Energy 153 (2018) 12e16

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Rebuttal letter to the article entitled: “Spatial planning to estimate the

offshore wind energy potential in coastal regions and islands. Practical
case: The Canary Islands”
Ricardo Guerrero-Lemus a, *, Ignacio de la Nuez b, Benjamín Gonza

lez-Díaz c
a
Departamento de Física, Universidad de La Laguna, Avenida Astrofísico Francisco Sa
nchez S/N, 38206, S/C de Tenerife, Spain
b
nica y Automa
Departamento de Ingeniería Electro
tica, Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Campus Universitario de Tafira, 35010, Las Palmas de
Gran Canarias, Spain
c
nchez S/N, 38206, S/C de Tenerife, Spain
Departamento de Ingeniería Industrial, Universidad de La Laguna, Avenida Astrofísico Francisco Sa

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

Article history: The objective of this rebuttal letter is to provide a critical analysis of the article entitled “Spatial planning
Available online 6 April 2018 to estimate the offshore wind energy potential in coastal regions and islands. Practical case: The Canary
Islands” [Energy 143 (2018) 91e103], mainly in relation to its methodology, suitable marine areas and
Keywords: electricity production costs. The absence of basic considerations about the characteristics of the insular
Offshore wind power grids, the composition of the electricity costs in the Canary Islands, and the lack of rigor in some
Canary islands
assumptions related to visibility constraints, offshore costs, integration costs, the mixing of data from
Cost analysis
different time periods and the references used, provides unrealistic and useless results for a necessary
Wind energy
debate about the potential of offshore wind energy in the Canary Islands. In this rebuttal letter we will
also demonstrate that the potential offshore wind capacity calculated by the authors is much lower.
Moreover, the assertion that the electricity cost from offshore wind calculated by the authors is lower
than the current electricity cost is wrong and, in fact, the cost of electricity from offshore wind is higher
in the time period when the analysis was made, and also at present.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction government [2].

Electricity from offshore wind energy is growing substantially
around the world (14,086.3 MW in 2016 [1]), mainly in developed
countries with marine territorial areas where a shallow continental
platform permits the placement of such devices not interfering
with other marine activities and avoiding substantial environ-
mental concerns.
In Canary Islands, the debate about the location of offshore wind
farms in future is growing because of the limited surface available
onshore. There exists a growing desire for achieving a 100% elec-
tricity production from renewable resources, but also a growing
concern about the location of wind farms onshore and the envi-
ronmental impact associated for islands economically based on
touristic activities. Then, the option of moving the future wind
farms to marine locations is being promoted by the regional
The article entitled “Spatial planning to estimate the offshore
wind energy potential in coastal regions and islands. Practical case:
The Canary Islands” [3] attempts to answer the question about the
potential of offshore wind energy in the Canary Islands and elec-
tricity cost associated. However, the absence of basic considerations
about the characteristics of the insular power grids involved, the
composition of the electricity costs, and lack of rigor in some as-
sumptions related to visibility constraints, offshore costs, integra-
tion costs, the mixing of data from different time periods and the
references used provides unrealistic and useless results and con-
clusions for a necessary debate about the potential of offshore wind
energy in the Canary Islands. Also, the cited Energy Strategy of the
Canary Islands is a draft paper still under preliminary discussion
[2], and it is being revised after the allegations of different entities.
Below we will explain in more detail our assertions by means of
the same sections as the article rebutted.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: rglemus@ull.edu.es (R. Guerrero-Lemus).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.03.091
0360-5442/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 R. Guerrero-Lemus et al. / Energy 153 (2018) 12e16 13

2. Suitable marine areas

It is not understandable how the authors select a maximum

bathymetry of 500 m for the study but, in parallel, the floating wind
turbines selected for the cost analysis are restricted to a maximum
125 m water depth. Also, none of the previous analyses reported by
the authors consider water depths larger than 200 m. The authors
justify this selection as they expect this article to serve as a long-
term energy planning instrument (until 2050 and beyond),
expecting also that in future the floating offshore turbines will
operate in up to 500 m depths. However, the wind turbine selected
for the study is currently in service in one of the Canary Islands
(Gran Canaria) and the article is not providing any insight about the
long-term evolution of the offshore wind turbines technology, Fig. 2. New protected areas proposed by the Spanish Government to be added to the
when the average turbine sizes for new projects globally are ex- Canary Islands protected coasts in 2019 [11].

pected to increase from about 4 MW in 2016 to almost 8 MW in

2022 [4].
ecosystems located in these areas. Of course, these affections do not
Also, visibility constraints limited to 1 km in the work are not
exclude offshore wind energy, but increases the cost of any offshore
understandable, as coastal areas are very sensitive for the Canary
wind farm project to avoid any environmental impact maybe to the
Islands economy. Indeed, 13.1 million international tourist visited
point of making it unprofitable.
the Canary Islands only in 2016 [5]. Thus, many of the most favor-
Then, the planned areas for offshore wind farms in the Canary
able coasts, where substations are close to the shore, are also urban
Islands (Fig. 3) that were considered in this work for reaching the
areas mostly devoted to touristic activities and nautical sports.
57.23 GW offshore power that could be installed, and based in a
Moreover, the Canary Islands have a very high population density
previous work produced at Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran
(289 inhabitants/km2 [6,7]), mostly placed in coastal areas, as these
Canaria [12], are not properly considered and the cost of many of
are more suitable for economic activities. Additionally, a substantial
them may increase considering environmental actions to prevent
share of the island’s surface (40.45% [8]), covering most of the
affections to the ecosystems located in them.
unpopulated coast, is environmentally protected. We consider that
a good approximation for considering visibility constraints should
be to apply some of the intern boundary restrictions that the au- 3. Wind farm configuration and turbines placement
thors found in the literature and exposed in Table 1 to coastal urban
areas and coastal protected areas. It is important to note that the authors do not consider buffers
It is also important to mention that Canary Islands territorial
waters are strongly protected by the European Union in Red
NATURA2000 [9,10] and it is expected that this protection will in-
crease in the near future [11]. These protection areas were updated
in 2011 [11] and have been not properly considered in this paper.
For example, all the north of La Gomera is ZEPA (Special Protection
Zone for Birds) is protected (Fig. 1) [9], contradicting the planning of
offshore wind farms exposed in Fig. 6 and the spatial restrictions of
Table 2 of the paper rebutted.
Moreover, based in the INDEMARES project [11], the Spanish
Government is planning to add two new protected areas in 2019 to
the Red NATURA 2000 (Fig. 2) that, added to the previous protected
areas, will prevent almost all the coastal areas surrounded by
Fuerteventura and Lanzarote to be considered for offshore wind Fig. 3. Planned areas for the off-shore wind farms considered in the previous works
[3,12].
without environmental actions to prevent any affection to the

Fig. 1. ZEPA (Special Protection Zone for Birds) areas in the Canary Islands [9].
14 R. Guerrero-Lemus et al. / Energy 153 (2018) 12e16
between neighboring wind farms, usually estimated at about
2e20 km [13,14]. It should be necessary to limit and relate the
different marine areas where the offshore wind turbines will be
placed to the coastal areas that will be supplied by electricity and
the substations currently placed inland.
The turbine considered for the article is the G128-5.0 MW
supplied by Gamesa (currently Siemens-Gamesa) [15], character-
ized by a hub height of 80 m and rotor diameter of 128 m. The
authors choose a downwind distance of 12 diameters and a cross-
wind distance of 4 diameters (12D x 4D). If we avoid any consid-
eration about buffers between neighboring wind farms and
consider a rectangular cell placing a turbine in each corner, a ma-
rine surface density of (5 MW/[4
12
0.1282km2]) 6.36 MW/km2
is obtained. For example, Hywind 2 (Scotland) has 5 turbines
(6 MW each) and occupies 15 km2 [16], reaching 2 MW/km2.
However, in Table 9 of the article the authors reach an average array
density of turbines in the Canary Islands of 14.5 MW/km2, result
notably high by their own input data and comments. If we consider
the 6.36 MW/km2, the expected total power installed would be
about 25,100 MW instead of the 57,225 MW reported by the au-
thors. Maybe some discrepancies can be due to the fact that many
towers are placed in the limits of the area defined for offshore wind
farms [12]. However, this procedure will also be wrong as the tur-
bines should be placed at a sensible distance from the limits to
avoid disturbances form other activities placed outside future new
offshore wind farms placed at larger depths. Cooperative ap-
proaches between neighboring offshore activities are being pro-
posed for minimizing future disturbances and maximizing profits
[17]. Moreover, the Spanish legislation [18] considers that the sur-
face affected by a marine concession for offshore wind farms cannot
be arbitrary but must be defined in rectangles with side lengths
multiple of tens of a second in latitude and longitude (~309.18 m)
[19]. This legal constrain substantially reduces the power density in
the marine areas defined by the authors.
4. Electricity production from wind energy
The authors expose that the strong seasonal behavior of wind in
Canary Islands (much stronger in summer than in winter) leads to
increase in storage needs. Evaluating these storage needs is
fundamental for estimating the electricity cost based in wind en-
ergy, as the current experience in one of the Canary Islands power
system (El Hierro) can show [20,21]. There is also a daily pattern in
wind energy, stronger in daylight time and softer at night, as we
have exposed in a recent paper [22]. However, the authors avoid
introducing storage costs in their calculations for obtaining the
potential offshore wind capacity in the Canary Islands.
Moreover, in Fig. 7 of the article the monthly variation of the
wind resource is depicted, but the represented values are from only
one year (1998). This data set is not representative for the aim of the
study if the authors expect that this work will serve as a long-term
planning instrument (until 2050 and beyond). In order to accom-
plish this statement, a description of the wind speeds and profiles
evolution until 2050 is required as it has been performed by other
authors in a similar study [23]. Thus, the wind evolution in Canary
Island have been previously reported [24], assuming different
scenarios according to the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 greenhouse gas
scenarios. In both scenarios, the results reveal a midterm and long-
term remarkable decrease of the wind speed in the selected areas
for the wind power farms.
5. Electricity production costs from wind energy
The authors consider CAPEX (3750 EUR/kW for bottom-fixed
turbines and 4600 EUR/kW for floating turbines) and yearly OPEX
values (112.5 EUR/kW for bottom-fixed turbines and 138 EUR/kW
for floating turbines) without exposing any methodology for
obtaining such values. They also consider that the decommission-
ing costs are negative due to the price of steel scrap and, in a very
simplistic exercise, decide not to add these costs or benefits to the
calculations. However, the same CAPEX and OPEX values are used
in another work [12] produced by the second author and co-
mentored by the first author, and it is based on the data exposed
in Ref. [25] for the Jacket and WindFloat prototypes. Nevertheless,
the characteristics of the reference scenario used in Ref. [25] for
calculating the CAPEX and OPEX of the Jaket and WindFloat pro-
totypes is completely different than the one used by the authors in
terms of years of operation (20 yr.), number of turbines (100), water
depth (30 m for bottom-fixed and 200 m for floating), year of
commissioning (2018), installed capacity (500 MW), water depth
for floating concepts (200 m), water depth for bottom-fixed con-
cepts (30 m), distance to port and grid connection (200 km),
average wind speed at hub height (10 m/s), and homogeneous
medium clay as soil conditions.
We propose to obtain much more rigorous data from the System
Advisor Model (SAM) developed by NREL [26], as in other works
[12]. Thus, as the authors consider the turbine model
G128e5.0 MW (Gamesa), it is an appropriate option to consider the
NREL 5 MW Offshore Reference offered by SAM in the turbine’s li-
brary (similarly to other authors [25]) and the offshore balance-of-
system model [27] for this purpose. Then, we use the CAPEX value
defined by defect for a 120 m depth floating turbine in a 160 MW
wind farm but reducing the distance to landfall to 5 km. It results
5755.71 USD/kW, substantially above the value considered in this
paper. Moreover, as the capacity installed in some Canary Islands is
small, it is important to consider the economies of scale that are
involved for the different insular power systems if no in-
terconnections between them are proposed (as it is the case
because of technical difficulties, as there exists a seabed deeper
than 3000 m in most areas between islands). Then, if we install a
10 MW floating wind farm (near equivalent to the current capacity
installed in El Hierro) the CAPEX rises to 18,439.61 USD/kW. Also
for bottom-fixed turbines at 40 m maximum water depth the
CAPEX value for a 160 MW wind farm is 4664.56 USD/kW, and for a
10 MW wind farm is 16,239.17 USD/kW. Increasing the maximum
water depth from 120 m to 500 m means a 11.5% increase in BOS
costs. A graph showing the maxima power peak reached in the
different Canary Islands power grids and the economies of scale
between the total installed cost and number of turbines considered
for the wind farm using the SAM software is exposed in Fig. 4. The
offshore wind turbine considered is semisubmersible, placed at
120 m maximum water depth, drag embedment, 3 mooring lines, a
distance of 5 km to landfall and a distance of 90 km from the
inshore assembly area to site.
Moreover, the electricity generation of offshore wind is usually
estimated 10e15% lower than the energy calculation based on po-
wer curves from wind turbines, due to electrical losses in the
transformers and cabling, and the wind turbine downtime for
schedule maintenance or technical failure [28]. However, the au-
thors have decided to calculate the electricity production from
wind energy without considering any losses because they consider
that the potential offshore wind energy is so high in comparison to
demand, that “a 10% generation reduction practically does not
affect the analysis of results”. This is an unfortunate assertion for a
scientific paper, and no power utility is expected to ignore a 10e15%
generation reduction.
There are also important inconsistencies about time periods
used when the authors consider electricity prices from 2014,
electricity demand values from 2015, installed conventional and
renewable capacity and energy produced from 2016, CAPEX and
 R. Guerrero-Lemus et al. / Energy 153 (2018) 12e16 15

30000

25000

Total installed cost per kW (USD)

20000

15000

Fuerteventura

Gran Canaria
Lanzarote
10000

Tenerife
La Gomera

La Palma
El Hierro

5000

0
10 100
number of 5 MW wind turbines
(related to maximum power peak per island)
Fig. 4. Curve showing the relation between the total installed cost per kW and the number of 5 MW semisubmersible turbines placed at 120 m maximum water depth, drag
embedment and 3 mooring lines, in an offshore wind farm using the SAM software [26], and compared to the maxima power peaks reached in the different power grids of the
Canary Islands.

OPEX from 2009, 2010 and 2017, and average monthly wind speed
from 1998.
It is also very important to remark that the average electricity
prices (175.61 EUR/MWh in 2014; 138.03 EUR/MWh in 2015; and
130.19 EUR/MWh in 2016) [29] also include some quite fixed and
regulated costs to secure the service of conventional power plants,
as the conventional power units can be programmed in advance to
cover any forecasted demand of electricity. This quite fixed retri-
bution is not considered for electricity produced from wind energy
in the Spanish regulation because of the inherent intermittency and
lack of dispatchability of wind energy, and should be substracted
from the electricity prices considered by the authors. These
175
150
125
EUR/MWh
regulated costs are directly related to the capacity of each con-
ventional power unit and average 35.46 EUR/MWh per month in
the period Jan2015 e Sep2017 (Fig. 5) [30]. Then, the electricity cost
that should be considered in 2015 is 102.57 EUR/MWh, which is the
variable cost related to the production of electricity from the con-
ventional power units, and results lower than any of the offshore
marginal costs from wind energy obtained by the authors (Table 15
of the rebutted paper) for any power grid in the Canary Islands (the
lowest marginal cost calculated by the authors was 131 EUR/MWh
for depths < 50 m in Gran Canaria).
Also, when the LCOE is calculated by the author, a lifetime of 30
years is introduced. This value is above the standards and expec-
tations for this technology in the long term [31,32] due to the
challenges still existing in this area (materials, corrosiveness in
marine areas, mechanical fatigue, etc.).
average monthly electricity cost
The integration costs of 30 EUR/MWh used by the authors have
capacity cost
been obtained from a paper where the electricity from wind energy
is integrated in extremely large and interconnected power grids
(Germany), average electricity prices about 70 EUR/MWh and
penetration rates between 0 and 40% [33]. However, in the small
and insular power systems of the Canary Island the electricity price

100
was about 138.03 EUR/MWh in the time period considered and
current installed wind capacity is close to produce curtailment ef-
75 fects in the main power grids [22]. Also, the integration costs rise
with the penetration of electricity from wind energy. In this regard,
50 the same researchers consider that an increase in the penetration
rate of one percentage point in electricity from wind energy in-
25 creases the profile costs by 0.5 EUR/MWh, almost ten times more
than the balancing costs [33].
0 Moreover, we consider that it should be not recommended to
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 publish a paper about electricity cost analysis from offshore wind
Year only based on CAPEX obtained from a submarine cable consultancy
Fig. 5. Average monthly electricity costs and capacity costs related to the guarantee of
[34]. Also, direct information about investment costs of the offshore
supply from the conventional power units. wind projects should be filtered, as many of them are not
16 R. Guerrero-Lemus et al. / Energy 153 (2018) 12e16
comparable because of specific incentives offered by the govern-
ments involved in the development of the projects. A prestigious
international agency or national lab [31,32] with a neutral vision of
the different energy sectors should be mandatory. Also, it is
important to mention that the project cost for Windfloat2
(Portugal) and Fukushima (Japan) offshore wind farms used in the
rebutted work [35,36], and Ref. 32 are not available. Nevertheless,
the comments and suggestions of this paragraph are not very
important because the authors decided the CAPEX values applied in
the paper without exposing any methodology, as it has been
mentioned above.
6. Conclusions
This rebuttal letter has demonstrated that the lack of basic
considerations about the characteristics of the insular power grids
involved and the composition of the electricity costs, and lack of
rigor in some assumptions related to visibility constraints, off-shore
costs, integration costs, mixing data from different time periods
and references used makes the results obtained of the article
entitled “Spatial planning to estimate the offshore wind energy
potential in coastal regions and islands. Practical case: The Canary
Islands” unreal and useless for a necessary debate about the po-
tential of offshore wind energy in the Canary Islands.
We also demonstrate that the main result about potential
offshore wind capacity is much lower, and the consideration that
the electricity costs form offshore wind provided by the authors is
lower than the current electricity cost is wrong and, in fact, the cost
of electricity from offshore wind is higher in the time period the
analysis was made and at present.
A new research article about offshore wind potential in the
Canary Islands and including all these considerations is currently
being developed by the authors of this rebuttal letter.
References
[1] Data and Statistics - IRENA REsource n.d. http://resourceirena.irena.org/
gateway/dashboard/?topic¼4&subTopic¼17 (Accessed 12 December 2017).
[2] Gobierno de Canarias. Economía presenta al sector la Estrategia Energe
tica
que el Gobierno esta
implantando hasta 2025-Lanzadera - Portal de
Comunicacio
n 2017. http://www.gobcan.es/noticias/lanzadera/85019/
economia-presenta-sector-estrategia-energetica-gobierno-implantando-2025
(Accessed 12 December 2017).
[3] Schallenberg-Rodríguez J, Montesdeoca NG. Spatial planning to estimate the
offshore wind energy potential in coastal regions and islands. Practical case:
the Canary Islands. Energy 2018;143:91e103. https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.ENERGY.2017.10.084.
[4] IEA. Renewables 2017 n.d. https://www.iea.org/renewables/ (Accessed 7
November 2017).
[5] Statista. The Statistics Portal.  International tourist numbers canary islands
2001-2016 | Statistic n.d. https://www.statista.com/statistics/449189/yearly-
number-of-international-tourists-visiting-the-canary-islands/ (Accessed 20
November 2017).
[6] ISTAC. Estadísticas de la Comunidad Auto
noma de Canarias. Superficie por
islas de Canarias n.d. http://www.gobiernodecanarias.org/istac/jaxi-istac/
tabla.do (Accessed 20 November 2017).
[7] INE. Instituto Nacional de Estadística. Poblacio
n residente en Canarias
(Tabla9681) n.d. http://www.ine.es/jaxiT3/Datos.htm?t¼9681 (Accessed 20
November 2017).
[8] ISTAC: Estadísticas de la Comunidad Auto
noma de Canarias. Espacios natu-
rales protegidos n.d. http://www.gobiernodecanarias.org/istac/jaxi-istac/
tabla.do (Accessed 20 November 2017).
[9] Sistema de Informacio
n Territorial de Canarias (IDECanarias). GRAFCAN. Zonas
de Espacial Proteccio
n para las Aves (ZEPA) n.d. http://visor.grafcan.es/
visorweb/default.php?svc¼svcZEPA&lat¼28.3&lng¼-15.8&zoom¼8&lang¼es
(Accessed 24 November 2017).
[10] Sistema de Informacio
n Territorial de Canarias (IDECanarias). GRAFCAN.
Zonas Especiales de Conservacio
n (ZEC) n.d. http://visor.grafcan.es/visorweb/
default.php?svc¼svcZEC&lat¼28.3&lng¼-15.8&zoom¼8&lang¼es (Accessed
24 November 2017).
[11] Ministerio de Agricultura y Pesca A y MAG de E. Proyecto LIFEþ INDEMARES -
Espacios Marinos Protegidos - Biodiversidad marina - Proteccio
n del medio
marino - Costas y Medio Marino - mapama.es n.d. http://www.mapama.gob.
es/es/costas/temas/proteccion-medio-marino/biodiversidad-marina/espacios-
marinos-protegidos/red-natura-2000-ambito-marino/red-natura-2000-
declaracion-lugares.aspx (Accessed 24 November 2017).
[12] García Montesdeoca N del P. Estudio del Potencial de Energía Eo
lica en Mar
Abierto (Off-Shore) en Canarias. Universidad de Las Plamas de Gran Canaria;
2016.
[13] Hong L, Mo €ller B. Offshore wind energy potential in China: under technical,
spatial and economic constraints. Energy 2011;36:4482e91. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.ENERGY.2011.03.071.
[14] Frandsen S, Barthelmie R, Pryor S, Rathmann O, Larsen S, Højstrup J, et al. The
necessary distance between large wind farms offshore - study. 2005.
[15] Cata
logo. Factsheet Gamesa G128e5.0 MW n.d.:54e5.
[16] Hywind Scotland Pilot Park - 4C Offshore n.d. http://www.4coffshore.com/
windfarms/hywind-scotland-pilot-park-united-kingdom-uk76.html
(Accessed 12 December 2017).
[17] Serrano Gonza
lez J, Burgos Pay
an M, Riquelme Santos JM. Optimal design of
neighbouring offshore wind farms: a co-evolutionary approach. Appl Energy
2018;209:140e52. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2017.10.120.
[18] (BOE) BO del E. Real Decreto 1028/2007, de 20 de julio, por el que se establece
el procedimiento administrativo para la tramitacio
n de las solicitudes de

n de instalaciones de generacio
n ele

ctrica en el mar territorial.
autorizacio
2007.
[19] National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. U.S. Government. Length of a degree
of latitude and longitude n.d. https://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/
Calculators/degree.html (Accessed 10 December 2017).
[20] Bueno C, Carta JA. Technicaleeconomic analysis of wind-powered pumped
hydrostorage systems. Part II: model application to the island of El Hierro. Sol
Energy 2005;78:396e405. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SOLENER.2004.08.007.
[21] Martínez-Lucas G, Sarasúa JI, Sa
nchez-Ferna
ndez JA,
Wilhelmi JR. Power-fre-
quency control of hydropower plants with long penstocks in isolated systems
with wind generation. Renew Energy 2015;83:245e55. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.RENENE.2015.04.032.
[22] Guerrero-Lemus R, Gonza
lez-Díaz B, Ríos G, Dib RN. Study of the new Spanish
legislation applied to an insular system that has achieved grid parity on PV
and wind energy. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;49. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.079.
[23] Chancham C, Waeqsak J, Gagnon Y. Offshore wind resource assessment and
wind power plant optimization in the Gulf of Thailand. Energy 2017;139:
706e31. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2017.08.026.
[24] Gonz
alez A, Pe
rez JC, Díaz JP. Expo
sito, Francisco Javier. Future projections of
wind resource in a mountainous archipelago, Canary Islands. Renew Energy
2017;104:120e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2016.12.021.
[25] Myhr A, Bjerkseter C, Ågotnes A, Nygaard TA. Levelised cost of energy for
offshore floating wind turbines in a life cycle perspective. Renew Energy
2014;66:714e28. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2014.01.017.
[26] National Renewable Energy Laboratory. System advisor model (SAM) 2017.9.5
n.d. https://sam.nrel.gov/download (Accessed 20 November 2017).
[27] Maness M, Maples B, Smith A. NREL offshore balance-of-system model. 2017.
[28] Blanco MI. The economics of wind energy. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2009;13:1372e82. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2008.09.004.
[29] Sistema de Informacio
n del Operador del Sistema (ESIOS). Red Ele
ctrica de
Espan ~ a (REE). Precio medio de la demanda de los SNP por sistema. Canarias.
n.d. https://www.esios.ree.es/es/analisis/573?vis¼1&start_date¼01-01-2010
T00%3A00&end_date¼31-12-2017T23%3A50&compare_start_date¼01-01-
2009T00%3A00&groupby¼year&compare_indicators¼574&geoids¼8742
(Accessed 20 November 2017).
[30] (CNMC) CN del M y la C. Liquidaciones Provisionales de las Actividades Reg-
uladas del Sector Ele
ctrico. n.d.
[31] Wiser R, Jenni K, Seel J, Baker E, Hand M, Lantz E, et al. Expert elicitation
survey on future wind energy costs. Nat Energy 2016;1:16135. https://
doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2016.135.
[32] Wiser RH, Jenni K, Seel J, Baker E, Hand MM, Lantz E, et al. Forecasting wind
energy costs and cost drivers: the views of the World’s leading Experts |
electricity markets and policy group. LBNL-1005717. 2016 (Accessed 12
December 2017), https://emp.lbl.gov/publications/forecasting-wind-energy-
costs-and.
[33] Hirth L, Ueckerdt F, Edenhofer O. Integration costs revisited e an economic
framework for wind and solar variability. Renew Energy 2015;74:925e39.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2014.08.065.
[34] 4C Offshore. Submarine Cable Consultancy. n.d (Accessed 20 November 2017),
http://www.4coffshore.com/.
[35] WindFloat Atlantic (WFA) Phase 2-4C Offshore n.d. http://www.4coffshore.
com/windfarms/windfloat-atlantic-(wfa)-phase-2-portugal-pt04.html
(accessed December 12, 2017).
[36] Fukushima floating OffshoRe wind FARm demonstration project (Forward)
phase 1-4C offshore n.d. http://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/fukushima-
floating-offshore-wind-farm-demonstration-project-(forward)-phase-1-
japan-jp06.html (accessed December 12, 2017).