Analysis Potential Turbine Layouts Spacing Between Wind Farms PDF

Analysis of Turbine Layouts and
Spacing Between Wind Farms for

Potential New York State Offshore
Wind Development
Final Report | Report Number 18-20 | August 2018
NYSERDA’s Promise to New Yorkers:
NYSERDA provides resources, expertise,
and objective information so New Yorkers can
make confident, informed energy decisions.
Mission Statement:
Advance innovative energy solutions in ways that improve New York’s economy and environment.
Vision Statement:
Serve as a catalyst – advancing energy innovation, technology, and investment; transforming
New York’s economy; and empowering people to choose clean and efficient energy as part
of their everyday lives.
Analysis of Turbine Layouts and Spacing Between
Wind Farms for Potential New York State Offshore
Wind Development
Final Report
Prepared for:
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
Albany, NY
Prepared by:
The Renewables Consulting Group LLC
New York, NY
NYSERDA Report 18-20 NYSERDA Contract 111248 August 2018

Notice
This report was prepared by The Renewables Consulting Group LLC in the course of performing
work contracted for and sponsored by the New York State Energy Research and Development
Authority (hereafter “NYSERDA”). The opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect
those of NYSERDA or the State of New York, and reference to any specific product, service, process,
or method does not constitute an implied or expressed recommendation or endorsement of it. Further,
NYSERDA, the State of New York, and the contractor make no warranties or representations, expressed
or implied, as to the fitness for particular purpose or merchantability of any product, apparatus, or service,
or the usefulness, completeness, or accuracy of any processes, methods, or other information contained,
described, disclosed, or referred to in this report. NYSERDA, the State of New York, and the contractor
make no representation that the use of any product, apparatus, process, method, or other information will
not infringe privately owned rights and will assume no liability for any loss, injury, or damage resulting
from, or occurring in connection with, the use of information contained, described, disclosed, or referred
to in this report.
NYSERDA makes every effort to provide accurate information about copyright owners and related
matters in the reports we publish. Contractors are responsible for determining and satisfying copyright
or other use restrictions regarding the content of reports that they write, in compliance with NYSERDA’s
policies and federal law. If you are the copyright owner and believe a NYSERDA report has not properly
attributed your work to you or has used it without permission, please email [email protected]
Information contained in this document, such as web page addresses, are current at the time of
publication.
ii
Abstract
This study supplements a collection of studies prepared on behalf of the New York State Energy Research
and Development Authority (NYSERDA) to provide information related to a variety of environmental,
social, economic, regulatory, and infrastructure-related issues implicated in planning for future offshore
wind energy development off the coast of New York State. The study provides information to support the
sizing and orientation of Wind Energy Areas (WEAs) within the Area for Consideration identified by
New York State in the New York State Area for Consideration for the Potential Locating of Offshore
Wind Energy Areas report. NYSERDA's intent is to facilitate the principled planning of future offshore
development, to provide a resource for the various stakeholders, and to support the achievement of the
State’s offshore wind energy goals.
Keywords
offshore wind, layout, spacing, orientation, shipping, navigation, vessel
iii
Table of Contents
Notice ........................................................................................................................................ ii
Abstract ....................................................................................................................................iii
Keywords..................................................................................................................................iii
List of Figures ..........................................................................................................................vi
List of Tables ...........................................................................................................................vii
Acronyms and Abbreviations ...............................................................................................viii
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ES-1
1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1
2 Power Density Review ...................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Power Density and Turbine Layout Design ................................................................................... 2
2.2 Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 2
2.2.1 Determination of Example Projects..................................................................................... 3
2.2.2 Data ..................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2.3 Power Density Trend Analysis ............................................................................................ 4
2.3 Results .......................................................................................................................................... 5
2.3.1 Power Density Variance with Wind Turbine Rated Capacity .............................................. 5
2.3.2 Power Density Variance with COD ..................................................................................... 6
2.3.3 Power Density Variance with Project Capacity ................................................................... 7
2.3.4 Power Density Variance with Project Area ......................................................................... 8
2.3.5 Specific Site Examples ..................................................................................................... 10
2.4 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 10
3 Inter-site Distance Review ...............................................................................................11
3.1 Inter-site Distance and Turbine Layout Design ........................................................................... 11
3.2 Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 11
3.2.1 Determination of Example Projects................................................................................... 12
3.2.2 Data ................................................................................................................................... 13
3.3 Results ........................................................................................................................................ 14
3.3.1 Variance with OWF Characteristics .................................................................................. 14
3.4 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 17
4 Base-Case WTG Layouts .................................................................................................18
4.1 Generic WTG Dimensions .......................................................................................................... 18
4.1.1 Extrapolation of Existing WTG Dimensions ...................................................................... 18
4.1.2 Proposed Wind Turbine Dimensions ................................................................................ 19
iv
4.2 Indicative Wind Energy Area (WEA) Layouts ............................................................................. 20
4.2.1 Layout Design Drivers ....................................................................................................... 22
4.2.1.1 Power Density ..................................................................................................................... 22
4.2.1.2 Shipping and Navigation ..................................................................................................... 23
4.2.1.3 Inter-site Distance ............................................................................................................... 24
4.2.2 Design Characteristics of Indicative WEA Layouts ........................................................... 25
4.2.3 Packing Factor .................................................................................................................. 26
4.3 Wake Modeling of Indicative WEAs ............................................................................................ 27
4.3.1 Methodology...................................................................................................................... 27
4.3.2 Turbine Layouts ................................................................................................................ 28
4.3.3 Results .............................................................................................................................. 29
4.4 Discussion ................................................................................................................................... 30
5 Sensitivity Analysis .........................................................................................................31
5.1 Design Characteristics of Additional Layouts .............................................................................. 31
5.1.1 Power Density ................................................................................................................... 32
5.1.2 Inter-site Distance ............................................................................................................. 33
5.2 Wake Modeling............................................................................................................................ 33
5.3 Results ........................................................................................................................................ 33
5.3.1 Power Density Alone ......................................................................................................... 34
5.3.2 Power Density and Inter-site Distance .............................................................................. 35
5.4 Impact on Net Capacity Factor.................................................................................................... 38
6 Conclusions .....................................................................................................................40
7 References .......................................................................................................................41
Appendix A. Map of Offshore Study Area Zones ................................................................ A-1
Appendix B. Dataset for Power Density Review (All Data)................................................. B-1
Appendix C. Dataset for Power Density Review (>5,000 Acres) ........................................ C-1
Appendix D. Additional Charts (Power Density) ................................................................. D-1
Appendix E. Dataset for Inter-Site Distance Review (All Data) .......................................... E-1
Appendix F. Site Layouts ..................................................................................................... F-1
Appendix G. Wake Analysis Results ...................................................................................G-1
Appendix H. Additional Layout Data.................................................................................... H-1
Endnotes ............................................................................................................................ EN-1
v
List of Figures
Figure 1. Map of European Offshore Wind Farms ...................................................................... 4
Figure 2. Map of European Offshore Wind Farms Included in the Inter-site Distance Review ...13
Figure 3. Site Areas for Area for Consideration West (Option 1) and East ................................21
Figure 4. Site areas for Area for Consideration West (Option 2) and East .................................22
Figure 5. Application of “20-Degree” Guidance to Inter-site Distance ........................................24
Figure 6. Illustration of Inter-site Distance Measurement...........................................................25
Figure 7. Wind Roses................................................................................................................26
Figure 8. Aliquot Area ...............................................................................................................27
Figure 9. WTG Layouts for ........................................................................................................28
Figure 10. WTG Layouts for Area for Consideration West (Option 2) ........................................29
Figure 11. Example Layout Design ...........................................................................................32
vi
List of Tables
Table 1. Power Density as a Function of WTG Rated Capacity.................................................. 5
Table 2. Power Density as a Function of COD ........................................................................... 7
Table 3. Power Density as a Function of Project Capacity ......................................................... 8
Table 4. Power Density as a Function of Project Area................................................................ 9
Table 5. List of European Offshore Wind Farms Included in the Inter-site Distance Review ......12
Table 6. Summary of Inter-site Distances..................................................................................14
Table 7. Inter-site Distances (Nautical Miles) ............................................................................15
Table 8. Inter-site Distances (Rotor Diameters).........................................................................15
Table 9. Inter-site Distance by COD ..........................................................................................16
Table 10. Inter-site Distance by Project Capacity ......................................................................16
Table 11. Rotor Diameter and Rated Capacity of WTGs ...........................................................19
Table 12. Proposed Dimensions of the WTG Options ...............................................................20
Table 13. Wake Losses for Area for Consideration ...................................................................29
Table 14. Overview of Layout Scenarios Modelled in Sensitivity Analysis .................................31
Table 15. Graph of Stand-Alone Wake Losses for Each Site for Each Power
Density Scenario ...........................................................................................................34
Table 16. Graph of Cumulative Wake Losses ...........................................................................35
Table 17. Table of Cumulative Wake Losses ............................................................................35
Table 19. Table of Cumulative Wake Losses ............................................................................37
Table 21. Indicative AEP and NCF Values ................................................................................39
vii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AEP Annual Energy Production
AWST AWS Truepower
COD Commercial Operation Date
COLREGS International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea
CPA Closest Point of Approach
GIS Geographical Information System
LCOE Levelized Cost of Energy
MCA Maritime and Coastguard Agency
MGN Marine Guidance Note
MW Megawatt
NCF Net Capacity Factor
Nm Nautical Mile
NYS New York State
NYSERDA NYS Energy Research and Development Authority
OWF Offshore Wind Farm
RCG The Renewables Consulting Group LLC
WEA Wind Energy Area
WTG Wind Turbine Generator
viii
Executive Summary
This Turbine Layout Study provides information to support the sizing and orientation of the Area for
Consideration identified by New York State and Indicative Wind Energy Areas (WEA) therein. The
study consists of the following tasks:
• Review of power densities for a selection of European offshore wind farms (OWF).
• Review of inter-site distances for a sample of European OWFs.
• Development of wind turbine generator (WTG) layouts for Indicative WEAs within Area for
Consideration East and West to inform the size and shape of the overall Area for Consideration.
The power densities and inter-site distances of 27 European offshore wind farms inform the design
of example wind turbine layouts for the Indicative WEAs within the Area for Consideration.
From the European projects reviewed, there is a strong negative relation between power density and
project size (in acres). This reflects a growing consensus that the efficiency of very large offshore wind
farms can be reduced significantly by the effects of high wakes if sufficient space is not allowed between
the WTGs. This has led to an increase in WTG spacing and a reduction in power density as the sizes of
OWFs have increased over time. There is no trend in inter-site spacing for the projects reviewed, which
may be attributed to the different planning strategies and navigation requirements in different countries. It
may also be due to variations in each country’s policy on how much distance is required between projects
for safe passage of vessels.
Based on the results of the power density analysis, WTG layouts were designed for the Indicative WEAs
within the Area for Consideration West (two scenarios) and East (one scenario) using a recommended
base-case power density of 0.01 MW/acre. Wake loss modeling was performed to confirm that the
Indicative WEAs would provide adequate space for project sponsors to design efficient offshore wind
farms for a range of potential WTG sizes. A sensitivity analysis was also performed to identify the likely
increase in wake losses associated with using higher power densities and smaller inter-site distances. This
analysis showed that inter-site spacing of 4 nautical miles (nm) effectively mitigates most potential wake
effects. An indicative annual energy production (AEP) calculation is included to demonstrate the impact
on net capacity factor of some scenarios modelled and provide support for the WTG layouts created for
the Indicative Wind WEAs.
ES-1
1 Introduction
This study supplements a collection of studies prepared on behalf of the New York State Energy
Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) to provide information related to a variety of
environmental, social, economic, regulatory, and infrastructure-related issues implicated in planning
for future offshore wind energy development off the coast of New York State, within a study area
comprising a 16,740-square-mile area of the ocean, from the south shore of Long Island and New
York City to the continental shelf break (the offshore study area [OSA]). The U.S. Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management (BOEM) has jurisdiction over identifying offshore wind development sites
within the OSA, and for issuing leases for those sites.
The study provides information to support the sizing and orientation of the Area for Consideration and
Indicative Wind Energy Areas (WEAs) identified by the New York State in the New York State Area
for Consideration for the Potential Locating of Offshore Wind Energy Areas report, which was submitted
as an unsolicited lease request submitted to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management in October 2017,
and performs the following tasks:
• Review of power densities for a selection of European OWFs

• Review of inter-site distances for a sample of European OWFs
• Development of WTG layouts for Indicative WEAs within Area for Consideration East and
West to inform the size and shape of the overall Area for Consideration.
NYSERDA recognizes that BOEM has primary jurisdiction over siting and development in the OSA
and that any future development will be subject to future review processes and decision-making by
BOEM and other state and federal stakeholders. Neither this study, nor New York State’s Master Plan
or its collection of studies, commit NYSERDA or any other agency or entity to any specific course of
action with respect to the development of offshore wind projects within the OSA. Rather, NYSERDA's
intent is to facilitate the principled planning of future offshore development, to provide a resource for
the various stakeholders, and to support the achievement of the State’s offshore wind energy goals. As
such, this report is considered supplemental to the Master Plan and has been provided to aid decision-
making by state and federal agencies and project sponsors themselves.
1
2 Power Density Review
2.1 Power Density and Turbine Layout Design
The power density of an OWF is a measure of how much electrical power can be harvested from a
defined geographic area and is expressed as the total installed capacity (in MW) divided by the total
area covered by the WTGs (in acres). Power density is determined by dividing the installed capacity
of a wind farm by the area it covers. For a given project area, the power density (in MW/acre) can be
increased by either installing more WTGs or increasing the rated power of the WTGs (the rated power
is the maximum power that a WTG can produce). Both have the effect of increasing the installed capacity
of the wind farm, but as power density increases so do the negative impacts of turbines on one another’s
energy production. These impacts are termed wake effects and they result in a lower efficiency for the
wind farm, where the efficiency is expressed as the net capacity factor (NCF).
Wake effects are the key driver when optimizing layout design for offshore projects. Offshore there is
limited scope to increase energy yield by moving WTGs to areas of higher resource because, the wind
resource varies far less, compared to, for example, a mountainous region where wind speed increases
markedly with elevation. Therefore, when designing the WTG layout for an OWF, a balance must be
struck between maximizing the installed capacity and avoiding the effects of excessively high wakes.
2.2 Methodology
Prior to selecting which OWFs to include in the analysis, a high-level review was carried out of 300
European offshore wind farms, including those in the development, construction, and operational phases,
to identify suitable candidates. The aim was to select OWFs of a range of different designs and sizes from
the North Sea and UK waters which together comprise the most established area of OWF development
in the world.
The power density for each OWF was then calculated by dividing the installed capacity of each OWF by
the total of sea area covered by the WTGs. The area of each wind farm selected was calculated based on
the as-built or planned WTG coordinates.
2
2.2.1 Determination of Example Projects
The European offshore wind market has multiple operational OWFs representing a broad range of sizes,
layout designs, and permitting strategies. There are approximately 300 European OWFs at various stages,
from development to operation, providing the best benchmarks for this study. A sample of 27 European
offshore wind farms was selected to provide a diverse range of project capacities, commercial operation
dates (CODs), and layout designs to ensure a representative view was taken for typical power density of
a European offshore wind farm.
Eleven OWFs were selected from the UK, all of which are currently operational apart from one
(Galloper Offshore Wind Farm, which is currently under construction). Sixteen were selected from
Germany, Belgium, and Denmark, all of which are currently operational except for Nordsee 1 and
Merkur Offshore that are under construction, as well as the pre-construction Horns Rev 3 with a
WTG layout design unlikely to change significantly. The oldest project reached COD in 2005, and
the most recent is due to start operating in 2019.
2.2.2 Data
For the operational OWFs, maps of cable routes for the UK OWFs were obtained from publicly available
records and used to derive WTG coordinates. WTG coordinates for the Belgian, German, and Danish
OWFs were obtained from Admiralty charts. For projects not yet built, the current site boundaries were
sourced from publicly available records. The power density of a project may change frequently during
the development phase as the choice of layout and WTG model evolves; therefore, development-stage
projects were excluded from the review.
The outer WTG coordinates in each wind farm were traced around, to create an accurate site boundary.
The area covered by the WTGs was then calculated based on this boundary. The installed capacity of each
OWF was sourced from the database and divided by the area to derive the power density in MW/acre.
An overview of the projects is provided in Figure 1 with the current boundaries of Area for Consideration
East and West included for scale comparison.
3
Figure 1. Map of European Offshore Wind Farms
European offshore wind farms are in red and included in the power density review with Area for
Consideration East and West overlaid in blue for comparison.
2.2.3 Power Density Trend Analysis
Once calculated, the power densities of the sample European wind farms were plotted against several
variables to identify any trends. A regression line is provided for all charts, along with the R2 value
returned. The regression line provides the best fit to the data, and the R2 value is a statistical measure
of how close data are to the regression line. The R2 value represents the proportion of the variance in
the power density that is predictable from the independent variable (WTG rated capacity, for
example)—and the higher the R2 value, the stronger the relation between the two plotted variables.
4
2.3 Results
The average power density for the 27 OWFs is 0.043 MW/acre and varies significantly across the OWFs.
The following section includes plots of the density against several other characteristics of the OWFs,
some of which have a stronger relation to power density than others. The full-data sets are provided in
appendices B and C.
2.3.1 Power Density Variance with Wind Turbine Rated Capacity
Power densities for the projects were plotted against their turbines’ rated capacities. Given the very
low R2 value in Table 1 (0.0342), there does not appear to be a relation between the variables.
Table 1. Power Density as a Function of WTG Rated Capacity
0.100
0.090
0.080
Power Density (MW/Acre)
0.070
0.060
0.050
0.040
0.030
0.020
0.010
R² = 0.0342
0.000
2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00
Rated Capacity of WTG (MW)
5
2.3.2 Power Density Variance with COD
Prior to the mid-2000s, wake losses for OWFs were usually predicted using semi-empirical wake models,
which were developed for use on onshore wind farms. No adjustments were made to the wake models to
account for the different wind conditions prevalent on offshore wind farms compared to large onshore
wind farms. Initial validation studies carried out by consultants and project sponsors using production
data from projects such as Denmark’s Horns Rev 1 suggested that these tools tended to under-predict
so-called “deep array” wake losses for large OWFs, particularly when power density was relatively
high and inter-WTG distances relatively small. Deep array wake losses occur at offshore wind farms
with more than 6 rows of WTGs aligned perpendicular to the prevailing wind condition and are
exacerbated by the low turbulence of the wind offshore, which causes wakes from the WTGs to
extend further downwind than they would onshore.
From 2010 onwards, more advanced wake models, such as those using computational fluid dynamics
approaches, became more common, and validation studies performed by Walker (et al.,2014) and
others have demonstrated the improved accuracy of them, compared to the first-generation models.
The advanced wake-modeling tools predict higher wake losses than the first-generation models, for
a given layout; therefore, it could be expected that large OWFs designed after 2010 would have
lower power densities as project sponsors seek to maintain good net capacity factors (NCFs).
Power density data therefore were plotted as a function of COD. Table 2 shows a weak negative relation
between power density and COD, suggesting there has been no consistent move towards lower power
density layouts in Europe. This may be due to the variance in wind conditions, installed capacities, site
boundary shapes, or some combination thereof at each OWF. Alternatively, it may reflect the lack of
consensus among project sponsors on how to design efficient WTG layouts.
6
Table 2. Power Density as a Function of COD
0.100
0.090
0.080
0.070
0.060
0.050
0.040
0.030
0.020
0.010
R² = 0.2737
0.000
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
Commercial Operation Date
2.3.3 Power Density Variance with Project Capacity
Power density data were then plotted as a function of the project capacity of each OWF—and a clearer
trend emerged. This is shown in Table 3.
7
Table 3. Power Density as a Function of Project Capacity
0.100
0.090
0.080
0.070
0.060
0.050
0.040
0.030
0.020
0.010
R² = 0.5946
0.000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Project Capacity (MW)
The relation to installed capacity is stronger than the previous comparison, and it implies that as project
capacity has generally increased over time, project sponsors have sought to reduce the higher wake losses
associated with larger project capacities by reducing power density.
However, even the OWFs with project capacities greater than 350 MW show a large variance in power
density, from 0.02 MW/acre to 0.04 MW/acre. This is reflected in the relatively low R2 value (0.5946).
2.3.4 Power Density Variance with Project Area
Plotting the power density as a function of the total area covered by WTGs in each OWF provided the
highest R2 value of any variable plotted, demonstrating a strongly negative relation between project
area and power density. This is shown in Table 4.
8
Table 4. Power Density as a Function of Project Area
0.100
0.090
0.080
0.070
0.060
0.050
0.040
0.030
0.020
0.010
R² = 0.8425
0.000
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
Project Area (Acres)
Table 4 also shows a step change in the power density of projects smaller and larger than 5,000 acres.
Furthermore, when projects below this size are excluded from the analysis, the average power density
falls to 0.03 MW/acre. The largest OWF in the sample set (Horns Rev 3) with an installed capacity of
406 MW and total area of 20,263 acres has a power density of just 0.02 MW/acre and was developed
by Vattenfall. Along with the Walney 2 project in the UK Irish Sea (which has a 0.019 MW/acre power
density and was designed by DONG), Horns Rev 3 is deemed to represent a well-designed WTG layout
informed by a good understanding of the wake effects that could be expected on such a large array. Both
DONG and Vattenfall have designed and built a number of large OWFs and have taken an active role in
the development of advanced wake models. Extending the trend line out to larger wind farm sizes implies
a reduction to even 0.015 MW/acre may be expected for very large projects in the future, although there
are insufficient data to make a robust prediction in this regard.
9
2.3.5 Specific Site Examples
Appendix D contains additional tables with further detail on those OWFs with similar power densities
but that vary in other characteristics such as age and installed capacity.
2.4 Recommendations
Since a clear trend emerged from the data regarding lower power densities with project size, from a peak
of nearly 0.09 MW/acre for a 64.8 MW project to less than 0.02 MW/acre for the largest OWFs currently
being planned (400 MWs and greater), a power density of between 0.02 and 0.03 MW/acre is deemed
reasonable for the Indicative WEAs. The minimum value is based on the power density of the largest and
latest project in the dataset (Horns Rev 3), and the maximum on the average power density of the OWFs
with areas greater than 5,000 acres.
However, European experience has shown that the power density of a sites usually increases as the
design phase progresses. This may be caused by detailed site assessments highlighting areas of the
seabed unsuitable for WTG siting, therefore reducing the available area, or by project sponsors choosing
significantly larger WTGs than was initially envisioned, thereby increasing the installed capacity. Both
result in a higher power density so an additional “packing factor” must be added (see section 5.2.3) to
allow for this. A power density of 0.01 MW/acre is therefore recommended to take into account the
packing factor and ensure the Areas for Consideration are prepared for future contingencies.
10
3 Inter-site Distance Review
3.1 Inter-site Distance and Turbine Layout Design
Wake losses generated by one OWF that affect one or more downwind OWFs are called “cumulative”
wake losses. Sufficient distance must be maintained between OWFs to allow wake effects from the
upwind sites to dissipate and wind flow to recover before reaching the subsequent farms.
Despite significant growth over the past 20 years, the European offshore wind industry has not adopted
a universally agreed-upon limit on the distance between neighboring OWFs to safeguard the downwind
resource, and consequently, the distances between sites vary considerably. The distances are governed
by the leasing and permitting process in each country.
In Germany and the Netherlands, many lease areas for OWF development have been located adjacent
to each other with relatively consistent spaces between them, giving project sponsors little scope to move
projects further apart. By contrast, in the UK, project sponsors have been allowed more choice over
where to locate projects, subject to an agreed minimum distance they must maintain between existing
developments. This situation, coupled with other reasons for requiring space between projects, such as
for navigation, has resulted in a large variance in inter-site distances in Europe.
3.2 Methodology
Prior to selecting which OWFs to include in the analysis, a high-level review of those analyzed for
Task 1 was carried out. The objective was to determine whether neighboring projects could be considered
separate OWFs, and therefore, eligible for the review, or merely extensions of existing projects, and
therefore ineligible.
The inter-site distance between pairs of wind farms was then calculated by taking the as-built or planned
WTG coordinates and measuring the distance in nautical miles (nm) between the closest WTGs.
11
3.2.1 Determination of Example Projects
An initial review of the same 300 European OWFs considered in the Power Density review was carried
out to identify pairs of OWFs located upwind/downwind of one another in the prevailing wind direction. 1
Pairs of sites with no clear buffer between them were rejected. Specifically, if the space between
neighboring sites was less than or equal to the turbine spacing within the upwind project, then the pair
was excluded from the analysis. Using this criterion, 18 OWFs were selected: six from the UK, eight
from Germany, two from Belgium, and two from Denmark. These are listed in Table 5.
Table 5. List of European Offshore Wind Farms Included in the Inter-site Distance Review
Offshore wind farm COD year Country Project capacity Nearest upwind OWF(s)
(MW)
Alpha Ventus 1 2010 Germany 30 Merkur Offshore
BARD Offshore 1 2013 Germany 400 VEJA MATE
Borkum Riffgrund 1 2015 Germany 308 Borkum West 2.1
Burbo Bank 2007 UK 90 Burbo Bank Ext
Dogger bank Teeside B* 2032 (planned) UK 1200 Creyke Beck A
Gwynt y Mor East 2015 UK 288 Gwynt y Mor West
Horns Rev 3* 2019 (planned) Denmark 407 Horns Rev 2
Hornsea 3* 2029 (planned) UK 2,400 Hornsea 2
Inner Dowsing 2009 UK 108 Lynn
Lincs 2013 UK 270 Inner Dowsing
Merkur Offshore* 2019 (planned) Germany 396 Bokrum West 2.1
Nobelwind (Belwind 2) 2017 Belgium 165 SeaStar
Nordsee 1 2017 Germany 332 Nordsee 3
Nordsee 2* 2033 (planned) Germany 295 Nordsee 3
Nordsee 3* 2033 (planned) Germany 369 Nordsee 1
Nordsee Ost 2015 Germany 295 Meerwind
Rodsand 1 2004 Denmark 166 Rodsand 2
Thornton Bank 2 2013 Belgium 185 Thornton Bank 3
* As-built WTG coordinates not available
Figure 2 shows a subset of the OWFs included in the review with Area for Consideration East and
West included for comparison.
12
Figure 2. Map of European Offshore Wind Farms Included in the Inter-site Distance Review
European OWF are in red. Area for Consideration East and West overlaid in blue.
3.2.2 Data
Twelve of the OWFs are operational. Where possible, inter-site distance was measured between the
closest WTGs on each site using the as-built WTG coordinates. If the as-built WTG coordinates
were unavailable, the distance was measured based on the site boundaries contained in publicly
available documents. The data collected for the power density (Task 1) review were also used to
define the site boundaries.
13
Six of the OWFs are in the planning stage. For these projects, the inter-site distance was based on the
site boundary provided in publicly available documents. These boundaries may include a buffer zone
of unused seabed or reflect an out-of-date layout that has since been abandoned. Therefore, the distances
measured for these OWFs may be less accurate than the distances for the operational wind farms.
3.3 Results
The average inter-site distance of the sample set is 1.1 nm. This figure drops to 0.8 nm if the largest
three OWFs are removed:
1. Hornsea 3 (2,400 MW) at 4.9 nm to nearest OWF

2. Forewind Teeside B (1,200 MW) at 2.2 nm
3. BARD (400 MW) at 1 nm
The average inter-site distance for these three OWFs is 2.7 nm.
Table 6 provides a summary in terms of both nautical miles (nm) and WTG rotor diameters.
Table 6. Summary of Inter-site Distances
Average installed Average distance to nearest WF

capacity (MW)
Subset
Nautical Miles Rotor Diameters*
All OWFs in sample (18) 409 1.1 14

3 largest OWFs (MW)* 1134 2.7 27
All excluding 3 largest 254 0.8 12
* Rotor diameter of upwind OWF.
3.3.1 Variance with OWF Characteristics
The inter-site distances between the OWF pairs are shown in Table 7. Distances range from 0.4 to 4.9 nm.
Table 8 shows the distance expressed in terms of the diameter of the WTGs in the upwind project. It is
commonplace for project sponsors to work in terms of rotor diameters when designing WTG layouts, and
it was anticipated that a rule of thumb expressed in such terms would have been used when determining
inter-site distances.
The relations between inter-site distance and each project’s (1) COD and (2) installed capacity are
shown in Table 9 and 10 respectively. The full list of results is contained in appendix E.
14
Table 7. Inter-site Distances (Nautical Miles)
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
Nautical Miles
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Table 8. Inter-site Distances (Rotor Diameters)
60.0
50.0
40.0
Rotor Diameter
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
15
Table 9. Inter-site Distance by COD
5.0
4.5
4.0
Inter-site Distance (nm)
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
R² = 0.0949
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Commercial Operation Date
Table 10. Inter-site Distance by Project Capacity
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
R2 = 0.026
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Project Capacity (MW)
16
3.4 Recommendations
Tables 7 and 8 show the wide variance in inter-site distance, albeit with the majority of OWFs having
a distance of 1.5 nm or less. The low R2 values in Tables 9 and 10 shows there is no statistical relation
between inter-site distance and either (1) COD or (2) installed capacity. This suggests that there is no
best practice or rule of thumb for site spacing adopted by project sponsors or permitting agencies across
the countries studied in Europe.
As explored in section 5, inter-site distances of less than roughly 40 rotor diameters are likely to result
in some reduction in array efficiency at the downwind OWF caused by wakes from the upwind farm,
with significant impacts occurring at distances of less than 20 rotor diameters. This implies that
project sponsors have either factored the impact of upwind wakes in their energy yield predictions,
or, more likely, have entered into a compensation agreement with the operator of the upwind
neighboring wind farm.
The two wind farms with a distance greater than 2 nm to their nearest neighbor (Teeside B and
Hornsea 3) are more than a decade away from their planned COD in the middle of the next decade and
are significantly larger than the other sites in the sample. The Hornsea 3 site has not yet been laid out,
and it is likely that the inter-site distance between Hornsea 3 and 2 will change as the project moves
through development. As a result, Hornsea 3 should be considered an outlier and its planned inter-site
distance is larger than the actual one after COD. However, Teeside B site is fully permitted, and although
the exact WTG locations may change between now and COD, it is unlikely that the inter-site distance
will change much.
Because of the size of the sites intended for the Areas for Consideration (800 MW), the 2.2 nm
inter-site distance between the two Dogger banks sites (Teeside B and Creyke Beck A) could be
considered a reasonable minimum distance to use when designing the layouts designs for the indicative
WEAs. However, it is anticipated that to reduce wake loss impacts on the downwind site to less than
1%, an inter-site distance of 4 nm would be required, and this is recommended as the base-case distance
to use during design of the indicative WTG layouts.
17
4 Base-Case WTG Layouts
Turbine layouts are required for sites of 800-MW installed capacity each in Area for Consideration
East and West, in order to inform the Indicative WEAs identified by NYSERDA. These are termed
the base-case layouts. A number of technical design drivers were used in the design of these layouts,
including the recommendations in sections 3 and 4 of this report regarding power density and inter-site
distance. The layouts are based on a generic 10-MW WTG, which was designed based on data from
existing offshore WTGs in the absence of any 10-MW WTGs currently in production.
4.1 Generic WTG Dimensions

Although the layouts are based on a 10-MW generic WTG, dimensions were also requested for the
following WTG size options: 8, 10, 12, and 15 MW. A summary of the methodology used, along with
the proposed WTG dimensions follows in 4.1.1.
4.1.1 Extrapolation of Existing WTG Dimensions
Dimensions for the 8-MW option are based on the existing MHI Vestas Offshore Wind (MVOW)
V164 8-MW WTG, which has already been installed at the UK’s operational Burbo Bank Extension
wind farm. Dimensions for the others were derived by analyzing the rotor/generator size in relation to
WTGs from 69 OWFs and extrapolating to meet the required generator capacity. This was done by
plotting rotor diameter against generator capacity and drawing a regression-fit line through the data.
The line was then extended out and the corresponding rotor sizes read off the line for 10, 12, and
15 MW generator sizes. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 11.
The UK consultancy Everoze Ltd reviewed the predicted dimensions and provided separate predictions
using a different methodology. Power curves were selected from a handful of modern WTGs of the size
of interest, and a generic power coefficient (Cp) curve was derived. The generic Cp curve was then used
to produce power curves for different rotor diameters, thereby allowing an estimate of rated capacity
versus rotor diameter. WTG manufacturers are known to start with a given rotor diameter and increase
the generator size over time, so a range of rotor diameters were derived by this method. Everoze’s
analysis agreed closely with the predicted dimensions.
18
Table 11. Rotor Diameter and Rated Capacity of WTGs
Dataset (Blue) and Extrapolated Data (Red)
4.1.2 Proposed Wind Turbine Dimensions
The proposed dimensions are presented in Table 12. The rotor diameters for the 10, 12, and 15 MW
WTGs represent a “middle case” design that is deemed likely to reflect the rotor diameter associated
with each model platform midway through its production lifetime.
The hub height and tip height were derived by first estimating the air gap between the bottom of the rotor
disc and the sea surface. The largest existing WTG, the MVOW V164-9.45 MW, has a quoted tip height
of 187 m and an air a gap of 23 m, giving a blade/air gap ratio of 0.14. The air gaps for the remaining
WTGs were chosen to maintain this ratio.
No analysis has been carried out as to whether fatigue loading issues may be associated with the hub
heights proposed for the WTGs in Table 12.
19
Table 12. Proposed Dimensions of the WTG Options
8 MW 10 MW 12 MW 15 MW
Rotor diameter (m) 164 177 194 217
Tip Height (m) 187 202 222 247
Hub Height (m) 105 113.5 125 138.5
Water to blade clearance (m) 23 25 28 30
Based on V164-8MW Extrapolation Extrapolation Extrapolation
Rotor/Air Gap ratio 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14
4.2 Indicative Wind Energy Area (WEA) Layouts

Indicative WTG layouts were created using the generic 10 MW WTG presented above, with a rotor
diameter of 177 m and a hub height of 110 m. This hub height was chosen due to the availability of
modelled wind data at this height, which is deemed close enough to the 113.5m stated in Exhibit 14
to have no significant effect on the wake results. Two site layouts of 800 MW each were created for
Area for Consideration East (named “D1” and “D2”). In Area for Consideration West, seven sites were
created under two different options: 4 x 800-MW and 3 x 800-MW sites (names “E1” to “E7”). These
are presented in Figures 3 and 4.
20
Figure 3. Site Areas for Area for Consideration West (Option 1) and East
East
West
21
Figure 4. Site areas for Area for Consideration West (Option 2) and East
West
4.2.1 Layout Design Drivers
The various design drivers used to create the layouts are presented in subsequent discussions, followed
by an analysis of the wake losses associated with the WTG layouts.
4.2.1.1 Power Density
Based on the results presented in section 3, a recommended power density of between 0.02 and 0.03
MW/acre was taken as the starting point. The lower value is based on the power density of the largest and
latest OWF reviewed (Horns Rev 3), which has a power density of 0.02 MW/acre and is considered to
22
represent industry best practice, given the experience of its designers and operators in the offshore wind
market. The WTG spacing associated with this density (13 D x 10 D) is generous. For comparison, the 27
European OWFs reviewed had an average downwind and crosswind spacing of 7.5 D and 5.9 D,
respectively.
However, in line with the recommendations of section 3.4, a power density of 0.01 MW/acre has been
used to inform decisions around the area required. Although lower than the majority of European OWFs
reviewed, this power density allows ample space for project sponsors to apply their own layout design
preferences, which is important, given these areas are at a much earlier stage of the planning process than
the European OWFs. This power density also allows for a “packing factor” as explained further in section
5.2.3. It is comparable to the power density of the Forewind Creyke Beck C and D wind farms (0.009
MW/Acre), which at 1,200 MW each are the largest consented OWFs to date and comparable in size to
the 800-MW sites proposed here. As such, 0.01 MW/acre is deemed a reasonable design driver for the
Indicative WEAs.
4.2.1.2 Shipping and Navigation
The Shipping and Navigation Study presents guidelines published by International Regulations for
Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS). A vessel’s captain is required to consider all navigation and
collision risks when determining an appropriate Closest Point of Approach (CPA) to another vessel, and a
CPA of 0.5 nm to 1 nm is considered acceptable under normal conditions, although this can be extended
in poor conditions to ensure safe passage. The New York State Offshore Wind Master Plan Shipping &
Navigation Study 2 recommends WEA setbacks of at least 1 nm from shipping and navigation lanes for
this reason.
While approaching a wind farm boundary presents its own risks to a mariner, passage between wind
farms requires additional considerations to avoid collision. The UK Maritime and Coast Guard Agency
(MCA) has issued Marine Guidance Note (MGN) 543 which highlights that a ship’s track could deviate
as much as 20 degrees or more during transit, and for a vessel transiting along a row of turbines, this
deviation could influence the minimal distance calculation. The U.S. Coast Guard has adopted previous
guidance from the MCA to develop a methodology to help classify potential impacts to safe navigation, 3
and may do the same with MGN 543. The inter-site distances for the Indicative WEAs were therefore
derived by applying the “20-degree” guidance illustrated in Figure 5.
23
Figure 5. Application of “20-Degree” Guidance to Inter-site Distance
4.2.1.3 Inter-site Distance
Given the lack of a clear trend between inter-site distance and the age, size, or layout of the OWF, as
presented in section 4.1, the design driver for inter-site distance was based on the recommendations
contained in NYSERDA’s Shipping and Navigation Study, as outlined previously. However, the
recommended minimum distance of 2.2 nm contained in section 4.4 was also considered.
For the sites in Area for Consideration East, an inter-site distance of 4.3 nm was used. For Area for
Consideration West, the distance was reduced to 3.8 nm since it was not possible to fit all sites into the
Area for Consideration boundary using 4.3 nm. In some cases, the 4.3 nm inter-site distance does not
reflect a strict adherence to the 20-degree guidance; however, given the size of the layouts and the scope
for WTGs larger than 10 MW to be adopted by project sponsors, it is considered a prudent distance to
apply in order to maintain sufficient distance, should such larger WTGs be used. Larger WTGs would
result in larger site areas being required to maintain the power density and would therefore reduce the
inter-site distances. Figure 6 shows the approach taken when defining inter-site distances.
24
Figure 6. Illustration of Inter-site Distance Measurement
4.2.2 Design Characteristics of Indicative WEA Layouts
A layout design tool was used to establish the inter-WTG spacing required to achieve the power densities
needed. A diagram showing wind direction, a wind rose, for each Area for Consideration was used to
inform the inter-row and inter-column spacing chosen. As shown in Figure 7, the wind roses for both
Area for Consideration East and West have a south-southwesterly prevailing wind direction; therefore, the
WTG rows were aligned to 200 degrees. A significant northwesterly component is also present; therefore,
ample spacing was allowed between WTG columns, as well as between WTG rows.
25
Figure 7. Wind Roses
For Area for Consideration West (Left) and East (Right) Used in the Modeling.
Based on the review of power density, inter-site distance, navigation design drivers, and the wind roses
for each zone, the indicative WEA layouts have the following common characteristics:
• Power density of 0.01 MW/acre for the 10 MW-177 m option.

• Turbine spacing of 13 rotor diameters (13 D) in the prevailing wind direction and 10 D in the
cross-wind direction for the 10 MW-177 m WTG option. This equates to a spacing of 11 D x 8
D for the 15 MW-217 m WTG option.
• Rows aligned perpendicular to a prevailing wind direction of 200 degrees, based on AWS
Truepower analysis.
• Site boundaries cut to aliquots, resulting in additional space (packing factor) of 15–20%.
• A minimum distance of 3.8 nm maintained between each 800-MW site through the application
of the 20-degree guidance to initial layout designs.
4.2.3 Packing Factor
The boundaries of the indicative WEAs were drawn to align with aliquot boundaries, to allow for an
additional “packing factor” area of between 15 and 20%. The packing factor ensures that an adequate
margin is applied during the planning stage in case some parts of the WEAs are found not to be unsuitable
for WTGs due to other constraints. When drawing the perimeter boundary to calculate the area and
therefore the power density for the layouts, the aliquots were used. The power density of the WEA areas
is therefore slightly lower than the 0.0125 MW/acre density of the actual WTG layouts in each WEA.
Figure 8 illustrates this for site E3 within Area for Consideration West. The yellow area is drawn between
perimeter WTGs and has a power density of 0.0125 MW/acre. The blue area is aligned with the aliquot
boundaries and in this example, represents a power density of 0.01 MW/acre. Aliquot area is 20% larger
than the perimeter area, representing a packing factor of 20% in this case.
26
Figure 8. Aliquot Area
(Blue) and Perimeter Area (Yellow) for Area for Consideration West, Site 3.
4.3 Wake Modeling of Indicative WEAs

Preliminary wake modeling of the 10 MW WTG layouts was performed to confirm that the wake losses
are acceptable, both for each site individually as well as taking into account the cumulative wake impacts
from upwind sites.
4.3.1 Methodology
Wake modeling was undertaken using the WASP 11 and FUGA 2 software applications. WASP is an
industry standard wind atlas application, and FUGA 2 is an industry leading offshore wake modeling
application with a proven track record in accurately predicting wake losses on large OWFs.4
The wind data used in the modeling was provided by AWS Truepower (AWST) via NYSERDA for
nominal locations within Area for Consideration East and Area for Consideration West, as per AWST’s
Metocean study. No variation in wind speed across the either Area for Consideration was assumed.
A roughness value of z0 = 0.0001 was used within FUGA 2, which is the manufacturer’s recommended
value for a typical offshore site with neutral atmospheric stability conditions. The value is the stability
state assumed in this study and while it is noted that more stable conditions may result in higher
wake losses, in the absence of site-specific atmospheric stability data, the recommended value
cannot be investigated.
27
A generic power curve was created for the 10-MW 177 m rotor WTG based on standard assumptions
around rotor diameter, thrust coefficient, and offshore turbulence intensity. The WTGs were modelled for
a 110 m hub height, and the neighboring sites were activated and de-activated within the model to enable
cumulative wake effects to be calculated. No other proposed OWFs were included in the wake modeling.
4.3.2 Turbine Layouts
The WTG layouts as modelled in WASP and FUGA are presented in Figures 9 and 10.
Figure 9. WTG Layouts for
Area for Consideration West (Option 1) and Area for Consideration East
East
West
(Option 1)
28
Figure 10. WTG Layouts for Area for Consideration West (Option 2)
4.3.3 Results
Table 13 shows the wakes calculated for each site in isolation and the wakes when all the other sites are
included in the modeling. The final column shows the difference between these two figures, representing
the increase in the wake effects caused by the upwind sites in each case. The variance in the “Wake Loss–
Stand-alone” column is driven solely by the orientation and shape of the layouts relative to the wind rose.
The variance in the “Increase due to neighboring sites” column is driven by the position of the sites
relative to each other and the wind rose.
Table 13. Wake Losses for Area for Consideration
West (Both Options) and Area for Consideration East Indicative WEA Layouts
West (Option 1) Wake Loss– Wake Loss– Increase due to

Inter-site distance: Stand-alone All sites included neighboring sites
3.8 nm
E1 4.0% 5.0% 1.0%
E2 4.3% 6.0% 1.7%
E3 5.0% 5.7% 0.7%
E4 4.7% 6.7% 2.0%
29
Table 13 Continued
West (Option 2) Wake Loss– Wake Loss– Increase due to

3.8 nm
E5 4.8% 5.5% 0.7%
E6 4.7% 6.5% 1.8%
E7 4.8% 5.8% 1.0%
East Wake Loss– Wake Loss– Increase due to

4.3 nm
D1 4.5% 5.1% 0.7%
D2 4.9% 5.9% 1.0%
4.4 Discussion
The indicative site layouts in the Area for Consideration report used a power density of 0.01 MW/acre,
resulting in inter-WTG spacing larger than that seen at many European OWF’s. This density allows for a
15–20% packing factor to account for unbuildable areas as well as provides ample space for project
sponsors to apply different layout designs. The use of an inter-site distance of 4 nm on average results in
negligible wake effects between neighboring sites, thereby maintaining efficient projects.
Wake losses of less than 10% are generally considered satisfactory, while wake losses greater than 12%
indicate excessively tight WTG spacing and would require justification from the project sponsor. The
stand-alone wake losses associated with the indicative site layouts appear reasonable given the size,
density, and orientation of the site layouts. This is principally due to the generous spacing applied in the
design of each site (13 D in the prevailing wind direction, 10 D in the cross-prevailing direction). Despite
the generous inter-site distances applied in the design (driven by the recommended minimum distance for
navigational purposes), the cumulative wake losses are significant in some cases and may warrant some
form of wake compensation agreement or negotiated by the project sponsors.
There is scope for project sponsors to use higher power densities and smaller inter-site distances than has
been assumed in the indicative WEAs, but a sensitivity analysis was deemed necessary in order to
understand at what point the wake losses associated with such changes become excessively high.
30
5 Sensitivity Analysis
A two-part sensitivity analysis was carried out to demonstrate the risk (in wake loss terms) of installing
the capacities of Area for Consideration East and West in smaller areas. The first part involved creating
additional WEA layouts for both East and West, with higher power densities than the indicative layouts
reported in section 5 (hereafter referred to as the “base-case” scenario layouts). The second involved
decreasing the inter-site distance. In total, layouts with three different power densities were created, with
a combination of three different inter-site distances, making a total of nine scenarios, of which one (the
base-case scenario) has already been modelled and reported in section 5. Wake loss calculations were
then performed for each scenario.
Table 14 provides an overview of the layout scenarios modelled. Area for Consideration East comprises
two sites of 800-MW installed capacity. Area for Consideration West comprises four sites of 800-MW
installed capacity, as per option 1 modelled in section 5. All layouts are presented in appendix F.
Table 14. Overview of Layout Scenarios Modelled in Sensitivity Analysis

3.8 (West) /
4.3 (East) 2.0 0.0
Power 0.01 Base case NEW NEW
Density 0.02 NEW NEW NEW
(MW/acre) 0.04 NEW NEW NEW
5.1 Design Characteristics of Additional Layouts

In order to control as many variables as possible, the same methodology detailed in section 5 was
followed in the sensitivity analysis. The same generic WTG with 10-MW rated capacity, 177 m rotor
diameter and 110 m hub height was assumed when creating the layouts, and the same input wind data
from AWST were used in the wake modeling. The same prevailing wind direction was assumed when
aligning WTG rows as previously, and the general shape and alignment of the layouts were maintained.
31
5.1.1 Power Density
The new power densities were chosen by referring to the findings of section 3. The medium-density
scenario (0.02 MW/acre) is based on the recommended density stated in section 3.5, which takes into
account the large (approximately 800 MW) size of the sites expected by NYSERDA. The power density
used in the high-density scenario (0.04 MW/acre) is the same as the average reported in section 3.4 and,
given the size of the sites expected by NYSERDA, is expected to produce losses by excessively high
wakes. This layout is shown in Figure 11.
Figure 11. Example Layout Design
Area for Consideration East, 0.02 MW/acre, 0 nm Buffer Scenario
The inter-WTG spacing used was as follows:
• 0.01 MW/acre scenario: 13 D between rows, 10 D between columns

• 0.02 MW/acre scenario: 10 D between rows, 8 D between columns
• 0.04 MW/acre scenario: 7.5 D between rows, 5.5 D between columns
For the new layouts, the site perimeters were not aligned with aliquots and, as such, no packing factor was
allowed for in the new site areas.
32
5.1.2 Inter-site Distance
For the largest inter-site distance scenario, the distance was kept at 4.3 nm between the sites within Area
for Consideration East, and 3.8 nm between the sites within Area for Consideration West, as per the base-
case modeling. This was done to control the inter-site variable, and therefore, allow a valid comparison of
the effect of different power densities on wakes, which would not be possible using a different inter-site
distance to that used in the base-case analysis from section 5.
For the medium-distance scenario, a distance of 2 nm was chosen for both East and West, based on the
recommendation in section 4.5. The shortest distance scenario (0 nm) has no buffer distance between sites
so the inter-site distance is equal to the inter-WTG distance in each site. These distances are as follows:
• 1.29 nm for 0.01 MW/acre scenarios

In the 0 nm scenarios the sites appear as one continuous project, as shown in Figure 11. Although this
concept is unlikely to be feasible due to the need for navigation channels, the scenario was conceived to
present the worst case from a cumulative wake-loss point of view. The lack of a buffer provides no
opportunity for the wakes from the upwind site to dissipate before impacting the downwind sites.
5.2 Wake Modeling

The same wake modeling methodology detailed in section 5 was followed. Neighboring sites were
activated and de-activated within FUGA to enable cumulative wake effects to be calculated as well as
stand-alone wakes. No other proposed OWFs were included in the wake modeling.
5.3 Results
A subset of results is presented in this section, along with bar charts to illustrate the trends seen. A full list
of the wake-loss results is provided in appendix G. Additional data on the WTG spacing, distance to
shore, and average water depth for each scenario is provided in appendix H.
33
5.3.1 Power Density Alone
Table 15. Graph of Stand-Alone Wake Losses for Each Site for Each Power Density Scenario
Table 15 presents the stand-alone wakes for all six sites for the base-case, inter-site distance. Each column
represents a different power density, and as expected, wake losses increase as power density increases.
The site-by-site trend is similar for each density, an outcome which is reasonable, given that the base-case
(low density) sites were essentially minimized to create the medium- and high-density versions, with no
changes made to the number of rows or columns. The variation in wake losses is purely driven by site
design, in terms of shape and number of rows. Stand-alone wake losses for the other inter-site distance
scenarios are identical or very similar and have therefore not been plotted here.
34
Table 16. Graph of Cumulative Wake Losses
For Area for Consideration East (Average of all Sites)
Base case
Table 17. Table of Cumulative Wake Losses
For Area for Consideration East (Average of Both Sites)

4.3 2.0 0.0
Power 0.01 5.50 % 6.03 % 6.23 %
Density 0.02 7.68 % 8.45 % 8.97 %
(MW/acre) 0.04 11.53 % 12.60 % 13.80 %
5.3.2 Power Density and Inter-site Distance
Tables 16 and 17 present the average cumulative wake losses for Area for Consideration East and show
clearly that wake losses increase as inter-site distance decreases. The relatively small increase in wake
losses from 2 nm to 0 nm for the lowest density scenarios is due to the 0 nm scenario actually having an
inter-site distance of 1.29 nm, very close to 2 nm. This is explained in more detail in section 6.1.2. In all
cases, the cumulative wakes at D1 are significantly less than at D2 given its position upwind of D2 in the
prevailing wind direction, which has the effect of pulling the average wake loss for the zone down.
35
Despite this, wake losses exceed 8% (which is deemed an acceptable level) in two of the medium-density
scenarios and all three of the high-density scenarios. If wake losses exceed 12%, they are likely to have a
significant impact on project returns, and as wake losses increase further, so too does the risk of excessive
fatigue loading on WTG components due to wake induced turbulence. This can reduce the lifetime of the
WTG and in extreme cases may result in WTG original equipment manufacturers (OEM) refusing to
provide a WTG warranty for a given layout. Wake losses for the 2 nm and 0 nm scenarios are considered
to fall within this category for the high-power density scenarios. For the medium- and low-power density
layouts, wake losses are still reasonable even with no buffer distance. This is likely due to the sufficiently
large inter-WTG spacing, which allows some dissipation of wakes between the two sites.
For Area for Consideration West (Average of All Sites)
Base case
36
Table 19. Table of Cumulative Wake Losses
For Area for Consideration West (Average of All Sites)

3.8 2.0 0.0
Power 0.01 5.85 % 6.21 % 7.44 %
Density 0.02 8.34 % 9.36 % 11.08 %
(MW/acre) 0.04 12.64 % 14.16 % 17.35 %
Tables 18 and 19 present the average cumulative wake losses for the Area for Consideration West sites.
Wake losses for all scenarios are higher than the Area for Consideration East sites. This is expected since
Area for Consideration West has double the number of sites as Area for Consideration East, and the inter-
site distance is 3.8 nm rather than 4.3 nm. Accordingly, wake losses for even the medium-power density
scenario exceed 10% when there is no buffer distance applied. The wake losses for all 0.04 MW/acre
scenarios are deemed excessively high.
For Area for Consideration West Sites for 0.04 MW/Acre Power Density
37
The Indicative WEA layouts presented in section 5 were designed with the intention of providing a a
situation in which all project sponsors have an equal chance of succeeding; this includes ensuring that no
site suffers significantly higher wake losses than the others. It is therefore important to consider the site-
specific cumulative wake losses, as well as the all-zone average for Area for Consideration West. Table
20 shows the highest density option for the site-specific cumulative wake losses for this area. It clearly
shows that site E4 suffers the highest wakes in all distance scenarios, as would be expected since it is
positioned downwind of one or more sites in all wind directions from south to northwest. The difference
between E4 and the other sites increases with smaller inter-site distance. For site E4, the cumulative wake
losses range from 6.7%for the lowest density/largest inter-site distance scenario to 20.5%for the highest
density/smallest inter-site distance scenario (a three-fold increase).
5.4 Impact on Net Capacity Factor

An offshore wind farm’s net yield and net capacity factor (NCF) are heavily influenced by wake losses,
which are typically the largest single loss factor contained in an energy yield estimate. To illustrate the
potential variance in NCF under various scenarios modelled in the sensitivity analysis, indicative annual
energy production (AEP) and NCF figures are presented in Table 21 for Site E4 in Zone E, based on the
following standard assumptions:
• 1 x 800-MW site, consisting of 80 No. “10-177” WTGs

• WTG and Balance of Plant (BoP) availability of 94% (standard assumption)
• Electrical losses of 3% (standard assumption, covering losses from the inter-array cables only,
and not including export cable losses)
• Wake losses (scenario-specific, shown in Table 21)
38
Table 21. Indicative AEP and NCF Values
For Area for Consideration West Site 4 Under Various Scenarios
Area for Consideration West, Site 4
0.01 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04

Scenario MW/acre, 3.8 MW/acre, MW/acre, MW/acre, MW/acre, 2 MW/acre, 0
nm 3.8 nm 2 nm 3.8 nm nm nm
Gross AEP
(GWh/yr) 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47
Wake loss
(%) 6.7 9.4 10.9 13.9 16.0 20.5
Net AEP
(GWh/yr) 2.92 2.83 2.79 2.69 2.62 2.48
NCF
(%) 41.6 40.4 39.7 38.4 37.4 35.4
The figures in Table 21 are for illustrative purposes only and do not consider additional losses that may
be applicable to the WEA or variance in wind speed across the sites. But the trend clearly shows the
impact on NCF from the higher wake losses associated with higher power densities and smaller
inter-site distances.
39
6 Conclusions
WTG layouts for the Indicative WEAs within Area for Consideration East and Area for Consideration
West have been created to inform the size and orientation of the indicative WEAs and Area for
Consideration, based on a review of the power density and inter-site distances at a sample of European
offshore wind farms with a range of design characteristics. The WTG spacing in the Indicative WEA
layouts accommodates the use of turbines up to 15 MW. Inter-site distances are 3.8 nm or larger,
informed by shipping and navigation guidelines aimed at preventing allisions between vessels and wind
farms. Wake modeling for the indicative WEA layouts shows the layouts to have relatively low-wake
losses individually, although cumulative wake losses from upwind sites are appreciable.
A sensitivity analysis has been performed for both East and West Areas to establish the risk in both wake
loss and net capacity factor terms of using higher power densities and smaller inter-site distances. Power
densities and closer inter-site distances similar to those seen in Europe were modelled, along with an
extreme case featuring no additional buffer space between the sites.
While stand-alone wake losses for each 800-MW site are generally reasonable, wake losses exceed what
is deemed sensible in the majority of cases when cumulative effects are considered. The results suggest
that cumulative wake losses are likely to exceed 8%if inter-site distance is reduced to 2 nm and power
density increased to 0.02 MW/acre; this is a sensible wake loss level in light of the uncertainties over the
shape of future developments. Pursuing even higher power densities and smaller inter-site distances is not
recommended if large impacts on project returns are to be avoided and downwind sites not penalized.
This analysis supports the design criteria used in the Indicative WEA layouts presented in section 5. The
generous inter-turbine and inter-site distances, coupled with the packing factor, assumed in the modeling
provides confidence that the proposed WEAs are protected for future use. The modeling also provides
assurance for the accommodation of significantly larger turbines in the WEAs and/or substantial
alterations to the WTG layouts by project sponsors who will later obtain leases to develop.
40
7 References
Niras Hjelmsted Consulting; The Renewables Consulting Group. (2017). NYSERDA Offshore Wind
Development Reference Case.
Technical University Denmark. (2011). Linearised CFD Models for Wakes. DTU Wind Energy.
Technical University of Denmark. (2014). Developments of the offshore wind turbine wake model Fuga.
DTU Wind Energy.
The Crown Estate. (2018, June). Marine Data Exchange. Retrieved from The Crown Estate's Marine Data
Exchange: http://www.marinedataexchange.co.uk/
The Renewables Consulting Group LLC. (2017). New York State Offshore Wind Master Plan. Shipping
and Navigation Study. New York: NYSERDA.
Walker, K., Adams, N., & Gribben, B. (2014). Predictive Accuracy of Wake Effects Models for Offshore
Wind Farms (OWA-W Stage 2 Bankability).
41
Appendix A. Map of Offshore Study Area Zones
A-1
Appendix B. Dataset for Power Density Review (All
Data)
Offshore Wind Farm Year of 1st Country Turbine Installed Area Density
Operation model Capacity (Acres) (MW/Acre)
(MW)
Kentish Flats 1 2005 UK V90-3.0 90 1977 0.046
SWT-3.6-
Burbo Bank 2007 UK 107 90 1483 0.061
SWT-3.6-
Lynn 2009 UK 107 86.4 1483 0.058
SWT-3.6-
Inner Dowsing 2009 UK 107 108 1730 0.062
Horns Rev 2 2009 Denmark SWT-2.3-93 209.3 7660 0.027
SWT-3.6-
Gunfleet Sands II 2010 UK 107 64.8 741 0.087
Alpha Ventus 1 2010 Germany RE-5.0-126 30 988 0.061
SWT-3.6-
Gunfleet Sands 2010 UK 107 108 1977 0.055
Belwind 1 2010 Belgium V90-3.0 165 2965 0.056
SWT-3.6-
Walney 1 2011 UK 107 183.6 5683 0.032
SWT-3.6-
Walney 2 2012 UK 120 183.6 9637 0.019
Thornton Bank 3 2013 Belgium 6.2M126 110.7 1730 0.064
Thornton Bank 2 2013 Belgium 6.2M126 184.5 2965 0.062
Bard-5.0-
BARD Offshore 1 2013 Germany 122 400 14085 0.028
SWT-3.6-
Meerwind 2014 Germany 120 288 9884 0.029
SWT-3.6-
West of Duddon Sands 2014 UK 120 388.8 14826 0.026
Borkum West 2.1 2015 Germany M5000-116 200 3954 0.051
Nordsee Ost 2015 Germany 6.2M126 295.2 8649 0.034
SWT-4.0-
Borkum Riffgrund 1 2015 Germany 120 308 8896 0.035
Nobelwind (Belwind 2) 2017 Belgium V112-3.3 165 5683 0.029
Burbo Bank Extension 2017 UK V164-8.06 257.92 7907 0.033
Nordsee 1 2017 Germany 6.2M126 332.1 7907 0.042
SWT-6.0-
Gode Wind 1 2017 Germany 154 330 9637 0.034
SWT-6.0-
Gode Wind 2 2017 Germany 154 252 6672 0.038
B-1
SWT-6.0-
Galloper 2018 UK 154 336 18039 0.019
Merkur Offshore 2019 Germany GE-6.0-150 396 9637 0.041
Horns Rev 3 2019 Denmark V164-8.3 406.7 20263 0.020
All Average (27*) 0.043
UK Average (11*) 0.045
EU Average (16*) 0.041
All Average
(2011 onwards) (18*) 0.035
UK Average
(2011 onwards) (5*) 0.026
EU Average
(2011 onwards) (13*) 0.039
* Number of offshore wind farms in sample
B-2
Appendix C. Dataset for Power Density Review (>5,000
Acres)
Offshore Wind Farm Year of 1st Country Turbine Model Installed Capacity Area Density
Operation (MW) (Acres) (MW/Acre)
Walney 1 2011 UK SWT-3.6-107 183.6 5683 0.032
Nobelwind (Belwind 2) 2017 Belgium V112-3.3 165 5683 0.029
Horns Rev 2 2009 Denmark SWT-2.3-93 209.3 7660 0.027
Burbo Bank Extension 2017 UK V164-8.06 257.92 7907 0.033
Nordsee 1 2017 Germany 6.2M126 332.1 7907 0.042
Nordsee Ost 2015 Germany 6.2M126 295.2 8649 0.034
Borkum Riffgrund 1 2015 Germany SWT-4.0-120 308 8896 0.035
Walney 2 2012 UK SWT-3.6-120 183.6 9637 0.019
Merkur Offshore 2019 Germany GE-6.0-150 396 9637 0.041
Meerwind 2014 Germany SWT-3.6-120 288 9884 0.029
BARD Offshore 1 2013 Germany Bard-5.0-122 400 14085 0.028
West of Duddon Sands 2014 UK SWT-3.6-120 388.8 14826 0.026
Galloper 2018 UK SWT-6.0-154 336 18039 0.019
Horns Rev 3 2019 Denmark V164-8.3 406.7 20263 0.020
Gode Wind 1 2017 Germany SWT-6.0-154 330 9637 0.034
Gode Wind 2 2017 Germany SWT-6.0-154 252 6672 0.038
All Average (16*) 0.030
UK Average (5*) 0.026
EU Average (11*) 0.033
* Number of offshore wind farms in sample
C-1
Appendix D. Additional Charts (Power Density)
Power density as a function of the wind farm area, with names of highest and lowest density OWFs added.
D-1
Power density as a function of year of operation, with names of newest OWFs added.
D-2
Appendix E. Dataset for Inter-Site Distance Review (All Data)
Offshore Wind Farm Year of Country Installed Nearest Upwind Year of 1st Installed Distance to Distance to
1st Capacity Wind Farm Operation Capacity nearest WF nearest WF
Operation (MW) (MW) (nm) (Rotor
Diameters)
Alpha Ventus 1 2010 Germany 30 Merkur Offshore 2019* 396 0.5 6.0
BARD Offshore 1 2013 Germany 400 VEJA MATE 2017 402 1.0 12.3
Borkum Riffgrund 1 2015 Germany 308 Borkum West 2.1 2015 200 0.4 5.3
Burbo Bank 2007 UK 90 Burbo Bank Ext 2017 258 0.8 9.1
Dogger bank Teeside B 2032* UK 1200 Creyke Beck A 2025 1200 2.2 18.3
Gwynt y Mor East 2015 UK 288 Gwynt y Mor West 2015 288 0.5 5.7
Horns Rev 3 2019* Denmark 407 Horns Rev 2 2009 209 1.3 25.8
Hornsea 3 2029* UK 2400 Hornsea 2 2024 1800 4.9 51.3
Inner Dowsing 2009 UK 108 Lynn 2009 86 1.3 22.4
Lincs 2013 UK 270 Inner Dowsing 2009 108 0.7 12.1
Merkur Offshore 2019* Germany 396 Bokrum West 2.1 2015 200 0.4 5.3
Nobelwind (Belwind 2) 2017 Belgium 165 SeaStar 2025 245 0.5 4.8
Nordsee 1 2017 Germany 332 Nordsee 3 2033* 369 0.4 3.7
Nordsee 2 2033* Germany 295 Nordsee 3 2033* 369 0.9 7.6
Nordsee 3 2033* Germany 369 Nordsee 1 2017 332 0.5 7.9
Nordsee Ost 2015 Germany 295 Meerwind 2014 288 0.5 8.3
Rodsand 1 2004 Denmark 166 Rodsand 2 2010 207 1.9 37.6
Thornton Bank 2 2013 Belgium 185 Thornton Bank 3 2013/2009 111/30 0.9 13.5
AVERAGE 1.1 14.3
E-1
Appendix F. Site Layouts
Scenario 1: 0.01 MM/acre, 4.3 / 3.8 nm inter-site distance.
F-1
Scenario 2: 0.01 MM/acre, 2.0 nm inter-site distance.
F-2
Scenario 3: 0.01 MM/acre, 0 nm inter-site distance.
F-3
F-4
F-5
F-6
F-7
F-8
F-9
Appendix G. Wake Analysis Results
(“Cumu” = cumulative wakes, from all sites)
0.01 MW/acre (OLD)

4 nm 2 nm 0 nm
Site Alone Cumu Inc Alone Cumu Inc Alone Cumu Inc
E1 4.00% 5.00% 1.00% 3.75% 5.23% 1.48% 3.91% 6.19% 2.28%
E2 4.30% 6.00% 1.70% 4.11% 6.53% 2.42% 4.17% 8.05% 3.88%
E3 5.00% 5.70% 0.70% 4.71% 5.85% 1.14% 4.73% 6.72% 1.99%
E4 4.70% 6.70% 2.00% 4.41% 7.24% 2.83% 4.50% 8.80% 4.30%
Average 4.50% 5.85% 1.35% 4.25% 6.21% 1.97% 4.33% 7.44% 3.11%
D1 4.50% 5.10% 0.60% 4.39% 5.52% 1.13% 4.38% 5.69% 1.31%
D2 4.90% 5.90% 1.00% 4.61% 6.53% 1.92% 4.61% 6.76% 2.15%
Average 4.70% 5.50% 0.80% 4.50% 6.03% 1.53% 4.50% 6.23% 1.73%
0.02 MW/acre
4 nm 2 nm 0 nm
E1 5.79% 7.45% 1.66% 5.79% 8.21% 2.42% 5.79% 9.27% 3.48%
E2 5.94% 8.60% 2.66% 5.94% 9.88% 3.94% 5.94% 11.99% 6.05%
E3 6.74% 7.90% 1.16% 6.74% 8.46% 1.72% 6.74% 9.85% 3.11%
E4 6.46% 9.42% 2.96% 6.46% 10.87% 4.41% 6.46% 13.21% 6.75%
Average 6.23% 8.34% 2.11% 6.23% 9.36% 3.12% 6.23% 11.08% 4.85%
D1 6.21% 7.26% 1.05% 6.21% 7.89% 1.68% 6.21% 8.40% 2.19%
D2 6.25% 8.10% 1.85% 6.25% 9.01% 2.76% 6.25% 9.54% 3.29%
Average 6.23% 7.68% 1.45% 6.23% 8.45% 2.22% 6.23% 8.97% 2.74%
G-1
0.04 MW/acre
4 nm 2 nm 0 nm
E1 9.21% 11.51% 2.30% 9.21% 12.68% 3.47% 9.21% 14.55% 5.34%
E2 9.57% 13.18% 3.61% 9.57% 15.18% 5.61% 9.57% 19.12% 9.55%
E3 10.35% 11.93% 1.58% 10.35% 12.74% 2.39% 10.35% 15.18% 4.83%
E4 9.91% 13.93% 4.02% 9.91% 16.04% 6.13% 9.91% 20.54% 10.63%
Average 9.76% 12.64% 2.88% 9.76% 14.16% 4.40% 9.76% 17.35% 7.59%
D1 9.65% 10.96% 1.31% 9.65% 11.84% 2.19% 9.65% 12.90% 3.25%
D2 9.72% 12.10% 2.38% 9.72% 13.35% 3.63% 9.72% 14.70% 4.98%
Average 9.69% 11.53% 1.85% 9.69% 12.60% 2.91% 9.69% 13.80% 4.12%
G-2
Appendix H. Additional Layout Data
Power Density Distance Between Zone Site Mean Depth Closest Distance to Closest Distance to NJ
(MW/Acre) Sites (NM) (MSL) NY Shore (NM) Shore (NM)
0.01 0 D D1 -50.18 25 43
0.01 0 D D2 -52.97 26 46
0.01 0 E E1 -36.33 38 22
0.01 0 E E2 -35.80 41 24
0.01 0 E E3 -41.74 63 29
0.01 0 E E4 -38.58 57 35
0.01 2 D D1 -49.72 26 43
0.01 2 D D2 -53.23 25 47
0.01 2 E E1 -36.16 37 21
0.01 2 E E2 -37.98 39 25
0.01 2 E E3 -43.31 65 29
0.01 2 E E4 -39.85 58 36
0.01 4.3 D D1 -49.76 27 42
0.01 4.3 D D2 -53.10 25 48
0.01 3.8 E E1 -35.92 36 20
0.01 3.8 E E2 -39.34 37 25
0.01 3.8 E E3 -44.23 67 29
0.01 3.8 E E4 -40.98 58 37
0.02 0 D D1 -50.49 27 46
0.02 0 D D2 -52.49 25 47
0.02 0 E E1 -36.92 47 26
0.02 0 E E2 -34.99 47 27
0.02 0 E E3 -39.31 64 31
0.02 0 E E4 -36.69 58 35
0.02 2 D D1 -50.34 28 46
H-1
0.02 2 D D2 -52.86 24 48
0.02 2 E E1 -37.02 47 25
0.02 2 E E2 -36.32 46 28
0.02 2 E E3 -42.32 65 30
0.02 2 E E4 -37.73 60 36
0.02 4.3 D D1 -50.41 29 46
0.02 4.3 D D2 -52.79 24 49
0.02 3.8 E E1 -37.08 46 24
0.02 3.8 E E2 -37.78 43 28
0.02 3.8 E E3 -44.21 67 30
0.02 3.8 E E4 -38.96 60 37
0.04 0 D D1 -50.32 28 47
0.04 0 D D2 -52.04 26 48
0.04 0 E E1 -35.26 53 29
0.04 0 E E2 -34.86 53 29
0.04 0 E E3 -35.96 63 32
0.04 0 E E4 -35.63 60 35
0.04 2 D D1 -50.17 29 48
0.04 2 D D2 -52.07 25 49
0.04 2 E E1 -35.55 52 28
0.04 2 E E2 -35.62 51 30
0.04 2 E E3 -38.97 65 32
0.04 2 E E4 -35.90 61 36
0.04 4.3 D D1 -49.64 29 47
0.04 4.3 D D2 -51.54 24 49
0.04 3.8 E E1 -37.08 51 27
0.04 3.8 E E2 -36.50 49 31
0.04 3.8 E E3 -42.25 67 31
0.04 3.8 E E4 -36.04 62 37
H-2
Endnotes
1 The prevailing wind direction was assumed to be southwesterly, based on data from a number of offshore met masts
that are publicly available on the Marine Data Exchange.
2 NYSERDA (2017). New York State Offshore Wind Master Plan. Shipping and Navigation Study. Report 17-25q.
Prepared by: The Renewables Consulting Group LLC. New York.
3 USCG Marine Planning Guidelines.
4 http://orbit.dtu.dk/files/6354851/ris-r-1772.pdf
http://orbit.dtu.dk/files/118472784/DTU_Wind_Energy_E_0046.pdf
EN-1
NYSERDA, a public benefit corporation, offers objective
information and analysis, innovative programs,
technical expertise, and support to help New Yorkers
increase energy efficiency, save money, use renewable
energy, and reduce reliance on fossil fuels. NYSERDA
professionals work to protect the environment
and create clean-energy jobs. NYSERDA has been
developing partnerships to advance innovative energy
solutions in New York State since 1975.
To learn more about NYSERDA’s programs and funding opportunities,

visit nyserda.ny.gov or follow us on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, or
Instagram.
New York State toll free: 866-NYSERDA

Energy Research and local: 518-862-1090
Development Authority fax: 518-862-1091
17 Columbia Circle [email protected]

Albany, NY 12203-6399 nyserda.ny.gov
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
Richard L. Kauffman, Chair | Alicia Barton, President and CEO

Analysis Potential Turbine Layouts Spacing Between Wind Farms PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysis Potential Turbine Layouts Spacing Between Wind Farms PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysis Potential Turbine Layouts Spacing Between Wind Farms PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysis of Turbine Layouts and

Spacing Between Wind Farms for

NYSERDA Report 18-20 NYSERDA Contract 111248 August 2018

• Review of power densities for a selection of European OWFs

2.2.3 Power Density Trend Analysis

2.3.1 Power Density Variance with Wind Turbine Rated Capacity

Table 1. Power Density as a Function of WTG Rated Capacity

2.3.3 Power Density Variance with Project Capacity

2.3.4 Power Density Variance with Project Area

1. Hornsea 3 (2,400 MW) at 4.9 nm to nearest OWF

Table 6. Summary of Inter-site Distances

Average installed Average distance to nearest WF

Nautical Miles Rotor Diameters*

All OWFs in sample (18) 409 1.1 14

3.3.1 Variance with OWF Characteristics

Table 8. Inter-site Distances (Rotor Diameters)

Table 10. Inter-site Distance by Project Capacity

4.1 Generic WTG Dimensions

4.1.1 Extrapolation of Existing WTG Dimensions

Dataset (Blue) and Extrapolated Data (Red)

4.1.2 Proposed Wind Turbine Dimensions

Rotor/Air Gap ratio 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14

4.2 Indicative Wind Energy Area (WEA) Layouts

4.2.1 Layout Design Drivers

4.2.1.1 Power Density

4.2.1.2 Shipping and Navigation

4.2.1.3 Inter-site Distance

4.2.2 Design Characteristics of Indicative WEA Layouts

• Power density of 0.01 MW/acre for the 10 MW-177 m option.

4.2.3 Packing Factor

4.3 Wake Modeling of Indicative WEAs

4.3.2 Turbine Layouts

Figure 9. WTG Layouts for

Table 13. Wake Losses for Area for Consideration

West (Option 1) Wake Loss– Wake Loss– Increase due to

West (Option 2) Wake Loss– Wake Loss– Increase due to

East Wake Loss– Wake Loss– Increase due to

Table 14. Overview of Layout Scenarios Modelled in Sensitivity Analysis

Inter-site Distance (nm)

5.1 Design Characteristics of Additional Layouts

Figure 11. Example Layout Design

Area for Consideration East, 0.02 MW/acre, 0 nm Buffer Scenario

The inter-WTG spacing used was as follows:

• 0.01 MW/acre scenario: 13 D between rows, 10 D between columns

• 1.29 nm for 0.01 MW/acre scenarios

5.2 Wake Modeling

For Area for Consideration East (Average of all Sites)

Table 17. Table of Cumulative Wake Losses

For Area for Consideration East (Average of Both Sites)

Inter-site Distance (nm)

5.3.2 Power Density and Inter-site Distance

Table 18. Graph of Cumulative Wake Losses

For Area for Consideration West (Average of All Sites)

For Area for Consideration West (Average of All Sites)

Inter-site Distance (nm)

Table 20. Graph of Cumulative Wake Losses

5.4 Impact on Net Capacity Factor

• 1 x 800-MW site, consisting of 80 No. “10-177” WTGs

For Area for Consideration West Site 4 Under Various Scenarios