specialised mainte- The cost of the specialised maintenance vessels is assumed to
nance vessel is assumed to assist the operation. have a base case price of V 1.9 M/year with 2.4% as high- and low
3. Repair of cables is performed by chartering a cable-laying case. The larger crane vessels needed for maintenance operations is
vessel on the spot market. Preventive maintenance on cables assumed to be somewhat smaller than the ones required for

€/MWh LCOE - Farm Size

TLB B
185
TLB X3
175
SWAY
165
TLWT
155 Monopile
145 Jacket
135 Hywind

125 WindFloat
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Fig. 7. LCOE changes with increasing number of turbines with the reference wind farm as basis.
724 A. Myhr et al. / Renewable Energy 66 (2014) 714e728

€/MWh LCOE - Distance to shore

230 TLB B
220
TLB X3
210
Hywind
200
190 WindFloat
180 SWAY
170 TLWT
160
Monopile
150
Jacket
140
100 200 300 400 500 Km

Fig. 8. Change in LCOE with respect to the distance to shore for the reference scenario with base case values.

installation. The cost is assumed to be V 196k/day and V 300k/day considering the analysis accuracy. The large ranges of each high-
for jack-up and a floating crane vessel, respectively. One month of and low case result in LCOE ranges that span beyond 50% of the
mobilisation is estimated for the larger maintenance vessels and expected base case. Thus, the current spans are too large if one are
the cost is set to four day-rates. to get a more reliable prediction to the final LCOE. A review of the
The total OPEX, including operation phase insurances, are high- and low cases is performed to identify which factors
calculated to V 131 and 115k/MW for the floating and bottom-fixed contribute the most to the uncertainties. The cost breakdown of the
turbines, respectively. Vessel rates for unplanned maintenance LCOE for the base case values in the reference wind farm is shown
seem to account for the majority of the difference. Jack-up vessels, in Fig. 6.
used in the bottom-fixed wind farm, may be chartered for The aim of this work was to differentiate the concepts, though a
approximately two thirds of the day-rates of comparable floating significant part of the breakdown indicates costs that are not
cranes. The calculated values are somewhat higher than the V 45e concept dependent, such as turbine, grid and O&M.6 This leaves the
50 M/year indicated in Refs. [30e32]. The difference is likely to be a production, mooring and installation cost. The more expensive
result of the increased distance, influencing maintenance on the mooring systems of the TLB, TLWT and SWAY indicate similar cost
export cable, increased transport costs and the introduction of a as the installation of bottom-fixed systems. Basically, this implies
mother vessel. that installation and production cost of floating concepts should be
equal or lower than production cost of bottom-fixed in order to
compete. Steel mass, being one of the major contributors to the
5.6. Decommissioning
production cost along with complexity, should therefore be mini-
mised as one can notice for the concepts that are able to compete
To simplify the analysis, one assumes that the substructures are
with the bottom fixed-concepts.
not reused, but rather recycled and sold for scrap. Cables are cut
Decommissioning costs are relatively insignificant in perspec-
below the sea-bed and the remaining inter-connecting lengths are
tive to the total LCOE. For Hywind, WindFloat and SWAY they
left. A reverse installation process is used to estimate the cost of
reduce the LCOE as the scrap value outweighs the decommissioning
bringing the components ashore. However it is assumed that this
cost and thereby shown in the lower end of the columns in Fig. 6.
process can be performed simpler and faster. The matrix in Table 15
It should be emphasised that this is for a site located far offshore
indicates the assumed decommissioning cost by comparison to the
which contribute significantly to increase the LCOE through
installation.
increased grid costs. Further analyses on the sensitivities regarding
Linearization of the steel scrap price over the last 13 years result
the reference scenario are conducted in the following sections.
in an averaged estimation of 323.4 V/ton in 2013, and a linearized
increase of 17.4 V/year is used to estimate the scrap value at the
time of decommissioning. It is apparent that some of the more steel 6.1. Farm Size
intensive structures may have a negative decommissioning cost.
Fig. 7 shows that increasing the number of turbines to 200
would lower the LCOE by approximately 10% and that semi
6. Levelised cost of energy results
convergence is achieved from about 600 turbines, resulting in an
LCOE reduction of 10e15%. The analysis resolution is per 100 tur-
The LCOE results are based on the discounted values of CAPEX,
bines and shifts are observed with change in the utilisation and
OPEX and DECEX before being distributed relative to the energy
number of mother vessels and required chartering of vessels. In
generation. Additionally, ranges of the high- and low cases are
addition the configuration of substations(s) somewhat influence
presented. As mentioned earlier it was assumed that the final in-
the result.
vestment decision is to be taken in 2013 and the operating phase to
start five years later, in 2018. CAPEX values are distributed ac-
6.2. Offshore distance
cording to Table 16, derived from Ref. [4], where year zero denotes
the year of commissioning.
An increasing distance to shore implies a nearly linear increase
O&M costs are assumed evenly distributed over the 20 years of
in LCOE as shown in Fig. 8. Slight shift in the trend is observed due
operation and DECEX are assumed to be distributed 100% at year 21
to the change in transportation distance during installation and
after commissioning. The following ranges, shown in Fig. 5, for
LCOE can then be calculated for the reference wind farm, including
the high- and low cases to indicate best- and worst-case scenarios. 6
Distance to shore is excluded. In future work, one should strive to distinguish
For the reference wind farm, where bottom-fixed concepts at the concepts also with respect to O&M. It is likely that the different geometries will
30 m are compared to the floating concepts in 200 m of water, experience independent challenges with respect to availability, specific mainte-
SWAY, TLWT and the TLB concepts are virtually at the same LCOE, nance, fatigue on turbine, etc.
 A. Myhr et al. / Renewable Energy 66 (2014) 714e728 725

€/MWh LCOE - Project Life Span

190 TLB B
TLB X3
180
Hywind
170 WindFloat
SWAY
160
TLWT
150 Monopile

140 Jacket
20 25 30 Years

Fig. 9. LCOE changes with offshore distance for the reference scenario with base case values.

rotation of the labour force. Mobilisation times of chartered vessels sensitive to depth, as the effective stiffness at the fairleads and
are not affected by the change in distance. A minimum distance of angle of the mooring lines have to be maintained. The results are
100 km is set to maintain a realistic perspective when assuming shown in Fig. 10.
HVDC connection. The bottom-fixed concepts are less affected by The catenary mooring systems produce an increased LCOE when
the increasing distance as the installation vessels carry several moving into shallower waters as the mooring line length increases
turbines per trip while the floating concepts need to be towed [4]. The mooring system of the TLWT should be more robust than
individually. the SWAY system as the depth increases. This is not showing in the
analysis due to simplifications in the mooring system of SWAY. The
6.3. Project life span dimensions of the mooring column for SWAY are not likely to be a
result of maintaining the stiffness conditions, but also increasing
Based on the assumptions of this analysis, one expects to find an loads. Another issue, not being addressed, is increasing installation
economical advantage with respect to LCOE when increasing the complexity for SWAY as this rigid column increases in length and
turbine lifetime to 30 years. The result is plotted in Fig. 9 and the thickness. Using only stiffness determined mass growth by depth
analysis account for increased maintenance, but no increased tur- and no additional modification to installation cost is considered
bine cost to accommodate the increased lifetime. A reduction is severely conservative, especially for increasing depths above
observed with increasing lifetime, though the effect is reduced 200 m.
when closing up to 30 years. The amount of increase in the wind When comparing with monopiles, the TLB systems are the only
turbine cost is uncertain, but not likely to outweigh the advantages floating concepts being able to produce a competitive LCOE. The
of an increased lifetime to 25 years. When increasing the lifetime to LCOE of the floating systems all increase with depth, but at a far
30 years, it is reasonable to assume that there will be no gain when slower rate than for the bottom-fixed systems. In general, concepts
accounting for the increased investment cost. It should also be with low steel-mass perform the best in shallow depths, while
noted that increased lifetime also increases the probability of se- concepts of larger steel mass become more optimal with increasing
vere weather conditions, which in turn may also influence the depths. This indicates positive trade-offs for more complex
overall material consumption in the substructures. A more thor- mooring systems in shallower waters in order to reduce total
ough assessment is necessary in order to evaluate if increased production cost.
lifetime is beneficial. Both TLB concepts, SWAY and the TLWT perform better than the
comparable jacket concepts in waters below about 250 m. The
6.4. Water depth Hywind system is also comparable, but at a slightly higher level
before achieving an advantage in deeper waters of 4e500 m. Due to
One of the parameters expected to distinguish the different large steel mass and high production costs, the WindFloat concept
floater concepts is the change in water depth and the correspond- is relatively expensive, but also experience minimal increase in cost
ing changes of the mooring systems. Especially the TLB systems are with increasing depths. The TLB X3 system has 10% reduced anchor

€/MWh LCOE - Water Depth

195

190

185
TLB B
180
TLB X3
175 Hywind
170 WindFloat
165 SWAY
160 TLWT

155 Monopile

150 Jacket

145

140
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 m

Fig. 10. LCOE changes with depth for the reference scenario with base case values.
726 A. Myhr et al. / Renewable Energy 66 (2014) 714e728

Fig. 11. LCOE for the optimised reference wind farm. All high- and low cases included (dotted lines), while the reduced intervals are shown in colour.

Absolute value LCOE Sensitivity - Steel Cost Percentage

change (€/MWh) change
€10 5%
€8 4%
€6 3%
€4 2%
€2 1%
€0 0%
-€2 -1%
-€4 -2%
-€6 -3%
-€8 -4%
-€10 -5%
TLB B TLB X3 Hywind WindFloat SWAY TLWT Monopile Jacket

Fig. 12. Indicates influence of the high- and low cases of steel cost on each concept. Columns in yellow and blue are represented in percentage on the y-axis on the right side. (For
interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

loads compared to TLB B. However, this does not reduce the 3. Short term vessel contracts can be acquired at fixed price, i.e.
mooring costs enough to accommodate the additional complexity installation costs are fixed at base case values, while O&M- and
featured by its space-frame section. Additionally, the TLB X3 de- decommission costs are unchanged
mands somewhat higher mooring line stiffness as a result of
reduced stiffness in the space-frame. Due to the scaling effects with The monopoles and TLBs have the lowest costs. The differences
depth to maintain the correct axial mooring line stiffness, the dis- up to the other concepts are small, considering the remaining un-
tance between LCOE of TLB B and TLB X3 increase with increasing certainty of roughly 10%. Only a minor part of these are concept
depths. dependent, as shown when cost drivers are quantified further in
the next section.

6.5. Optimised results

6.6. Quantified cost drivers
The reference case is not particularly suitable to estimate the
LCOE of wind energy. Optimised site conditions for each of the The results of the reference wind farm analyses indicate that the
concepts are therefore utilised to better describe this, and to further cost of the export cable is a major component of the LCOE. High-
quantify the sensitive cost contributors. An optimised reference and low cases, altering the cost per meter, indicate a potential in-
wind farm is assumed, consisting of 300 turbines with 25 years crease of about 6% or a reduction of about 13%. The overall vessel
lifetime and a location 100 km offshore. Monopile depth is 5 m, cost contributes surprisingly little, much due to the fact that the
jacket depth is 20 m, while the TLWT, TLB systems, SWAY and installation step contribute relatively little to the overall LCOE.
catenary systems are located at depths of 50, 75, 120 and 100 m, High- and low cases result in changes of about 2e2.5% change in
respectively. The LCOE is lowered by 30e40%, compared to the base LCOE. The influence on steel cost is dependent on concept, where
scenario, and is shown in Fig. 11. The following assumptions were the steel intensive are more sensitive and shown in Fig. 12.
made: The overall influence of the steel price is still relatively low, at
around 2% for the concepts with low steel mass. Figs. 13 and 14
1. D&C, insurances, turbine cost, production cost, mooring system show that the importance of accurate prediction of the load fac-
acquisition cost and electrical component costs are expected to tor and the set discount rate sensitivities influence the LCOE in the
be known, thus kept at base case level. range of about 10% for the high- and low cases. The high- and low
2. The high- and low cases of capacity factors and availability is cases for Load Factor indicate a corresponding increase of 9.8e
reduced to 1% 10.7% or a decrease of 7.3e7.9% of the LCOE. However, it is
 A. Myhr et al. / Renewable Energy 66 (2014) 714e728 727

Absolute value Percentage

change (€/MWh) LCOE Sensitivity - Load Factor change
€25
€20 10%
€15
€10 5%
€5
€0 0%
-€5
-€10 -5%
-€15
-€20 -10%
TLB B TLB X3 Hywind WindFloat SWAY TLWT Monopile Jacket

Fig. 13. Indicates influence of the high- and low cases for change in load factor on each concept. Columns in yellow and blue are represented in percentage values on the y-axis on
the right side. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Absolute value Percentage

change (€/MWh) LCOE Sensitivity - Discount Rate change
€30 15%
€20 10%
€10 5%
€0 0%
-€10 -5%
-€20 -10%
-€30 -15%
TLB B TLB X3 Hywind WindFloat SWAY TLWT Monopile Jacket

Fig. 14. Indicates influences of the high- and low cases for the discount rate of each concept. Columns in yellow and blue are represented in percentage values on the y-axis on the
right side. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

important to keep in mind that, the suggested high- and low cases are reasons to assume that the mooring costs of SWAY, especially
for the load factor is based on both low quality supplier details and for depths exceeding 200 m, to be optimistic.
scarce weather information. In a realistic case, local weather sur- In general, the concepts with the lowest steel mass have the best
veys and detailed supplier contracts will reduce the variation performance with respect to LCOE. This is also apparent with
considerably. increasing depth, where the concepts of lowest mass reach opti-
The discount rate is pre-set and in such terms not a subject of mum at an early stage, before a concept of larger mass takes over
uncertainty. However, it is an interesting point that the initial high- with increasing depth. This may indicate a trade-off between steel
and low cases of 2% contribute with an increase of 13.3e14.0% or mass and mooring costs.
and decrease of 12.2e12.9% of the LCOE, making the capital It is apparent that even if the lattice cross-section of TLB X3
intensive and long lifetime offshore wind farms sensitive to ex- reduces the anchor loads, there is no reduced cost for the mooring
pected capital return. lines as they are determined by stiffness conditions rather than
peak loads. Thus, there is no significant reduction in LCOE by
7. Concluding remarks initiating this measure. However, this may not be the case for a
different site or turbine size, but indicates that the focus should be
The results indicate that energy from floating wind turbines, in to reduce the demand for line axial stiffness in order to compete in
comparison to bottom-fixed concepts, may be produced at equal or deeper waters.
lower LCOE. Several key cost driving aspects have been identified The overall performance of the analysis is robust, and the
for both bottom-fixed and floating wind farms. One can distinguish reference results for the bottom-fixed concepts are found in line
between site dependent and thereby predictable aspects and un- with available literature. However, improvements are needed in
certain aspects. Of the predictable aspects, discount rate, distance order to further quantify anchor costs, and one should implement
from shore, farm size and depth is of the highest sensitivity to the different mooring options and soil conditions. Further work is
LCOE. Of the more uncertain aspects, accuracy of load factor and suggested on the implementation of cost saving potentials and
variation in steel price is two of the main factors most influential to scaling effects, especially for mass produced components like tur-
distinguish the foundation concepts. bines, mooring lines and anchors. Further investigation is also
Optimised conditions for all the concepts were identified. suggested on effects such as turbine lifetime extension.
General aspects indicate that farm sizes of 400e500 turbines as Additionally, further work should be considered in order to
close to shore as possible is beneficial. This is due to the fact that the ensure that each of the compared concepts is optimised for equal
sheer size allows for larger specialised support and maintenance weather and site conditions. This is especially important for the
vessels to operate solely in the wind farm. Based on the optimised concepts of low steel mass, where small changes separate the re-
results, one can also assume the optimal turbine concept for each sults of each concept.
water depth. The current findings indicate that the TLWT should be
used in its deployable operating depth of 40 m and up to
75 m where the TLB systems can be installed. The increasing References
mooring costs with depth for the TLB system allow the TLWT and
[1] Iuga D. Contribution of wind power to electricity generation and generation
SWAY to be more cost effective solutions from about 300 m of capacity in the EU-27. Belgium: European Wind Energy Association; 2013
depth. SWAY and the TLWT are comparable at all depths, but there [chapter 3].
728 A. Myhr et al. / Renewable Energy 66 (2014) 714e728

[2] EWEA. Wind energy e the facts: a guide to the technology, economics and [18] Sclavounos P, Tracy C, Lee S. Floating offshore wind turbines: responses in a
future of wind power; 2009. London, UK. seastate Pareto optimal designs and economic assessment. Department of
[3] Borgen E. In: Briefings LT, editor. Floating wind power in deep water e Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT); 2007.
competitive with shallow-water wind farms?; 2010. [19] Moss DW, Myhr A. Concept for installation of floating offshore wind turbines.
[4] Bjerkseter C, Ågotnes A. Levelised cost of energy for offshore floating wind Department of Mathematical Sciences and Technology, University of Life
turbine concepts. Department of Mathematical Sciences and Technology, Sciences; 2009.
University of Life Sciences; 2013. p. 206. [20] Nygaard TA, Myhr A, Maus KJ. A comparison of two conceptual designs for
[5] Shil NC, Parvez M. Life cycle costing: an alternative selection tool. J Bus Res floating wind turbines. In: European offshore wind conference & exhibition,
2007;9:49e68. Stockholm, Sweden; 2009.
[6] Kawauchi Y, Rausand M. Life cycle cost (LCC) analysis in oil and chemical [21] Byklum E. In: Bjerkseter C, editor. Personal correspondence with Eirik Byklum
process industries. Trondheim: Norwegian University of Science and Tech- in Statoil ASA regarding Hywind properties; 2013.
nology; 1999. [22] Jorde J. In: Ågotnes A, editor. Personal correspondence between Jørgen Jorde
[7] Gielen D. Renewable energy technologies: cost analysis series e wind power. from Inocean/SWAY AS. Bergen/Ås: Inocean/SWAY AS/Jørgen Jorde; 2013.
In: Gielen D, editor. IRENA working paper. International Renewable Energy [23] Jonkman JM, Musial W. Offshore code comparison collaboration (OC3) for IEA
Agency (IRENA); 2012. task 23 offshore wind technology and deployment. USA: National Renewable
[8] Tegen S, Hand M, Maples B, Lantz E, Schwabe P, Smith A. 2010 cost of wind Energy Laboratory; 2010.
energy review (Technical report NREL/TP-5000-52920); 2012. [24] Bierbooms W. Offshore wind climate. In: 0E5662 offshore wind farm design.
[9] Liebreich M. Bloomberg new energy finance summit. In: Bloomberg new Delft University of Technology; 2010.
energy finance, the future of energy summit 2013, New York, USA; 2013. [25] Faltinsen OM. Sea loads on ships and offshore structures. Cambridge Uni-
[10] P. (PVC). Offshore wind cost reduction pathways study. In: Finance work versity Press; 1990.
stream. London, UK: The Crown Estate; 2012. [26] Butterfield S, Jonkman JM, Musial W, Scott G. Definition of a 5-MW reference
[11] Howard R. Offshore wind cost reduction pathways project e simple levelised wind turbine for offshore system development. Washington DC, USA: Na-
cost of energy model. London, UK: The Crown Estate; 2012. tional Renewable Energy Laboratory; 2009.
[12] Delay T, Jennings T. Offshore wind power: big challenge, big opportunity. [27] Raadal HL, Vold BI, Myhr A, Jonkman JM, Robertson AN, Nygaard TA. GHG
London, UK: The Carbon Trust; 2008. emissions and energy performance of offshore wind power. Renew Energy;
[13] Copple RW, Capanoglu C. Tension leg wind turbine (TLWT) conceptual design 2013 [in press].
suitable for a wide range of water depths. In: International offshore and polar [28] REpower Systems. In: Systems R, editor. 5M the 5-megawatt power plant with
engineering conference. Rhodes, Greece: International Society of Offshore and 126 metre rotor diameter. http://www.repower.de/fileadmin/download/
Polar Engineers (ISOPE); 2012. produkte/RE_PP_5M_uk.pdf; 2013.
[14] Robertson AN, Jonkman JM. Loads analysis of several offshore floating wind [29] Popko W, Vorpahl F, Zuga A, Kohlmeier M, Jonkman J, Robertson A, et al.
turbine concepts. In: International offshore and polar engineering conference Offshore code comparison collaboration continuation (OC4), phase I e re-
(ISOPE). Maui, Hawaii, USA: International Society of Offshore and Polar En- sults of coupled simulations of an offshore wind turbine with jacket sup-
gineers (ISOPE); 2011. port structure. In: I.S.o.O.a.P.E. (ISOPE), editor. The twenty-second (2012)
[15] Weinstein J, Roddler D. WindFloat e a floating support structure for large international offshore and polar engineering conference. Rhodes, Greece:
offshore wind turbines. In: European wind energy conference & exhibition International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers (ISOPE); June 17e22,
2010, Warsaw, Poland; 2010. 2012.
[16] Myhr A, Nygaard TA. Load reductions and optimizations on tension-leg-buoy [30] Douglas Westwood. Offshore wind assessment for Norway. Aberdeen:
offshore wind turbine platforms. In: The twenty-second (2012) international Douglas Westwood; 2010.
offshore and polar engineering conference. Rhodes, Greece: International [31] Scottish Enterprise. A guide to offshore wind and oil & gas capability. Glasgow,
Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers (ISOPE); 2012. Scotland: Scottish Enterprise; 2011.
[17] Myhr A, Maus KJ, Nygaard TA. Experimental and computational comparisons of [32] The Crown Estate. A guide to an offshore wind farm. London, UK: The Crown
the OC3-HYWIND and tension-leg-buoy (TLB) floating wind turbine conceptual Estate; 2010.
designs. In: International offshore and polar engineering conference. Maui,
Hawaii: International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers (ISOPE); 2011.

View publication stats