Offshore Windfarms

1
 North Hoyle – National Wind
30 Vestas V80
Power
Hub Height 67m
Monopile
7-8 km offshore
North Wales
First generation
Nov 2003

2
 North Hoyle – National Wind
Rotor 80m
Power
Spacing
800m (10D) E-W
350m (<4D) N-S
2x33kV Cables
buried 1.5m

3
 Offshore Site Selection – Positive
Factors
• Wind Resource
• Wind/waves current for construction
• Water depth and sea-bed conditions
• Grid connection
• Ports for construction

4
Offshore Site Selection – Negative
Factors
• Commercial Shipping Lanes
• Recreational Use
• Fishing and Fish breeding
• Avian Concerns
– Shell Flats – Common Scoter
– London Array – Red-throated
Diver
• Military Restrictions
• Dredging
• Visual Instrusion
• Radar
• Submarine Cables
5
 Offshore – Environmental Impact
Assessment 1
1600 m
Climate & Air Quality
Archaeology 1440 m

Tourism 1280 m

Traffic 11D (880m)

1120 m
behind WT
Fisheries
960 m 9D (720m)
Television/Radio/Radar behind WT

Coastline Classification
7D (560m)
800 m behind WT

(Landscape Terms) 5D (400m)

640 m
behind WT
Coastline Classification
(Physical Features) 480 m 3D (240m)
behind WT

Grid Connection Point 320 m

Quay Side Facilities

160 m
Visual Intrusion
6
-320 m -160 m 0 m 160 m 320 m
 Offshore – Environmental Impact
Assessment 2
Navigation
Aviation
Oil & Gas
Communications
Dredging
Avian Interests
Mammal Interests
Benthic Evaluation
Water Quality
Sand Bank Movement and
Wave Action
Wave Heights
Tidal Action
7
Area Water Depth
 Foundation Types
• Monopile

• Gravity base

• Tripod

8
 Foundation Types - Monopile
• Single large tube
• Jack-up barge and crane for drilling
• 10-20m depth of water
• Maximum diameter 4-5m
• Eg North Hoyle

9
Foundation Types – Monopile: Pros
and Cons
• Advantages
– Simple Structure to fabricate and hence low fabrication costs.
– Easy & comparative quick Installation with suitable soil conditions
– Significantly lower weight than gravity based foundations thus
requires lower capacity Installation crane.
– No preparation of the Seabed Required.

• Disadvantages
– Potential driving refusal by presence of boulders
– Scour Sensible – scour protection maybe necessary

10
 Foundation Types – Gravity Base
• Self-weight provides stability
• Built at dock, floated to site
• 10-20m depth of water
• Typical weight – 1500-2000 tonnes
• Eg Middelgrunden

•Note: tulip-shape to prevent ice problems

11
Foundation Types – Gravity Base:
Pros and Cons
• Advantages
– Potentially more cost effective for greater water depths than
monopile foundations.
– Use where ground conditions are high risk for installing monopiles.

• Disadvantages
– Seabed Preparation required.
– Large space and special yard or large transportation barges required
onshore/ in port for fabricating the gravity base structures
– Heavy Equipment required to Install
– Usually requires Scour protection

12
 Foundation Types - Tripod
• Fabricated in dock
• Transported to site and lifted
into position by crane.
• Fixed to the seabed by driving
piles through the Tripod feet.
• Seabed preparation is required
to ensure Tripod installed on
level firm base.
• Eg Nogersund, Sweden

13
Foundation Types – Tripod: Pros and
Cons
• Advantages
– Comparatively low weight
– Potentially more Cost Effective for Use in Greater Water depths

• Disadvantages
– Pile Driving can be obstructed by stones in the ground.
– Access by boat can be difficult.
– Complicated/extensive fabrication ensures less cost competitive in
shallower water depths when competing against favourable conditions
for above 2 foundation solutions.

14
 Foundation Types – Guidelines
• The most cost effective choice selection of
foundation type will depend on factors
highlighted above.
• Typically the monopile can be expected to
be cost effective in water depths up to 20m
• Gravity foundation in depths 15-25m
• Tripod in 25-35m

15
 Marine Accessibility
• Onshore typical availability warranty = 97%
• Offshore problem of accessibility
• ShellWE developed a link failure-accessibility model
– Implemented using MATLAB
– Failure rates from DEWI
– Wind-wave data from Meetpost Noordwijk
– Random fault occurrence
– Predicts power loss due to repair time and wait time
• Contracted for a fixed availability plus a bonus for Vestas
achieving higher, provided a minimum energy production is
attained
16
17
18
19
20
21