123-ODE-ELE-A-RA-000001 - Revb - Outer Dowsing OWF - Concept Electrical System Report

Doc No: 123-ODE-ELE-A-RA-000001
OUTER DOWSING PRE-FEED Page: 1

CONCEPT ELECTRICAL SYSTEM Rev: B
REPORT Date: 13/09/22
Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind
Concept Electrical System Report
Date: 13/09/22
ODOW Document No: 123-ODE-ELE-A-RA-000001
ODE Document No: 503201-ODW-ODE-RP-EL-0001
Rev: B
CONFIDENTIAL
REVISION HISTORY
Revision History
Revision Sections affected Date

A First Issue 11/07/22
B General update for comments 13/09/22
DISCLAIMER
Copyright © ODE Group Ltd (and respective subsidiaries) 2022
All copyright and related rights in this document belong to the ODE Group Company that originated or produced it or as modified by contract
with that ODE Group Company. All rights are reserved.
You may not copy or use this document other than for the purposes for which it was produced, or intended, nor use any of the designs or
information contained herein until such time as you have entered into a contract with the specific ODE Group Company for its use.
This notice is governed by English law.

CONTENTS
REVISION HISTORY ....................................................................................................................... 3
Revision History ................................................................................................................... 3
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 8
1.1 General ..................................................................................................................... 8
1.2 Project Description ................................................................................................... 8
1.3 Document Purpose ................................................................................................... 9
1.4 System of Units ........................................................................................................ 9
2.0 ACRONYMS AND TERMS DEFINITIONS .......................................................................... 9
3.0 HOLDS ............................................................................................................................... 10
4.0 ELECTRICAL SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE DESIGN......................................................... 11
4.1 AC Collector Substations ....................................................................................... 11
4.2 HVAC Transmission System .................................................................................. 18
4.3 Transmission Circuit(s) ........................................................................................... 20
4.4 HVDC Technology .................................................................................................. 21
5.0 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................... 29
5.1 OFTO ..................................................................................................................... 29
5.2 Security of Supply .................................................................................................. 30
6.0 AVAILABILITY/RELIABILITY/REDUNDANCY ................................................................. 31
6.1 HVDC ..................................................................................................................... 33
6.2 Grid Interface .......................................................................................................... 34
6.3 AC Transmission Voltage ....................................................................................... 34
6.4 Redundancy ........................................................................................................... 35
6.5 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 35
7.0 OUTER DOWSING OFFSHORE WIND (ODOW).............................................................. 37
7.1 String Selection ...................................................................................................... 37
7.2 Transmission Cable Selection ................................................................................ 42
7.3 Onshore Substation ................................................................................................ 48
7.4 HVDC ..................................................................................................................... 48
8.0 SINGLE LINE DIAGRAMS (SLD)...................................................................................... 50
9.0 CBA ................................................................................................................................... 56
9.1 Overview ................................................................................................................ 56
9.2 CAPEX ................................................................................................................... 57
9.3 HVDC ..................................................................................................................... 64
9.4 OPEX ..................................................................................................................... 65
9.5 Lifecycle Cost Analysis ........................................................................................... 67
9.6 Sensitivity ............................................................................................................... 81
10.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................... 84
10.1 Post study Note ...................................................................................................... 85
10.2 Recommendation ................................................................................................... 87
APPENDIX A : OSS PLATFORM COSTS
APPENDIX B : CABLE INSTALLTION CONDITIONS – SENSITIVITY (2000MM2 CU CABLE)
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4-1 : Array Cable Selection .................................................................................................. 24
Table 4-2 : HVDC Converter Ratings (ABB) .................................................................................. 24
Table 4-3 : German Offshore Wind Farms ..................................................................................... 26
Table 6-1 : Component Failure Rates and MTTR .......................................................................... 32
Table 6-2 : Fault & Duration of Repair by Component ................................................................... 32
Table 6-3 : Percentage of Faults .................................................................................................... 32
Table 6-4 : Percentage of Faults .................................................................................................... 33
Table 6-5 : Maintenance Times ..................................................................................................... 33
Table 7-1 : 66kV Array Cable Data ................................................................................................ 37
Table 7-2 : 132kV Array Cable Data .............................................................................................. 38
Table 7-3 : Array Cable Current Rating ......................................................................................... 38
Table 7-4 : 1 Platform (66kV) String Arrangement ......................................................................... 39
Table 7-7 : 1 Platform (132kV) String Arrangement (4 Transformers) ........................................... 40
Table 7-8 : 1 Platform (132kV) String Arrangement (2 Transformers) ........................................... 40
Table 7-9 : 1 Platform (132kV) String Arrangement (3 Circuits) .................................................... 41
Table 7-10 : 2 Platform (132kV) String Arrangement (4 Transformers) ......................................... 41
Table 7-11: 2 Platform (132kV) String Arrangement (2 Transformers) .......................................... 41
Table 7-12: 3 Platform (132kV) String Arrangement (3 Circuit) ..................................................... 41
Table 7-13 : 66kV Platform / String Options .................................................................................. 41
Table 7-14 : 132kV Platform / String Options ................................................................................ 42
Table 7-15 : Generic Subsea Transmission Cable Ratings ........................................................... 44
Table 7-16 : Generic Onshore Transmission Cable Ratings ......................................................... 44
Table 7-17 : 220kV Adjusted Generic Transmission Ratings ........................................................ 45
Table 7-18 : 275kV Adjusted Generic Transmission Ratings ........................................................ 46
Table 7-19 : Option Risk Ranking .................................................................................................. 47
Table 7-20 : Provisional Compensation Reactor Ratings .............................................................. 48
Table 7-21 : Provisional Transformer Ratings (66kV Arrays) ........................................................ 48
Table 7-22 : Provisional Transformer Ratings (132kV Arrays) ...................................................... 48
Table 9-1 : Array Cable Cost Assumptions (£/m) .......................................................................... 58
Table 9-2: Array Cable Current Rating .......................................................................................... 58
Table 9-3 : Offshore Platform Costs .............................................................................................. 60
Table 9-4 : Midpoint Compensation Platform Costs ...................................................................... 60
Table 9-5 : Offshore Transformer Supply Costs ............................................................................ 61

Table 9-6 : OSP Circuit Breaker Costs .......................................................................................... 62
Table 9-7 : Transmission Export Cable Cost ................................................................................. 62
Table 9-8 : Onshore Substation Transformer Costs ...................................................................... 63
Table 9-9 : Onshore Transmission Substation Switchgear Costs .................................................. 63
Table 9-10 : Equipment Reliability Assumptions ............................................................................ 65
Table 9-11 : Options ...................................................................................................................... 70
Table 9-12 : CAPEX Costs (£m) .................................................................................................... 70
Table 9-13 : Losses (£m) ............................................................................................................... 71
Table 9-14 : Losses (MWh) ............................................................................................................ 71
Table 9-15 : (Un)Availability (£m) .................................................................................................. 72
Table 9-16 : (Un)Availability (MWh) ............................................................................................... 73
Table 9-17 : Array Cable Length .................................................................................................... 73
Table 10-1 : 1 Platform (132kV) BALANCED String Arrangement (4 Transformers)..................... 85
Table 10-2 : 1 Platform (132kV) UNBALANCED String Arrangement (4 Transformers) ............... 85
Table 10-3 : Array Cable Lengths / Costs ...................................................................................... 86
Table 10-4 : Export Cable Options (ITPE report) – Onshore Cables ............................................. 89
Table 10-5 : Export Cable Options (ITPE Report) – Landfall and Offshore Cables ....................... 90
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: ODOW Project Area ...................................................................................................... 8
Figure 4-1 : Radial String Topology ............................................................................................... 13
Figure 4-2 : Tee Topology .............................................................................................................. 13
Figure 4-3 : Loop Topology ............................................................................................................ 14
Figure 4-4 : Redundant Ring Topology .......................................................................................... 15
Figure 4-5 : Conventional Design .................................................................................................. 16
Figure 4-6 : Parallel Breakers – Solid Busbar ................................................................................ 16
Figure 4-7 : Parallel Breakers – Split Busbar ................................................................................. 16
Figure 4-8 : 3 Winding Transformer Solution ................................................................................. 17
Figure 4-9 : Individual Cables Per Transformer (option 1) ............................................................. 19
Figure 4-10 : Individual Cables Per Offshore Substation (option 2) ............................................... 19
Figure 4-11 : VSC-HVDC Transmission with an Asymmetrical Monopole with Earth (Sea) Return
.......................................................................................................................................................22
Figure 4-12 : VSC-HVDC Transmission with an Asymmetrical Monopole with Metallic Return .... 22
Figure 4-13 : VSC-HVDC Transmission with a Symmetrical Monopole......................................... 23
Figure 4-14 : VSC-HVDC Transmission with a Bipolar Configuration............................................ 23
Figure 4-15 : German Offshore Wind Development Area .............................................................. 26

Figure 4-16 : Location of the Dogger Bank Offshore Wind Development Area ............................. 28
Figure 4-17 : Representation of Breakeven Distance for HVAC Versus HVDC............................. 29
Figure 6-1 : AC Substation Single Line Diagram (SLD) ................................................................. 34
Figure 6-2 : Alternative AC Transmission Connection ................................................................... 35
Figure 6-3 : AC Transmission Ring ................................................................................................ 35
Figure 8-1 : Single Platform 66kV Options (220kV and 275KV) .................................................... 50
Figure 8-2 : Two Platform 66kV Options (220kV and 275KV) ....................................................... 51
Figure 8-3 : Four Platform 66kV Options (220kV and 275KV) ....................................................... 52
Figure 8-4 : Single Platform 132kV Options (220kV) ..................................................................... 53
Figure 8-5 : Two Platform 132kV Options (220kV) ........................................................................ 53
Figure 8-6 : Single Platform 3 Circuit 132kV Options (275kV) ....................................................... 54
Figure 8-7 : Three Platform 3 Circuit 132kV Options (275kV) ....................................................... 54
Figure 8-8 : HVDC Options (66kV and 132kV Array Options) ....................................................... 55
Figure 9-1 : Generic Wind Speed Profile for Offshore Wind Warms .............................................. 66
Figure 9-2 : Generic Power Curve for A 20MW WTG .................................................................... 67
Figure 9-3 : Life Cycle Costs (£m) ................................................................................................. 69
Figure 9-4 : Life Cycle Cost (£m) Split – Transmission/array ........................................................ 75
Figure 9-5 : Life Cycle Cost (£m) - Array ....................................................................................... 76
Figure 9-6 : Life Cycle Cost (£m) – Transmission .......................................................................... 77
Figure 9-7 : Life Cycle Cost (£m) – Transmission Cable ............................................................... 78
Figure 9-8 : OSP Cost (£m) ........................................................................................................... 79
Figure 9-9 : Onshore Substation Cost (£m) ................................................................................... 80
Figure 9-10 : Life Cycle Costs (£m) – NPV = 2936.6/MWh ........................................................... 83
Figure 10-1 : Comparative Costs ................................................................................................... 86
Figure 10-2 : Final Preferred Solution ............................................................................................ 88
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind (ODOW) is a project to build, operate and maintain a new
offshore wind farm off the east coast of the UK (‘the ODOW Project’). The project is a joint
venture between TotalEnergies and Corio Generation. The consortium was awarded
Preferred Bidder status for the project as part of The Crown Estate’s Round 4 leasing
process in February 2021.
1.2 Project Description
The ODOW site is located approximately 53km off the Lincolnshire coast in the southern
North Sea, outlined in Figure 1-1. The project site covers an area of approximately 500km2
with water depths ranging from 6m to 44m. The project will have an installed capacity of
up to 1500MW.
Figure 1-1: ODOW Project Area

1.3 Document Purpose
The purpose of this document is to present the proposed concept designs for the ODOW
electrical system.
1.4 System of Units
All design and analysis shall be carried out using the ISO 1000: 1992 International System
of Units (SI).
All drawings shall be dimensioned and detailed using SI Units.
2.0 ACRONYMS AND TERMS DEFINITIONS
ACRONYM DEFINITION / DESCRIPTION

AC Alternating Current
AIS Air Insulated Switchgear
CAPEX Capital Expenditures
CB Circuit Breaker
CBA Cost Benefit Analysis
COE Cost of Energy
CSA Cross-Sectional Area
CSC Current Source Converter
DC Direct Current
DRPCP Dynamic Reactive Power Compensation Plant
EPC Engineering, Procurement and Construction
GEP Grid Entry Point
GIS Gas Insulated Switchgear
HDD Horizontal Directional Drilling
HVAC High Voltage Alternating Current
HVDC High Voltage Direct Current
IGBT Insulated Gate Bipolar Transistor
Inf Inflation Rate
Int Interest Rate
MP Midpoint
MTTF Mean Time to Failure
MTTR Mean Time to Repair
MVA Mega Volt-Amperes
Mvar Mega Volt-Amperes Reactive
NER Neutral Earthing Resistor

National Electricity Transmission System Security and
NETS SQSS
Quality of Supply Standard
NGET National Grid Electricity Transmission
NPV Net Present Values
ODE Offshore Design Engineering
ODOW Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer
OFTO Offshore Transmission Owners
OLTC On Load Tap Changers
O&M Operation and Maintenance
OnSS Onshore Substation
OPEX Operating Expenses
OSP Offshore Substation Platform
OTM Offshore Transformer Module
SLD Single Line Diagram
STC System Operator Transmission Owner Code
TEC Transmission Entry Capacity
VSC Voltage Source Converter
WTG Wind Turbine Generator
XLPE Cross-linked Polyethylene
3.0 HOLDS
HOLD No. DESCRIPTION OF HOLD SECTIONS
N/A N/A N/A

4.0 ELECTRICAL SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE DESIGN
An offshore wind farm electrical system comprises the array system and transmission
system and is made up of the following:
• Onshore Substation (OnSS)
The OnSS connects the offshore transmission system to the national grid and comprises
switchgear and, where required to match any voltage mismatch between the two,
transformers. The current grid network is high voltage alternating current (HVAC) and,
thus, the OnSS is HVAC.
• Offshore Substations (OSP)
The OSP (collector substations) connect the offshore transmission system to the Wind
Turbine Generator (WTG) array system and include the transformers to step the voltage
up from the array system level to transmission levels. WTGs and their array systems are
Alternating Current (AC) and hence the substations are AC.
• Midpoint (MP) Compensation Substations
In order to minimise transmission cable cross-sectional area (CSA) and/or even to enable
a suitable technical solution a substation situated between the onshore and offshore
substation (midpoint substation) is occasionally required.
• Transmission System
For transmission system design, flexibility exists as it may be based on either HVAC or
high voltage direct current (HVDC) power flow. HVAC is the most common system design
and is proven for point-to-point as well as meshed networks, being able to transform
voltage levels and split power with relative ease. HVDC is the preferred technology for low-
loss bulk power transfer over long distances and has improved power flow control and
stability compared to HVAC. A number of high-capacity point-to-point HVDC systems are
in operation. HVDC systems are subdivided into conventional Current Source Converter
(CSC) or the more recently developed Voltage Source Converter (VSC) HVDC technology.
For HVAC systems the connection is direct between the offshore and onshore substations.
For HVDC systems, HVDC convertor stations are required to convert the AC to HVDC for
onward transmission and then convert back to AC for connection to the network.
• Array / Collector System
WTGs are collected together in strings for connection to the offshore substation. The
number of WTGs per strings depends on array topology, wind farm layout and voltage. A
teed arrangement is currently the most popular option as it tends to be the easiest method
of connection. 66kV is the current preferred voltage having replaced 33kV. However, as
WTGs get larger, 132kV is beginning to be considered.
4.1 AC Collector Substations
HVAC offshore technology is well established and is currently used to transmit energy
ashore for existing offshore wind farms as well as extensively for onshore transmission
networks.
The collector array voltage level of installed offshore wind farms at present is typically 66kV
although there is now some discussion about going up to higher voltages in the region of
132kV. This has the potential to reduce array losses, increase availability and aid
installation, which are all becoming a major concern as WTG capacity increases on 66kV
arrays.
Collector array voltage is generally stepped up in an offshore substation before

transmission to shore to minimise losses and the size and number of cables required. A
number of small UK offshore wind farms located only a few kilometres from the coast have
been connected directly to an onshore substation at 33kV. Offshore substation that step-
up to 132kV AC or greater are designed and installed for larger offshore wind farms located
further out to sea.
Voltage selection is chosen to minimise the number of export cables required. However,
there are diminishing returns on increasing transmission voltage as cable capacitive
charging current increases with AC voltage and consequently greater reactive
compensation is required.
4.1.1 WTG Strings / Array Cables
In considering the number of platforms, the number of connected strings per platform
should be taken into consideration. Each string represents a cable which must be installed
on the platform and consequently must be run through its own individual J Tube fixed to
the platform. In addition, a high number of cables results in seabed installation issues due
to congestion on the approaches to the platform.
Typically, to date, the maximum number of strings has been limited to circa 20 per platform
due to restriction on installation and access. In addition, each string requires a Circuit
Breaker (CB) thus impacts on the size of switchrooms, layout, footprint and weight of the
topside.
WTG array cables are normally either a semi-dry or wet design. Though wet design cables
are both less costly and have lower electrical losses and, hence, higher current ratings,
they are technically more complex. To date, most, if not all, current offshore WTG array
cabling is typically rated at 66kV and are semi-dry. Cable array losses are becoming a
major issue as wind farm capacity increases and consequently WTG array cabling at
132kV is being considered by industry. This would reduce cable losses and heating, but
cable supply and installation costs would increase, and reliability may fall, at least initially.
There are essentially four main options for the connection of offshore WTGs: tapered radial
strings, branches, loops, and redundant rings, as explained below. Selection is largely
subject to cost benefit analyses and an individual developer’s attitude to risk / availability.
It has been hypothesised that an increase to a higher array voltage may benefit the use of
redundant rings or loop connections due to higher availability, and this will be discussed
as part of the Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA).
4.1.1.1 Tapered Radial Strings
This is where each WTG, except the last one in each string, has two cables into the base.
One from the previous WTG or platform and one to the next WTG.
Figure 4-1 : Radial String Topology
Advantages:
• The cable size can be reduced further from the platform.
• In a layout where there are long lines of WTGs, connections can be very straight
forward.
• Protection can be simplified.
Disadvantages:
• Availability can be affected if there are any faults in the cable array.
• Back-up power is not available to the WTGs in the event of a fault in the cable array.
• To use the optimum cable size for each connection, many different cable sizes may be
required.
• In layouts where the WTGs are not in long uniform lines, it can be difficult to find a
suitable configuration for the strings. Often leaving odd, difficult to connect WTGs out
at the far ends of the array
4.1.1.2 Tees (Branches)
This is where the first (or second) WTG has three cables into the base. This allows a single
cable into the platform but two strings out from the tee-off at the first WTG, normally in a
U-shape.
OSP
Figure 4-2 : Tee Topology
Advantages:
• The cable size significantly reduces after the link from the platform to the first WTG.
• Fewer cable sizes can be used.
• In a compact layout, this arrangement can be very flexible and allow easy connections
back to the platform (i.e. cable corridors).
• Availability is improved over strings as, apart from the first cable from the platform,
there are fewer WTGs connected on each branch.
Disadvantages:
• Protection can be more complicated.
• Availability can still be affected if there are any faults in the cable array.
• Back-up power is still not available to all WTGs in the event of a fault in the cable array.
• The flexibility of this arrangement can lead to ‘haphazard’ array designs where, during
the Operational and Maintenance (O&M) stage the connections and cable routes are
not obvious without referring to drawings.
4.1.1.3 Loops (Tapered Ring)
This is where the WTGs are arranged in strings, with cable size reducing further from the
platform, but each pair of strings is connected at the far end by a cable. This is to provide
a route for export of limited power in the event of a cable fault and for backup supplies to
WTGs.
OSP
Figure 4-3 : Loop Topology
Advantages:
• The cable size reduces further from the platform, so cost is reduced.
• In a layout where there are long lines of WTGs, connections can be very straight
forward.
• Back-up power is available to the WTGs in the event of a fault in the cable array for the
cost of one additional cable and circuit-breaker array.
Disadvantages:
• More complicated protection is required to close normally open breakers in the event
of a fault.
• Availability is significantly reduced in the event of a fault in the cable array.
• Where there are an odd number of strings connecting to a platform this arrangement
is not possible on all strings.
• To use the optimum cable size for each connection, many different cable sizes may be
required.
• In layouts where the WTGs are not in long uniform lines, it can be difficult to find a
suitable configuration for the strings. Often leaving odd, difficult to connect WTGs out
at the far ends of the array.
• The ends of strings are not always close to one another and so the additional cable
connection is not necessarily short.
4.1.1.4 Redundant Rings
This is where the WTGs are arranged in fully redundant rings, with the cable size remaining
large throughout the whole array. This is to provide a route for export of all power in the
event of a cable fault and for back-up supplies to WTGs.
OSP
Figure 4-4 : Redundant Ring Topology
Advantages:
• Availability is not affected by a fault on the cable array.
• Electrical losses are reduced.
• Back-up power is available to the WTGs in the event of a fault in the cable array.
Disadvantages:
• Doubles the number of cables into the platform.
• Increases the cable cost as all the cabling is undertaken with a large cable cross-
sectional area.
• More complicated protection is required to close normally open breakers in the event
of a fault.
• Designing layouts with this arrangement will be less flexible than the strings and
branches options.
4.1.2 Switchgear
Switchgear acts to switch, break, and isolate circuits in a transmission network. This
provides protection from potentially damaging fault currents and enables switch out of
equipment for maintenance, repair, or replacement. Isolators operate while the circuit is
dead or at very low load current, load breakers can switch normal system load currents
but are not suitable for breaking high fault currents. Circuit breakers are the final line of
protection against a fault and make a physical disconnection from the circuit under high
fault currents.
The predominant technology is Air Insulated Switchgear (AIS) due to lower cost and ease
of installation. Gas Insulated Switchgear (GIS) may be used in preference to AIS in harsh
offshore environments as it is a more compact technology and fully encapsulated. GIS
modules are widely used for offshore wind farm substations.
Switchgear is available for various AC voltage ranges up to relatively high voltages and
current ratings. However, whilst it is possible to manufacture a 132/150kV (up to 170kV)
GIS with 3 phases in one tube, 220kV GIS needs multiple tubes with a single phase in
each which increases volume, and hence cost, significantly.
Current offshore substation switchgear is predominantly 66kV gas insulated ring main type
primary switchgear, whilst WTG switchgear is predominantly 66kV gas insulated ring main
type secondary switchgear.
To date the current range of primary and secondary 66kV switchgear has limited scope for
up rating to either high voltages or currents. The secondary range has generally been
designed as a low-cost solution for wind farms and thus is generally limited to 66kV and
630A. The primary switchgear is generally operated at up to 66kV and 4000A.
However, industry is now beginning to look at 132kV as an option. Suitable switchgear that
could be used at 132kV exists from a technical perspective, although there may be space
and weight issues. Appropriately sized and priced equipment would need to be specifically
developed and type tested to be attractive to the offshore wind market.
4000A at 66kV gives a maximum transformer rating of 457MVA (Mega Volt-Amperes) for
a conventional design. This increases to 914MVA for an equivalent 132kV option.
Figure 4-5 : Conventional Design

It is possible, though not conventional, where a 4000A circuit breaker is either not available
or a developer wishes to push the capacity above 4000A to operate with two incoming
breakers in parallel either in a solid or split busbar configuration. Transformer ratings are
rarely the limiting factor though manufacturers must be consulted to determine their
individual practical limits.
Figure 4-6 : Parallel Breakers – Solid Busbar
Figure 4-7 : Parallel Breakers – Split Busbar
It should be noted that the non-conventional design carries increased risk. With the solid
busbar arrangement, it is assumed that the load is shared equally between the two circuit
breakers. However, any mismatch in circuit impedance will result in unequal current
sharing resulting in the risk of a CB carrying disproportionally more current and becoming
overloaded. This is mitigated by using CBs having a current rating in excess of the normal
load current, allowing for some degree of unbalance.
The split busbar arrangement allows larger transformers to be used by ensuring that the
circuit breakers cannot be used in parallel, under normal operating conditions, by splitting
the busbar or inserting a bus-section breaker. The latter allowing some degree of
redundancy for reduced load conditions.
Current standard practice when required transformer ratings exceed switchgear ratings is
to move to two transformers, or 3-winding transformers (Figure 4-8). 3-winding
transformers are cheaper and smaller than the equivalent two 2-winding transformers, but
larger and more expensive than a single large transformer. However current sharing issues
are avoided, and the cables are shared between two terminal boxes rather than one,
making installation less onerous.
Figure 4-8 : 3 Winding Transformer Solution
The 3-winding transformers tend to have lower fault levels which may (HVAC systems) or
may not (HVDC systems) be an issue.
In addition to transformer ratings, the impact of the array voltage has been investigated to
assess the impact of work which is currently being undertaken on utilising higher array
voltages up to 132kV.
4.1.3 Transformers
HVAC power transformers are a mature technology used extensively in the onshore
transmission grid and in offshore wind farm substations located both at the onshore point
of connection and offshore platforms. Offshore power transformers step up the voltage
level from WTG arrays (typically operated at 66 kV) to the export transmission voltage. At
onshore substations, transformers step up or down for connection to the onshore
transmission network.
Power transformers for offshore transmission applications are currently designed and
manufactured to meet individual project specifications – though offshore transformer
design could benefit from greater standardisation, which would help improve spares
strategies. For offshore wind platforms, transformers are generally two or three-winding
and based on existing and proposed designs rated up to 450MVA (@66kV). Onshore,
standardised, “off the shelf” 400kV transformers are supplied to National Grid for the
transmission network.
Transformers are the heaviest components on an offshore substation platform (up to a

third of the total weight) and two transformers are required for redundancy for offshore
wind farms larger than 90MW according to National Electricity Transmission System
Security and Quality of Supply Standard (NETS SQSS). Transformer weight scales
roughly linearly with rated power and is a critical factor in offshore platform structural
design and cost. Offshore transformers are usually slightly over-rated so that in the event
of a fault or planned maintenance on one transformer, the other transformer can continue
to operate at greater than 50% of the wind farm rating. It is also feasible to overload the
transformer to increase capacity further; however, this potentially reduces transformer
lifetime.
Transformer weight also has a significant bearing on system reliability. Whilst offshore
transformers are designed for the life of the installation and optimised for overload and
maintenance issues, failures may still occur. The transformer windings and structure are
too heavy to be lifted by onboard cranes and require high-capacity lift vessels. However,
these vessels are in high demand and also, may not be able to access the platform and
perform crane operations in rough weather conditions, potentially resulting in long repair
times. On load tap changers (OLTC) are installed with offshore transformers to maintain a
constant output voltage to the network by allowing the voltage ratio to be varied. These
are a well-known point of failure.
Conventional transformers are filled with mineral oil, and silicon liquid for more advanced
types. Compact dry type transformers based on cast resin are available at lower ratings
but suffer from higher losses and have to be housed in a special enclosure. Offshore
transformers are currently oil-based, taking advantage of natural ventilation for cooling.
Whilst transformers are hermetically sealed, a potential fire hazard on an offshore platform
requires the installation of heavy blast walls and fireproofing on the structure. The oil may
also pose an environmental hazard and although the risk of leakage is very low, oil dump
tanks are required. A number of technology suppliers are responding to this by developing
lighter, non-toxic oils for offshore purposes.
The development of water-cooled transformers has the potential to reduce transformer

weight and minimise fire risk, however pumping systems are required. This introduces
more possible points of failure and there are additional O&M requirements to be
considered. The use of seawater for cooling has been suggested but presents some issues
relating to salt build-up and the warm conditions are ideal for the growth of marine life and,
therefore, potential fouling issues.
4.2 HVAC Transmission System
220kV and 275kV voltages have been considered for transmission. Higher voltage cables
result in higher capacity, resulting in fewer cables and reduced losses though higher
charging current.
However, higher voltages require higher voltage transformer windings and switchgear and
hence either an increase in cost, weight and footprint or a combination of all.
The use of HVAC cables for transmission on land is a well-established technology.

Underground HVAC cables are typically three single-core cross-linked polyethylene
(XLPE) cables which can transmit at a higher power, are cheaper to manufacture and
easier to install on land than three-core XLPE cables. XLPE cables have either a copper
or an aluminium stranded core conductor. A copper core provides a higher rating for an
equivalent cross-section but is heavier than aluminium and more expensive. Aluminium
core XLPE cables are typically used for underground cabling, and copper core XLPE
cables are used for subsea cabling due to installation vessel volume constraints. Cables
can be buried in a trefoil or flat arrangement; a flat, spaced lay increases cable capacity
due to increased heat dissipation.
Cable design for offshore projects is governed by factors such as required capacity, water
depth, bathymetry, and burial requirements. Jointing and termination technology also
influence cable capacity. Three-core XLPE cables are used for connection of offshore
WTG arrays to an offshore substation, and for export from the substation to shore. All three
phases are bundled into one cable and can be installed simultaneously into a single trench.
For export cables, the insulation has an impervious metallic (such as lead) sheath
surrounding each core to prevent contact with water (“dry design”).
At present, HVAC export cables for offshore wind farms are predominantly 220kV,
although as wind farm capacity increases there is some industry interest in 275kV.
For practical and economic reasons, the transmission cables installed generally fall within
the range 500mm2 to 2000mm2.
The actual number of cables required will depend on a number of factors including cable
lengths, number of platforms and switchgear configuration. In general, the cable rating is
selected to either match the maximum load or equipment rating of either a single
transformer (Figure 4-9) or a platform (Figure 4-10), depending on cable capacity.
Figure 4-9 : Individual Cables Per Transformer (option 1)
Figure 4-10 : Individual Cables Per Offshore Substation (option 2)
Option 1 requires more but smaller cables than option 2. Though option 2 requires
additional switchgear at the AC platform end, overall, the same number of circuit breakers
are used in each option as the receiving end needs one less. Selection is therefore down
to capacity and availability. Option 1 is inherently more reliable as a single-cable failure
results in less reduction in capacity.
It should be noted that cable sizes are usually optimised on current rating. Due to high
installation costs, using large cables rather than cables in parallel may, subject to cable
lengths, installation vessel capacity and installation method, result in cost savings. When
determining cable sizes consideration must also be given to minimising the number of
cable joints as joints constitute the weak point of any cabling system and have an impact
on availability.
As is to be expected, the number of cables may be reduced by increasing the voltage, or

through consolidation by using a single common circuit for each platform (option 2).
However, the consolidation does result in larger cables which may, in addition to the cost,
have a detrimental impact on installation.
4.3 Transmission Circuit(s)
4.3.1 HVAC Transmission
The transmission circuit is expected, subject to the finalised route selection, to be circa
58km onshore and 87-96km offshore. Therefore, a conservative estimate of 160km has
been assumed with an allowance for cable route adjustments. The cable requirements
calculated above are based on short lengths (typically less than 30km). The natural
makeup of AC cables results in cable capacitance to earth resulting in current being drawn
even when no load is connected. This phenomenon, known as charging current, is a
function of voltage and cable length. The higher the voltage and the longer the cable, the
higher the charging current becomes to the point that the cable current capacity becomes
swamped by the charging current limiting the ability to transmit power.
The charging current drastically affects the number of cables required to meet the transfer
demand. Above 100km the requirements increase exponentially making a basic AC option
unviable.
It is possible to increase the cable transfer capability by adding reactive compensation at

locations along the cable. Though, on subsea cable, it is technically feasible to install
compensation on ‘midpoint’ platforms, for both practical and economic reasons, locations
are generally limited to the two ends (the offshore platform and the onshore substation).
Where long sections of onshore cables are utilised, the ideal technical solution would be
to locate reactors at or near to landfall to provide intermediate (midpoint) compensation.
However, practically this would require an additional compound and thus raise issues,
initially with planning consents and long-term with maintenance and security.
By selecting the reactive compensation to effectively cancel out the cable capacitive
current (minimum grid code requirement) and splitting it between onshore and offshore
cable capacity can be maximised. Splitting compensation between the two ends forces the
charging current to flow both ways and thus reduces its impact.
The associated reactive compensation required to achieve the increased distance must
be located on the platform offshore. This, in addition to the capital cost of the reactors,
increases the platform weight and footprint and thus platform costs.
Technically an AC solution is viable for the ODOW offshore transmission links under
consideration. However, irrespective of its cost effectiveness, the number of cables
required would inevitably increase the environmental impact and thus may cause difficulty
for consenting. At 220kV cables would each require an onshore cable corridor of up to
10m wide in order for each cable to be considered thermally independent and thus require
no further de-rating. Offshore issue surrounding third party cable crossing would
exacerbate installation issues. The location of transition pits between the onshore and
offshore cables as well as the practicality of both offshore and onshore transport would
require detailed consideration.
4.3.2 HVDC Transmission
For AC Cable systems, reactive compensation is ultimately limited practically (the volume
of compensation required becomes excessive) or technically such that beyond a given
transmission distance an AC option is not viable. The actual distance is not fixed and varies
on a project-by-project basis.. Consequently, once a critical distance and cable rating
threshold is exceeded, the economics of a HVDC technology solution become more

attractive as, though the Convertor stations are more expensive, the saving in cable
installation makes Direct Current (DC) viable for high powers and long distances. As such,
it is now common practice for high power transmission over long distances to use HVDC
transmission as charging current is not an issue for DC systems and conductor utilisation
is increased due to the lack of skin effect.
HVDC-connected offshore wind farms to date utilise Voltage Source Converter (VSC)
technology in a symmetrical monopole configuration. At 1500MW, the proposed rating falls
above the range of projects that are currently installed, or under development, within
Europe, and therefore recent track record doesn’t exist. Reference lists and case studies
are provided later in this section.
Earlier wind farms that utilised 33kV array cabling used a combination of HVDC platforms
with intermediate AC collector platforms. This minimised the cost, footprint and weight of
the HVDC platforms which were already in excess of 10,000 tonnes and therefore too
heavy for all except the largest lifting vessels, though early projects used a number of novel
solutions for installation. This also minimised the cost of the array cabling as the smaller
AC substations could be better located within the wind farm to optimise the cable routing.
With the recent move to 66kV array cabling, the preference is now to combine the HVDC
platform with the AC platform. The higher array voltages result in fewer and more
manageable and cost-effective arrays, which when combined with the newer generation
minimalistic HVDC platform design produce a lower weight and more cost-effective
solution that can be installed using the existing heavy lift vessels (or float-over techniques
where appropriate).
4.4 HVDC Technology
4.4.1 CSC-HVDC and VSC-HVDC Configurations
Current Source Converter (CSC)-HVDC is a mature technology. The first CSC-HVDC

transmission system was the 20 MW Gotland HVDC project, which was commissioned in
1954, and used mercury arc valves. However, the thyristor-controlled HVDC technology
that forms today’s CSC-HVDC technology was developed in the mid-1970s. CSC-HVDC
technology requires AC harmonic filters to remove the harmonics produced by the
converter. Reactive compensation is also required, because the AC-DC conversion
technique absorbs reactive power from the AC network. On the DC side of the converter,
a smoothing reactor is required to reduce ripple. DC filters may be required to reduce
harmonic voltages on the DC circuit, particularly for overhead line systems. CSC-HVDC
projects can transmit high powers, but the converter stations have a large footprint. In
addition, they do not provide the control functionality offered by VSC-HVDC systems, and
the technology is therefore not fit for purpose for connection of offshore wind farms.
Voltage Source Converter (VSC)-HVDC is a more recent technology than classical HVDC
and uses high power Insulated Gate Bipolar Transistors (IGBTs) for the commutation.
These devices are self-commutating, which means that the converter is not dependent on
the AC system voltage for its operation. Possible configurations for VSC-HVDC systems
are as follows:
• Asymmetrical monopole with earth return or with metallic return;
• Symmetrical monopole;
• Bipole.
Asymmetrical Monopole
For very long distances, and in particular for very long submarine cable links, a return path
with an earth (sea) return may be the most feasible solution as only a single conductor is
required. However, in many cases existing infrastructure or environmental constraints
prevent the use of an earth return. A metallic return path may then be used despite
increasing capital cost and losses. These configurations are shown in Figure 4-11 and
Figure 4-12.
Figure 4-11 : VSC-HVDC Transmission with an Asymmetrical Monopole with Earth (Sea)
Return
Figure 4-12 : VSC-HVDC Transmission with an Asymmetrical Monopole with Metallic Return
The DC output from the converter is asymmetrical with one side connected to earth and
the other conductor having either a positive or negative voltage. The advantage of this
configuration is that power can be transferred at a higher voltage, and also that the system
can be expanded to a bipolar configuration at a later date. The disadvantage is that there
is limited redundancy compared with a bipolar configuration. In addition, since the return
is earth or ground there will be a DC component between the transformer and the
converter, so the transformers need to be designed appropriately as converter
transformers to withstand DC stresses.
Symmetrical Monopole
In a symmetrical monopole, the DC voltages are of equal and opposite magnitude. The
midpoint of the DC circuit in the VSC system is earthed, for example by capacitors as
shown in Figure 4-13. Power flows along both conductors of opposite polarity. In VSC-
HVDC these two cables are often laid as a bundled pair, and in the event of cable failure
due to an external event, such as anchor damage, it is likely that both cables will be
damaged, taking the entire link out of service. If one cable is damaged, it is possible that
half the power could be transmitted using the sea as the return, but this is not allowed in
the UK due to environmental concerns. For example, the Basslink project was originally
designed with an earth return path but, due to environmental concerns, this was later
modified to a cable return. This configuration has one circuit and a single converter station
at each end of the link.
The main advantage of this configuration is that losses are reduced by 50% compared with
the asymmetrical monopole, but an additional conductor is required compared with the
asymmetrical monopole with earth return. Also, transformers are not exposed to DC
stresses and there is no DC ground current. This configuration is commonly used for VSC-
HVDC technology, although a notable CSC-HVDC project which uses this configuration is
NorNed.
Figure 4-13 : VSC-HVDC Transmission with a Symmetrical Monopole
Bipolar Configuration
A bipole is a combination of two poles in such a way that a common low voltage return
path, if present, will only carry a small, unbalanced current in normal operation. This
configuration is used if the required transmission capacity exceeds that of a single pole. It
is also used if availability requirements make it necessary to split the capacity between two
poles. During maintenance or outage of one pole, it is still possible to transmit part of the
power, hence the main advantage is that 50% of the transmission capacity can be utilised
in the event of an outage in one circuit. The disadvantages are that a bipolar configuration
is more expensive for the same rating compared with monopole configurations, and also
requires permission for temporary operation with DC ground current.
Figure 4-14 : VSC-HVDC Transmission with a Bipolar Configuration

4.4.2 VSC-HVDC Suppliers and Ratings
The three main European suppliers of VSC-HVDC converter station technology are
Hitachi-ABB, Siemens and GE Grid Solutions. In addition, there are a number of Chinese
manufacturers such as C-EPRI and RXHK as well as Mitsubishi in Japan.
ABB’s VSC-HVDC systems is known as HVDC1 Light 1, and can have the following ratings
in terms of voltage and current. The M numbers are the module types.
Table 4-1 : Array Cable Selection
AC Currents
DC
Voltages
580A 1140A 1740A 2610A
±80kVDC M1 M2 M3 M3x
±500kVDC M10 M11 M12 M12x
±640kVDC M13 M14 M15 M15x
The table below provides the power and current ratings for the ±320kVDC system. It can be
seen that 1500MW can be achieved using a ±320kV system with M9x technology.
Table 4-2 : HVDC Converter Ratings (ABB)
Symmetric
M7 M8 M9 M9x
base modules
DC voltage (pole
320 320 320 320
to ground) kVDC
Base power MVA 427 839 1,281 1,635
AC current AC 580 1,140 1,740 2,610
1
HVDC Light, It’s time to connect, Hitachi ABB Power Grids
(https://search.abb.com/library/Download.aspx?DocumentID=POW-
0038&LanguageCode=en&DocumentPartId=&Action=Launch.
4.4.3 Case Studies
German Offshore Wind Farm Connections
TenneT, one of the European transmission network operators (Netherlands and

Germany), has commissioned a number of wind farm connections utilising VSC-HVDC
systems. The development area is extensive and is shown in Figure 4-15 below. These
HVDC links are world-leading and to date they remain the only HVDC-connected offshore
wind farms, although the Dogger Bank developments in the UK will be connected via
HVDC. As such, various issues arose in development, construction, and commissioning
phases of these wind farms. Most significantly, at least one of the links suffered significant
delays in the commissioning phase, due to interaction issues between the control systems.
These issues took months to solve, meaning that the transmission link was only partially
operational for this time.
However, there is now significantly more knowledge regarding these issues and strategies
for solving the problems when they arise are better known. In addition, the HVAC-
connected large offshore wind farms are suffering from similar issues. For example,
Hornsea One offshore wind farm tripped off in the 9th August 2019 blackout. Hornsea One
was unable to ride through the fault due to synchronous resonance issues caused by
interactions between control systems.
ABB’s DolWin1 HVDC Light project was their first ±320kV project connects offshore wind
farms located in the North Sea DolWin1 cluster to the German National Grid over a
distance of 75km. Onshore land cables transport the energy a further 90km to the
converter station at Dörpen-West.
DolWin beta is currently the highest power offshore converter station in the North Sea.
This is also a ±320kV project with 916MW capacity. The power is transmitted through a
45km-long HVDC cable system to an onshore HVDC converter station, also at Dörpen-
West. It can be seen that the majority of the projects currently utilise ±320kV technology,
but the Balwin projects to be constructed by 2029/2030 will be 2000MW connections using
±500kV technology. In addition, Dolwin5, to be constructed by 2024, will be the first project
to connect the 66kV cables directly to the offshore HVDC converter station.
Figure 4-15 : German Offshore Wind Development Area
A summary of the German offshore wind projects is given in the Table 4-3 below 2.
Table 4-3 : German Offshore Wind Farms
Project Capacity Status Commissioning Voltage / Technology
(MW) Date
Alpha Ventus 62 In operation 2009
BorWin1 400 In operation 2010 HVDC Light; ±150kV, symmetrical
monopole
BorWin2 800 In operation 2015 HVDC Plus; ±300kV, symmetrical
monopole
BorWin3 900 In operation 2019 HVDC Plus; ±320kV, symmetrical
monopole
DolWin1 800 In operation 2015 HVDC Light; ±320kV, symmetrical
monopole
2
Tennet, Offshore Projects Germany (online) https://www.tennet.eu/index.php?id=2130&L=0
Project Capacity Status Commissioning Voltage / Technology

(MW) Date
DolWin2 916 In operation 2016 HVDC Light; ±320kV, symmetrical
monopole
DolWin3 900 In operation 2018 Alstom; ±320kV, symmetrical
monopole
HelWin1 576 In operation 2015 HVDC Plus; ±250kV, symmetrical
monopole
HelWin2 690 In operation 2015 HVDC Plus; ±320kV, symmetrical
monopole
SylWin1 864 In operation 2015 HVDC Plus; ±320kV, symmetrical
monopole
BorWin5 900 In 2025 HVDC Plus; ±320kV, symmetrical
construction monopole
DolWin6 900 In 2023 HVDC Plus; ±320kV, symmetrical
construction monopole
DolWin5 900 In 2024 1st offshore system with 66kV cables
construction directly to HVDC offshore platform
BorWin6 930 In planning 2027 To be contracted
BalWin1 2000 In planning 2029 To be contracted; ±525kV 3
BalWin2 2000 In planning 2030 To be contracted; ±525kV
BalWin3 2000 In planning 2030 To be contracted; ±525kV
UK Offshore Wind Farms
Until now all UK offshore wind farms have been connected via HVAC transmission
systems. These have included large offshore wind farms in the order of 1000MW, and
those that are a significant distance from shore. For example, Hornsea ONE is connected
via HVAC (although this utilises midpoint reactive power compensation to compensate for
the charging currents). Hornsea 2 will be 89km offshore and will also be connected via
HVAC. Development of long HVAC-connected offshore wind farms in excess of 100km is
therefore not uncommon.
The Dogger Bank wind farm 4 area (shown in below) is being developed in three phases:
Dogger Bank A, B and C, located between 130km and 190km from the North East coast
of England. Each phase will have an installed generation capacity of up to 1.2GW and will
be connected via ±320kV HVDC symmetrical monopole technology. The wind farms are
being developed through joint ventures. Dogger Bank A, B and C is a joint venture between
SSE Renewables, Equinor and Eni. Dogger Bank A is due to be delivered in 2023/24 and
Dogger Bank B and C in 2024/25. The total capital cost of Dogger Bank A and B is
estimated to be around £3bn each, with transmission capital expenditure (CAPEX) of
approximately £830m per phase.
3
TenneT develops innovative submarine cable with suppliers; https://www.tennet.eu/tinyurl-
storage/detail/tennet-develops-innovative-submarine-cable-with-suppliers/
4
Dogger Bank Wind Farm, https://doggerbank.com
Figure 4-16 : Location of the Dogger Bank Offshore Wind Development Area
Sophia Offshore Wind Farm 5 is a 1.4GW wind farm also located in the Dogger Bank area.
It is currently under construction and will be connected 220km from the North East coast.
Similar to the other Dogger Bank wind farms, it will also be connected via a ±320kV HVDC
symmetrical monopole link to shore. Sophia, which is being developed by RWE, will
comprise 100 x 14MW WTGs and use 66kV inter-array cables. Onshore construction
began in June 2021, with offshore works planned in late 2023. First power is scheduled to
be generated in 2024/25 with the wind farm being fully operational by the end of 2026.
4.4.4 Losses
HVDC cables have significantly lower transmission losses compared to HVAC cables as
there is no capacitive charging current during continuous DC operation. There are also no
frequency dependent skin-effect, so the entire conductor core is available for transmission.
This enables the use of large cores to transmit high amounts of power. HVDC cables are
cheaper for a given level of transmitted power than HVAC cables and only two cables are
required compared to three for a single circuit.
HVDC VSC transmission systems can use XLPE cables with a mechanical design similar
to that of a single-core XLPE HVAC cable. It is possible to use Mass Impregnated (MI)
cables, however, these are more expensive with a lower operating temperature and cable
jointing is somewhat more complex. Underground XLPE cables are typically aluminium
core which are lighter and easier to transport and lay, although capacity is lower for an
equivalent cross-section.
5
Sophia Wind Farm, https://sophiawindfarm.com
Despite significant improvements in recent years, DC VSC converter losses, however,

remain high at around 0.8% per convertor of rating at full load; comprising 0.2% no load
losses and 0.6% full load losses.
As would be expected, the losses decrease as the transmission voltage increases.
The reason for including the HVAC options at the long distances under consideration is
that HVAC is generally more cost effective than HVDC and is still technologically feasible.
Figure 4-17 illustrates transmission cost with distance for the two technologies. Though
distances of 80-100km for breakeven distance tend to be quoted in the literature the actual
distance is very project specific and distances in excess of 200km are not unknown.
Figure 4-17 : Representation of Breakeven Distance for HVAC Versus HVDC
5.0 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
5.1 OFTO
Under the current regulatory regime, it is prohibited to transmit electricity offshore at

voltages of 132kV and above without a transmission licence and that such licences would
only be granted to offshore transmission owners (OFTO) via a competitive process. As a
consequence, the ODOW transmission system will ultimately be operated by a third party.
Under the regime the developer has three choices with respect to which stage of the
development the OFTO becomes involved:
• An early stage OFTO appointment occurs following initial scoping work by the
developer and would give responsibility to the appointed OFTO of pre-construction,
consenting, procurement, construction and operation of the assets.
• A late stage OFTO appointment would give responsibility to the appointed OFTO for
procurement, construction and operation of the assets, leaving pre-construction and
consenting with the developer.
• A generator build option which enables the developer to design and construct the asset
prior to transfer of ownership to the OFTO.
The design of the transmission asset, be it by the appointed OFTO or the developer, must
both take into consideration and meet the minimum requirements of a number of common
standards.
In particular these include NETSSQSS, Grid Code and the System Operator Transmission
Owner Code (STC).
5.2 Security of Supply
In Great Britain, the National Electricity Transmission System Security and Quality of
Supply Standard (NETS SQSS) sets out a coordinated set of criteria and methodologies
that transmission licensees shall use in the planning and operation of the national
electricity transmission system. This includes both the onshore transmission system and
the offshore transmission systems of which the ODOW connection to shore shall comply
with. It should be noted however that at present the criteria only covers transmission
distances up to 100km.
In the design of the system the NETS SQSS gives an Infrequent Infeed Loss Risk as
1800MW and the Normal Infeed Loss Risk as 1320MW. These standards are in place to
limit the amount of short-term and long-term reserve necessary on the system to cover the
loss of a cable or a substation component connecting generation to the grid. The standards
as they apply to an offshore transmission network are summarised below.
For an offshore wind farm connecting to the onshore network using HVAC transmission, if
the wind farm is larger than 90MW, the loss of power infeed for a single AC offshore
transmission circuit due to a fault or planned maintenance shall not exceed 50% of the
offshore grid entry point capacity or the full normal infeed loss risk, whichever is lowest.
For the fault outage of a single AC offshore transmission circuit on the offshore platform
during the planned outage of another AC offshore transmission circuit on the offshore
platform, the further loss of power infeed shall not exceed the infrequent infeed loss risk.
For an HVDC circuit on an offshore platform, the loss of power infeed due to a fault or
planned maintenance on a single DC converter on the offshore platform shall not exceed
the normal infeed loss risk. For the fault outage of a single DC converter on an offshore
platform during the planned outage of another DC converter on the offshore platform, the
further loss of power infeed shall not exceed the infrequent infeed loss risk.
For offshore transmission between offshore platforms or between an offshore platform and
the onshore grid connection point, the loss of power infeed due to a fault or planned
maintenance on a single cable offshore transmission circuit shall not exceed the infrequent
infeed loss risk. For the fault outage of a single cable offshore transmission circuit during
the planned outage of another single cable offshore transmission circuit, the further loss
of power infeed shall not exceed the infrequent infeed loss risk.
For HVAC transmission, a double circuit is needed to guarantee secure supply although
each cable need only be rated at 50% capacity. For HVDC transmission, a fully rated
double circuit (2 monopoles) is required or alternatively, the system can be configured as

a bipole that can instantaneously switch to operation as a monopole with 50% capacity. It
should be noted that most VSC based HVDC is bipolar rather than a true bipole in the
conventional sense. This does not have the inherent 50% redundancy as with a HVDC
CSC bipole link. NETS SQSS restricts the maximum substation / converter size (1320MW)
and cable capacity and configuration that can be considered for an offshore transmission
network.
The onshore substation shall be an extendable double busbar arrangement, whilst

offshore, a non-extendable single busbar arrangement will suffice.
The economic decision to build redundancy into the network is a trade-off between the
potential value of generated energy lost while waiting for equipment to be repaired and the
capital cost of building in redundancy. Note the justification is not simply down to the
developer and full recovery of costs during transfer of assets to the OFTO may not occur
if the design has been deemed to be ‘gold plated’.
In addition, the wind farm and transmission asset must meet the requirements of grid code
and STC.
6.0 AVAILABILITY / RELIABILITY / REDUNDANCY
Reliability of an offshore transmission network is dependent on the reliability (failure rate

and mean time to repair (MTTR)) of the individual system components and is critical to
understanding asset utilisation, maintenance planning, redundancy, and strategic spares.
There is little long-term experience with the operation of transmission power equipment in
a marine environment, although operational data from onshore installations and subsea
transmission links can provide some additional guidance.
Reliability data from offshore wind farms may be artificially high due to teething problems
typically experienced in the first few years of operation. Published offshore failure rate data
is often given in ranges and this can produce large variations in reliability values. In
addition, adverse weather conditions can restrict access to offshore assets, increasing
transport and repair times significantly. Time spent waiting for a suitable ‘weather window’
to enable access by marine vessels increases the average MTTR of offshore transmission
assets. Whereas, in an indoor onshore substation, repair may take a matter of hours or
days, for offshore sites this may be closer to months. Estimates, based on published
data 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, of mean time to repair equipment located on offshore substations and
associated with offshore transmission are shown in Table 6-1.
8
Reliability of Collection Grids for Large Offshore Wind parks. https://ieee.org
9
Probabilistic Reliability Calculations for Grid Connection of an offshore windfarm. https://ieee.org
10
IEEE 493 – Design of Reliable Industrial and Commercial Power Systems. https://ieee.org
11
Project Upwind – Survey of reliability of large offshore windfarms. Part 1: Reliability of state of the
art windfarms. No longer available
12
Subsea connections to high capacity offshore windfarms: Issues to consider.
http://www.jicable.org/2007/Actes/Session_A9/JIC07_A95.pdf
Table 6-1 : Component Failure Rates and MTTR
Failure Rate MTTR

Export Cable Failure Rate 0008/km/year 1 month
Array Cable Failure Rate 0.0008/km/year 1 month
WTG Transformer Failure Rate 0.0131/year 10 days
Offshore Transformer Failure Rate (Major)* 0.019/year 6 months
Offshore Transformer Failure Rate (Minor)* 0.011/year 1 month
Grid Transformer Failure Rate (Major)* 0.019/year 6 months
Grid Transformer Failure Rate (Minor)* 0.011/year 1 month
Circuit Breaker Failure Rate 0.025/year 10 days
Converter Failure Rate 0.12/year 1 month
*Transmission (large) transformer faults can be split into major and minor, subject to type
of fault and time to repair.
Table 6-2 : Fault & Duration of Repair by Component
Failure MTTF
Component <1day 1<day<30 >30 days Total (%) rate (years)
Windings n/a 5% 95% 19.2 0.00576 174
Magnetic circuit n/a 50% 50% 2.6 0.00078 1282
Terminals 25% 50% 25% 12.3 0.00369 271
Tank & dielectric 67% 33% n/a 12.9 0.00387 258
Accessories 66% 17% 17% 11.6 0.00348 287
Tap Changer 40% 40% 20% 41.4 0.01242 81
100 0.03 33
Table 6-3 : Percentage of Faults
<30day >30day <1day >1day

Minor Major Minor Major
Windings 0.96 18.24 0.00 19.20
Magnetic circuit 1.30 1.30 0.00 2.60
Terminals 9.23 3.08 3.08 9.23
Tank & dielectric 12.89 0.00 8.59 4.30
Accessories 9.57 1.91 7.66 3.83
Tap Changer 33.12 8.28 16.56 24.84
67.06% 32.81% 35.88% 63.99%
Table 6-4 : Percentage of Faults
Failure rate Years

Total 0.03 33.33
Minor (<1 day) 0.010765 92.90

Major (>1 day) 0.019197 52.09
minor (<30 days) 0.020119 49.71

Major (>30 days) 0.009843 101.60
Bearing in mind that, due to access issues offshore, any failure that cannot easily be fixed
can be considered major, the 1-day cases are used for availability figures.
In addition to failures, maintenance has an impact on availability of the wind farm. Unlike
failures, maintenance outages are controllable and, thus, have minimal impact on the
system but still result in a reduction in capacity –though a matter of hours rather than days.
Table 6-5 : Maintenance Times
Maintenance Outages (Hrs)

Export Cable 0
Array Cable 0
WTG Transformer 6
Offshore Transformer 12
Grid Transformer 12
Circuit Breaker 1
Converter Failure Rate 12
Availability of any system is in addition to component reliability, subject to the system

architecture or configuration.
6.1 HVDC
The inclusion of an HVDC link reduces availability of the system as a whole as it introduces
more components in series (convertors and transformers) whilst at the same time reducing
the number of parallel paths (fewer cables). Availability, however, can be increased by
coupling the AC sides together in pairs or higher multiples.
Clearly, cross connection increases availability by making use of spare capacity. Note the
HVDC system is independent of the connected generation and is rated at 1500MW in all
cases, so the lower the connected generation the better the availability. The increased
availability is achieved by increased capital expenditure on switchgear and cabling
between platforms and thus a cost benefit analysis is required.
It should be noted that increasing cable length from say 100 to 160km reduces availability
by up to an additional 1% and doubling the cable failure rate has an impact of up to 1.7%
compared to convertor failure rates, which reduces availability by only 1%. This is due to
cable failure rates being based on a per km value rather than a per cable basis. The validity
of availability figures, and in particular cables, is still very much open to debate.
6.2 Grid Interface
The grid interface is included as part of the HVDC link for HVDC options as the grid
transformer forms part of the HVDC package. Thus, connection to the transmission system
is direct via a CB and short length of conductor only.
For AC options, this interface must be included as transformers are required to step the
offshore transmission voltage up to the grid voltage (400kV) and switchgear is required to
connect the outgoing circuits. It has been assumed that up to four circuits will be available
from National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) and consequently up to four
transformers will be required for the connection of the wind farm. A double busbar
arrangement can be utilised, offering better availability though at higher cost.
A standard double busbar connection rated at 1500MW (2 x 750MW transformers) is

shown in figure 6-1. Availability is high, dependent on generation, and varies between
99.7% and 99.8%.
Figure 6-1 : AC Substation Single Line Diagram (SLD)
6.3 AC Transmission Voltage
The AC transmission voltage, in itself, has no impact on availability. The figures are based
on a per circuit basis rather than per cable; for the purposes of these calculations, circuits
comprising multiple cables in parallel have the same availability figures as circuits
comprising single cables, as do large cables and small cables. The effect of cable joints of
which the number per circuit is subject to a combination of both transmission distance and
cable dimensions and weights is not included at this stage.
Availability can be increased by increasing the number of parallel circuits and cross
connecting them to allow use of spare capacity (Figure 6-2). This can improve even on the
per transformer case (option 1) as a single cable does not cause loss of 50% of the platform
capability.
Figure 6-2 : Alternative AC Transmission Connection
The designs currently considered assume radial, point-to-point, connections. It is

theoretically possible to connect the platforms in a ring (see Figure 6-3). However, in this
configuration each cable must be rated for full load and, hence, though it ensures 100%
availability, as a single fault does not result in any loss of availability, it would be prohibitive
both from cost and installation point of view. Subject to final platform location it may result
in additional cabling over and above the radial connection requirements.
Figure 6-3 : AC Transmission Ring
6.4 Redundancy
Clearly, where availability is considered a major issue, then fully redundant equipment can
be installed at a cost. Options include installing 2 x 100% transformers, additional
transformers in a 3 x 50% arrangement. Similar options exist for cables. Double busbar
switchgear leads to increased availability and like for the HVDC options above cross
connection of platforms has considerable impact.
100% redundancy leads to 100% availability but at considerable additional cost. The actual
level of redundancy is a matter of approach to risk, which in the case of offshore wind
farms is confidence in the numbers.
6.5 Conclusion
Basic configurations result in availability (of capacity) figures in excess of 95%. Justification
for attempting to increase these values depends on the product of the amount of energy
lost (availability) and cost of energy (over the design life) against expenditure (capital cost)
required for the remedial measure undertaken.
5% unavailability equates to a maximum of 650GWh/year. However, with average offshore

wind farm capacity factors of only 40% this would reduce to 260GWh/year. This could be
further reduced as wind power is curtailed rather than lost as alternative parallel
transmission routes exist. A more detailed assessment based on actual wind distribution
is required to determine the actual lost energy and thus the potential capital available.
In order of ease and immediate benefit the following can be considered:

• Consider dynamic rating of equipment. By nature, energy from wind is cyclic.
Equipment ratings are based on continuous loading based on temperature rise. As a
consequence, equipment can generally sustain a short-time overload without
detrimental effect. Hence, it is possible to utilise the full capacity of the wind farm with
lower rated equipment, a capability which, although may be used under normal
operation, may be best used during equipment outages. The drawback is twofold in
that it is difficult to justify to the OFTO, who must meet availability targets based on
capacity, and it requires accurate wind forecasting to justify the design and additional
temperature monitoring to prevent overheating.
• Bus coupler (included in standard arrangement) at array voltage levels on platforms
• Increasing transformer capacity (from 50% up to 100%). 100% gives full redundancy
but subject to loss calculations this may lead to diminishing returns and something in
between may be better. Note the maximum capacity is limited by switchgear ratings
which may restrict this option.
• Bus coupler at transmission voltage levels on platforms.
• Increasing transmission capacity (from 50% up to 100%). 100% gives full redundancy
but subject to loss calculations, this may lead to diminishing returns and something in
between may be better. As with increasing transformer capacity switchgear ratings
must be considered but the restriction is not likely to be as onerous as this level.
• Increasing transformers number by adding an additional 50% rated transformer. This
is more complicated and not necessarily cheaper than point 2 above.
• Cables between platforms offering multiple paths. Cost is, in addition to additional
switchgear costs, subject to distance between platforms which may prove prohibitive
relative to the benefit, which may be limited depending on transformer ratings
(connections at array voltage levels) or transmission cable ratings (transmission
voltage levels).
7.0 OUTER DOWSING OFFSHORE WIND (ODOW)
ODOW has a planned installed capacity of 1500MW comprising 75 x 20MW WTGs (or 60
x 25MW WTGs).
As such, based on standard 66kV switchgear options and current ratings for 220kV and
275kV transmission cables of circa 145-154km, the base case option is for 4 circuits split
across 1, 2 or 4 platforms. A 3 circuit 275kV option (1 and 3 platforms) has been considered
for completeness.
7.1 String Selection
Array cable data used within these studies is based on 'Dry’ (cable having metallic screen
/ water barrier), leadfree, type cable design rather than a wet design. Despite some of the
technical and economical disadvantages in comparison to ‘Wet’ (cable without a metallic
screen / water barrier), leadfree, type cable ‘Dry’ cables are a more widely available and
proven technology.
For 132kV leadfree cables there is significantly more uncertainty over both design and
cost. Current ratings for 132kV array cables are not currently known but based on the latest
information would be expected to be marginally lower than the equivalent 66kV option.
For the purposes of these studies the following data has been used. Current ratings are
based on generic environmental conditions; 15C ambient temperature, 2m burial depth
and thermal resistivity of 0.7km/W.
Table 7-1 : 66kV Array Cable Data
Resistance Charging
66kV ohms/km ohms/km uF/km rated A MVA
(inc. losses) Current
mm2 R X F A A
95 0.246 0.268 0.144 0.154 330 37.7 1.84
120 0.195 0.217 0.139 0.165 370 42.3 1.98
150 0.158 0.181 0.133 0.182 410 46.9 2.18
185 0.123 0.15 0.128 0.195 455 52.0 2.33
240 0.097 0.12 0.122 0.221 520 59.4 2.65
300 0.078 0.101 0.117 0.24 575 65.7 2.87
400 0.062 0.087 0.113 0.262 630 72.0 3.14
500 0.049 0.074 0.108 0.286 695 79.4 3.42
630 0.04 0.064 0.106 0.321 760 86.9 3.84
800 0.033 0.057 0.102 0.353 815 93.2 4.23
1000 0.028 0.052 0.095 0.38 859 98.2 4.55
1200 0.025 0.050 0.090 0.41 914 104.5 4.91
Table 7-2 : 132kV Array Cable Data
Resistance Charging
132kV ohms/km ohms/km uF/km rated A MVA
(inc. losses) Current
mm2 R X F A A
95 0.246 0.325 0.174 0.107 312 71.2 2.57
120 0.195 0.263 0.168 0.114 349 79.9 2.72
150 0.158 0.219 0.160 0.124 387 88.5 2.96
185 0.123 0.182 0.156 0.131 430 98.2 3.14
240 0.097 0.145 0.146 0.151 491 112.3 3.62
300 0.078 0.122 0.137 0.168 543 124.1 4.03
400 0.062 0.105 0.130 0.189 595 136.0 4.53
500 0.049 0.090 0.123 0.206 656 150.0 4.93
630 0.04 0.078 0.121 0.229 718 164.1 5.48
800 0.033 0.069 0.115 0.250 770 175.9 5.98
1000 0.028 0.063 0.106 0.269 811 185.5 6.44
1200 0.025 0.061 0.100 0.289 863 197.4 6.93
Array cable selection / design is based on a nominal 80MW at 66kV, which equates to
~700A and can comfortably be accommodated by the commonly available and widely used
800mm2 copper cable under most environmental and installation conditions. Larger sizes
of up to 1200mm2, which are less readily available, and even larger sizes are possible,
should specific, wind farm layouts and/or data dictate.
As a result, at 66kV a maximum four WTGs per string are considered. At 132kV, where
design is based on 160MW, this is typically 8, though for expediency due to the specific
WTG layouts provided, this has been pushed to 9. However, in both cases further
optimisation is required at a later stage.
Aluminium cable can be utilised as an alternative but due to the lower current carrying
capability cable cross sectional area requirements tend to increase by 1 or 2 cable sizes.
Table 7-3 : Array Cable Current Rating
66 66 132 132
CSA Cu Alu Cu Alu
Dry Dry Dry Dry
95 330 312
120 370 349
150 410 320 387 311
185 455 360 430 350
240 520 415 491 404
300 575 465 543 452
400 630 520 595 506
500 695 580 656 564
630 760 650 718 632
800 815 715 770 696
1000 859 770 811 749
1200 914 815 863 793
Though there are a variety of ways to connect WTGs, the base case solution assumes a
tapered radial string connection of the WTGs using two (copper) cable sizes: 800mm2
(nominally rated at 815A@66kV) and 240mm2 (nominally rated at 520A@66kV). Smaller
cables are utilised at the far end of each array and larger cables nearer to shore / OSP.
Where possible WTGs are distributed evenly across platforms and transformers to
minimise transformer and export ratings. However, the number, rating and the layout of
the WTGs does not readily allow for this.
All transformers and export cables are expected to be a constant size across the projects
for both reason of cost effectiveness and operation and maintenance requirements.
The following design has been used:
1 platform option 66kV comprises 19 strings of 3 to 4 WTGs per string. Strings are
distributed across four transformers giving a maximum loading per string of 80MW and
loading per transformer of 400MW equating to 400MVA. The transformer need only deliver
active power due to the requirement for zero reactive power at the Grid Entry Point. In
reality, and subject to detailed study, a slightly larger size may be required.
Table 7-4 : 1 Platform (66kV) String Arrangement
String String Arrangement (No of WTGs) No Of WTGs Cct

No 1 2 3 4 5 per cct Capacity
1 3 4 4 4 4 19 380
t2 4 4 4 4 4 20 400
3 4 4 4 4 4 20 400
4 4 4 4 4 16 320
2 platform option 66kV comprises 20 strings of 3 to 4 WTGs per string. Strings are
distributed across two platforms each with two transformers giving a maximum loading per
string of 80MW and maximum loading per transformer of 380MW equating to 380MVA.

1 4 4 4 4 3 19 380
2 4 3 4 3 4 18 360
3 3 4 4 4 4 19 380
4 3 4 4 4 4 19 380
The increased number of strings, 20 instead of 19, offers better balance and thus reduces
the transformer rating. Note, this benefit comes with a cost penalty in array cable cost.
4 platform option 66kV is similar to the two platform options and comprises 20 strings of 3
to 4 WTGs per string. Strings are distributed across four platforms each with one
transformer giving a maximum loading per string of 80MW and maximum loading per
transformer of 380MW again equating to 380MVA.

1 3 4 4 4 4 19 380
2 3 4 4 4 3 18 360
3 4 4 4 4 3 19 380
4 3 4 4 4 4 19 380
Increasing the array voltage allows for a reduction in number of strings by utilising more
WTGs per string.
1 platform option 132kV comprises 10 strings of 6 to 9 WTGs per string. It is noted that as
the voltage increases and number of WTGs possible per string increases, the balance
naturally becomes more difficult.
Distributed strings across four transformers with a maximum loading per string of 180MW
gives a maximum loading per transformer of 440MW equating to 440MVA. Again, in reality,
and subject to detailed study, a slightly larger size may be required. In this case the range
of min / max transformer loading is such that it may be possible / prudent to reconfigure
the strings to get more even balance.
Table 7-7 : 1 Platform (132kV) String Arrangement (4 Transformers)

1 9 8 17 340
2 6 7 6 19 380
3 6 8 8 22 440
4 9 8 17 340
It should be noted that increases in the array voltage to 132kV from 66kV also raises the
possibility of reducing the number of transformers. 4000A remains the practical limit but
this now equates to 915MVA. Based on the connectivity above two 780MVA transformers
would be sufficient.

1 9 8 17
720
2 6 7 6 19
3 6 8 8 22
780
4 9 8 17
Equally, by re-arranging the strings, a better balance can be achieved with 3 x 500MVA
transformers, which is also viable.
Table 7-9 : 1 Platform (132kV) String Arrangement (3 Circuits)

1 6 6 7 6 25 500
2 9 8 8 25 500
3 9 8 8 25 500
For the two platform 132kV option, 4 x 440MVA transformers (2 per platform) are required
or 2 x 760MVA (1 per platform).

1 8 8 16 320
2 7 7 7 21 420
3 8 8 16 320
4 8 8 6 22 440
Table 7-11: 2 Platform (132kV) String Arrangement (2 Transformers)

1 8 8 16
740
2 7 7 7 21
3 8 8 16
760
4 8 8 6 22
For a 3 platform 132kV option, 500MVA is the optimal solution.

Table 7-12: 3 Platform (132kV) String Arrangement (3 Circuit)

1 6 8 5 6 25 500
2 6 8 5 6 25 500
3 6 6 5 8 25 500
To summarise:
Table 7-13 : 66kV Platform / String Options
1platform 2platforms 3 Platform 4platforms
4x4 + 1x3 4x4 + 1x3 4x4 + 1x3
5x4 3x4 + 2x3 3x4 + 2x3
string config
5x4 4x4 + 1x3 4x4 + 1x3
66kV 4x4 4x4 + 1x3 N/A 4x4 + 1x3
Preliminary
Transformer 4 x 400MVA 2 x 2x 380MVA 4 x 1 x 380MVA
rating
Table 7-14 : 132kV Platform / String Options

1platform 2platforms 3 Platform 4platforms
1x9 + 1x8 2x8 2x6+1x8+1x5
2x6 + 1x7 3x7 2x6+1x8+1x5
string config
2x8 + 1x6 2x8 2x6+1x8+1x5
132kV 1x9 + 1x8 2x8+1x6 N/A
Preliminary 4 x 440MVA 2 x2 x 440MVA 3 x 1 x 500MVA
Transformer 2 x 780MVA 2x760MVA
rating 3 x 500MVA
7.2 Transmission Cable Selection
The transmission cables are selected to transfer the active and reactive power from the
offshore substation to the onshore substation. The active power is determined by the
installed capacity of the wind farm, whilst reactive power is a combination of both grid code
compliance requirement and that naturally present or required to maintain system stability.
The natural make up of AC cables results in cable capacitance to earth resulting in current
being drawn even when no load is connected. This phenomenon, known as charging
current, is a function of voltage and cable length. The higher the voltage and the longer
the cable, the higher the charging current becomes. Although both charging current and
cable current rating are related to the makeup and cross-sectional area of the cable and
both increase with cross sectional area, the relative increase is not the same.
This phenomenon results in two issues for the transmission design:
1. The charging current utilises cable capacity resulting in a reduced capacity for wind
generation. A point can be reached where the cable current capacity becomes
swamped by the charging current preventing the ability to transmit any useful power.
2. The reactive power produced by the cable exceeds compliance limits set by the
transmission network operator during no load conditions.
The latter point is dealt with by installing cable compensation reactors to absorb the
charging current and prevent it entering the wider transmission system. The former cannot
be negated but can be mitigated against by the appropriate distribution of the reactive
compensation between onshore and offshore locations. Typically, this is at the OSS but
for long transmission systems, such as ODOWF, midpoint compensation may also be
required.
It is necessary to compensate the cable capacitance completely when the wind farm
offshore is de-energised. For each cable selection considered, the necessary reactance
to compensate the cable capacitance when the wind farm is disconnected is determined.
The cable compensation is determined based on the transmission system operating at

nominal 1 pu voltage. In the idealised scenario, as the system voltage varies, reactive
power production by cable capacitance and reactive power absorption by the reactor(s)
will rise and fall together. In reality, there will be small mis-matches due to voltage variation
along the cable length. These mis-matches are typically compensated by the STATCOM
(installed for reactive compliance).
The split between the onshore and offshore reactors (at the OSS or midpoint) can be
selected to suit specific requirements. The size of offshore reactors can be reduced to
save space and thus cost of the offshore installation or alternatively the location and size
of reactors can be selected to minimise current flow at cable rating “pinch-points”. A smaller
offshore reactor will reduce the size, weight and cost of the OSS or midpoint compensation
platform slightly but may increase the transmission cable size and cost considerably and
may also impact on the harmonics and onshore reactive power equipment.
Once the wind farm is energised and exports active power, the offshore transformers also
absorb reactive power, changing the balance of reactive power absorbing locations. There
is also, to a lesser extent, reactive power losses in the cable. The reactive power capability
of the WTGs could be utilised to either ensure the wind farm injects power at unity power
factor at the offshore Grid Entry Point (66 kV busbars) or to optimise the reactive power
flow in the transmission cable to enable maximum real power flow capacity. Note the
current revision of the UK grid code requires the former. Any alternatives approaches shall
be through agreement with the TSO. Anecdotal evidence suggests that alternative
approaches, which must be cost effective, are not looked on favourably and may lead to
delay.
Hence for ODOWF, the wind farm is considered to deliver zero reactive power at the
offshore Grid Entry Point and, as such, cable selection is chosen to maximise export cable
capacity / minimise the number and cross section of cables installed.
For the case of the ODOWF connection, the “pinch point” will be the HDD section
immediately before land fall. In order to maximise real power export from the wind farm,
reactive power flow in this cable section should be minimised.
Cable data used in the concept design is given in Table 7-15 to Table 7-16. This is then
adjusted to allow for charging current in Table 7-17 and Table 7-18.
Table 7-15 : Generic Subsea Transmission Cable Ratings
Charging
Voltage CSA Resistance Reactance Capacitance Current Rating Current
per km
kV mm2 Ohms/km Ohms/km uF/km A MVA A/km
220 500 0.061 0.134 0.140 745 283.9 5.59
220 630 0.051 0.127 0.155 825 314.4 6.19
220 800 0.045 0.122 0.168 894 340.7 6.70
220 1000 0.041 0.117 0.181 956 364.3 7.22
220 1200 0.037 0.112 0.209 1024 390.2 8.34
220 1600 0.033 0.110 0.218 1100 419.2 8.70
220 1800 0.031 0.108 0.230 1138 433.6 9.18
220 2000 0.028 0.107 0.239 1208 460.3 9.54
220 2500 0.026 0.104 0.254 1279 487.4 10.14
Charging
per km
275 500 0.061 0.137 0.136 731 348.2 6.78
275 630 0.051 0.129 0.150 812 386.8 7.48
275 800 0.045 0.124 0.168 883 420.6 8.38
275 1000 0.041 0.119 0.180 942 448.7 8.98
275 1200 0.037 0.113 0.190 1020 485.8 9.48
275 1600 0.033 0.111 0.212 1093 520.6 10.57
275 1800 0.031 0.108 0.214 1125 535.9 10.67
275 2000 0.028 0.108 0.232 1193 568.2 11.57
Table 7-16 : Generic Onshore Transmission Cable Ratings

Charging
per km
220 500 0.061 0.138 0.140 785 299.1 5.59
220 630 0.051 0.132 0.155 890 339.1 6.19
220 800 0.045 0.129 0.168 995 379.1 6.70
220 1000 0.041 0.123 0.181 1095 417.3 7.22
220 1200 0.037 0.119 0.209 1280 487.7 8.34
220 1400 0.033 0.116 0.218 1385 527.8 8.70
220 1600 0.031 0.113 0.230 1470 560.1 9.18
Charging
per km
220 2000 0.028 0.110 0.239 1605 611.6 9.54
220 2500 0.026 0.107 0.270 1755 668.7 10.77
Charging
per km
275 500 0.061 0.141 0.14 785 299.1 6.98
275 630 0.051 0.135 0.16 890 339.1 7.98
275 800 0.045 0.129 0.17 995 379.1 8.48
275 1000 0.041 0.126 0.18 1095 417.3 8.98
275 1200 0.037 0.119 0.2 1280 487.7 9.98
275 1400 0.033 0.116 0.21 1385 527.8 10.47
275 1600 0.031 0.116 0.22 1470 560.1 10.97
275 2000 0.028 0.113 0.23 1605 611.6 11.47
275 2500 0.026 0.107 0.26 1755 835.9 12.97
Table 7-17 : 220kV Adjusted Generic Transmission Ratings
50/50 Compensation (onshore / Mid point compensation (25/50/25)

Offshore Onshore offshore)
Offshore Onshore Offshore Onshore
mm2 mm2 A MVA A MVA A MVA A MVA
500 500 596 227 645 246 711 271 753 287
630 630 660 252 740 282 787 300 855 326
800 800 715 273 838 319 853 325 958 365
1000 1000 762 290 930 354 911 347 1056 402
1200 1200 777 296 1092 416 968 369 1236 471
1600 1600 840 320 1287 490 1041 397 1426 544
1800 1800 869 331 1274 485 1077 410 1423 542
2000 2000 937 357 1412 538 1146 437 1559 594
2500 2500 973 371 1546 589 1221 465 1705 650
2000 1200 965 368 1053 401 1152 439 1227 468
Table 7-18 : 275kV Adjusted Generic Transmission Ratings

50/50 Compensation (onshore /
Offshore Onshore offshore) Mid point compensation (25/50/25)
Offshore Onshore Offshore Onshore
mm2 mm2 A MVA A MVA A MVA A MVA
500 500 485 231 561 267 679 323 736 350
630 630 533 254 645 307 753 359 835 398
800 800 573 273 733 349 817 389 936 446
1000 1000 609 290 827 394 871 415 1034 493
1200 1200 667 318 1020 486 945 450 1220 581
1600 1600 677 323 1194 569 1005 479 1406 670
1800 1800 722 344 1190 567 1039 495 1405 669
2000 2000 756 360 1313 626 1100 524 1537 732
2000 1200 808 385 932 444 1109 528 1202 573
Based on the above data, calculations suggest that for a four-cable solution (375MVA per
circuit), even utilising 2000mm2 cables (typically the largest size chosen), the solutions are
tight for 50:50 compensation at either 220kV or 275kV and, thus, midpoint compensation
may be required. A three-cable solution is unlikely at 220KV but may be possible at 275kV
again using midpoint compensation.
For the concept design, advantage has been taken of the higher onshore cable current
ratings to allow for a smaller cross section to be utilised rather than the 2000mm2 default
for onshore. For the purpose of the concept studies 2000mm2 offshore export cables in
conjunction with 1200mm2 onshore export cables have been considered as this gives a
cost effective solution whilst offering the most likely solution to meet the power capacity
required.
It should, however, be noted that actual cable ratings are subject to a multitude of factors,
none of which have been finalised at this stage of the project. The above offshore export
ratings are based on generic cable data comprising three-core cables utilising galvanised
steel wire armour and installed with a 2m burial depth, soil thermal resistivity of 0.8km/W,
and a ground ambient temperature of 15°C. The onshore cable ratings are based on
generic cable data comprising single-core cables installed cross bonded in flat formation,
with a 2m burial depth, soil thermal resistivity of 1km/W, and a ground ambient temperature
of 20°C. Any deviations from the aforementioned would impact the cable rating.
Appendix B shows a series or ratings tables showing the impact of changes to installation
data (ground temperature, soil resistivity and burial depth) and an associated RAG rating
to indicate the risk of any given solution. It specifically covers the offshore cable (OSS end)
and HDD section.
From a technical perspective 275KV offers lower risk than 220kV options with the inclusion
of midpoint compensation offering greater certainty than without. 4-circuit options offer
greater robustness and hence least risk in comparison to a 3-circuit option, which would
only be expected to be viable at 275kV. Table 7-19 shows the options ranked technically
by risk (1 low to 7 high). However, at this stage, it would be difficult to rule out any option
technically as in addition to installation conditions cable ratings are also very much Original
Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) specific and at these voltages manufacturers may be able
to increase cable capacity by changing the makeup of the cable, type of insulation,
screening and armour.
Table 7-19 : Option Risk Ranking
Option Rank Comment
Technically the most Robust solution with best
275kV 2000mm2 MPC - 4 circuit 1 headroom; low sensitivity to changes to
installation conditions / cable parameters
Marginal Improvement in headroom at the HDD
275kV 2000mm2 5050 - 4 circuit 2
but at the expense of the OSS
220kV 2000_2500mm2 MPC - 4 Most robust 220kV option though not as robust
3
circuit as the 275kV equivalent
Less headroom at the HDD in comparison to
220kV 2000mm2 MPC - 4 circuit 4
above
220kV 2000mm2 5050 - 4 circuit 5 Limited headroom at both the OSS and HDD.
275kV 2000_2500mm2 MPC - 3 Improved capability at the HDD than below
6
circuit though headroom remains limited
Least robust solution with very limited capability
275kV 2000mm2 MPC - 3 circuit 7 at the HDD. Very sensitive to changes to
installation conditions / cable parameters
Whilst the expectation is that the assumptions are reasonably appropriate for the majority
of the onshore cable route, there may be specific areas where these may not be
appropriate. The HDD section at the landfall is the most obvious location, where the cable
may be installed in ducts at maximum depths of up to 30m. This significantly impacts the
cable rating and additional mitigation may be required. In this specific area one of more of
the following can be consider in order to increase capacity:
• Increased cable cross-section in the specific area. Increasing the cross-sectional area
(up to 2500mm2) results in higher current capacity. Note it also increases charging
current, hence there are diminishing returns
• Use of stainless steel armour rather than the more conventional galvanised steel
armour. This reduces the cable losses and, hence, increases currents rating without
increasing cable cross-sectional area. Though stainless steel is more expensive than
galvanised steel, it is practical for short sections of the route
• Utilise a more accurate calculation methodology. Cable ratings are based on IEC60287
which is a conservative approach. Using a Finite Element Method (FEM) approach in
conjunction with data for the actual manufactured cable would be expected to yield
higher ratings for the same cable properties.
• Fill the ducts with a low thermal resistivity compound. Compounds such a Bentonite as
opposed to air or water can help dissipate heat and this increases cable ratings
• Optimise the reactive compensation scheme to minimise the charging current at the
hot spot location. This is the current default position. Such an approach ensures that
only real power flows at this point and, thus, the default cable ratings (without charging
current) shown in Table 7-13 and Table 7-14 apply.
Preliminary sizing of compensation reactors suggest:

Table 7-20 : Provisional Compensation Reactor Ratings
Onshore / offshore (50:50) Onshore / midpoint / onshore (MP)
220kV 277/277MVAR 138.5/277/113.5MVAR
275kV 418.1/418.1MVAR 209.1/418.1/209.1/MVAR
The higher ratings at 275kV reflect the higher charging Mega Volt-Amperes Reactive
(MVAR) of 275kV cables.
7.3 Onshore Substation
The onshore substation provides the connection to the wider transmission system and
includes onshore transformers necessary to step the voltage up to transmission level,
cable compensation rectors, any harmonic filters and grid code compliance reactive
equipment (typically Statcoms).
For the purpose of concept design, harmonic filters are not included. The requirements for
harmonic filters are wind farm specific and subject to detailed design review. Statcom are
provisionally sized to deliver the full grid code reactive requirements of ±0.95pf
(±493MVAR) equally distributed across the number of transformers.
Unlike for offshore transformers, the onshore transformers are expected to deliver both
active and reactive power and, thus, are rated accordingly. In this case, they deliver full
power at ±0.95pf.
The provisional onshore transformer ratings and the equivalent offshore ratings are given
as follows.
Table 7-21 : Provisional Transformer Ratings (66kV Arrays)
66kV 1platform 2platforms 3 Platform 4platforms
Offshore 4x400MVA 2x2x380MVA 4x1x380MVA
Onshore 4x425MVA 4 x 400MVA 4x 400MVA
Table 7-22 : Provisional Transformer Ratings (132kV Arrays)
132kV 1platform 2platforms 3 Platform 4platforms
4x440MVA 2x2x440MVA 3x1x500MVA
Offshore 2x780MVA 2x760MVA
3x500MVA
4x465MVA 4x465MVA 3x530MVA
Onshore 2x825MVA 2x800MVA
3x530MVA
7.4 HVDC
For comparative purposes a conventional ±320kV symmetrical monopole solution has

been proposed for the ODOWF. This solution comprises of a single offshore platform
solution, combining both the AC collector substation and HVDC convertor station, a pair of
320kV HVDC cables and an onshore convertor station.
For the HVDC case, the offshore transformers comprise a conventional approach of two
3-winding transformers as opposed to four dual-wound transformers, as used for HVAC.
The DC cables are installed as a close coupled pair to avoid issues around magnetic fields.
This does, however, result in lower current cable carrying capacity. For ODOW 2400mm2
cables (typical max) have been considered though it should be noted that their current limit
based on standard default parameters is only circa 1400MW and, thus, manufacturers
would need to be consulted for this to be valid.
The cable capacity issue can be avoided by installing a 1500MW 500KV Symmetrical
monopole. The footprint is considerably larger than the 320KV equivalent but cable sizes
can be reduced to a more managable1400mm2.
It should also be reiterated at this point that a symmetrical monopole solution for 1500MW
currently does not meet the NETSQSS requirements (limit is 1320MW) and thus is not a
viable solution.
A grid code compliant solution would require either 2 x 750MW symmetrical monopoles in
parallel or a 1500MW Bipole
Possible compliant options, none of which is expected to be cost effective (see section
9.3).would hence be:
• 2 x 320KV 750MW Symmetrical monopoles (2 HVDC links), each with 2 x 1000mm2
per link
• A 1500MW Bipole (effectively 2 x monopole) but with 2 (positive and negative) or 3
positive and negative and earth) conductors. positive and negative conductor as for
the symmetrical monopoles. The earthed conductor, if required, is the same CSA but
is not rated at 320KV and, hence, is cheaper.
8.0 SINGLE LINE DIAGRAMS (SLD)
The following simplified single line diagrams define the primary equipment and array
configuration for each of the options. Where midpoint compensation is required, the
smaller of the onshore and offshore reactors are selected. Note, for simplicity, the HVAC
options do not show either the required dynamic reactive power compensation plant
(DRPCP) or the potentially required harmonic filters.
Wind turbine
400/220kV Tx 220/66kV Tx
arrays
ET
425MVA 400MVA
277MVAr 277MVAr
(138.5MVAr)* (138.5MVAr)*
277MVAr
ET
425MVA 400MVA
Landfall
277MVAr 277MVAr
(138.5MVAr)* (138.5MVAr)*
277MVAr
TSO Interface
2000mm2
ET
425MVA 400MVA
277MVAr 277MVAr
(138.5MVAr)* (138.5MVAr)*
277MVAr
ET
425MVA 400MVA
277MVAr 277MVAr
(138.5MVAr)* (138.5MVAr)*
277MVAr
MP Compensation Offshore Substation

Onshore Substation
Platform* (OSS)
Wind turbine
400/220kV Tx 220/66kV Tx
arrays
ET
425MVA 400MVA
277MVAr 277MVAr
(138.5MVAr)* (138.5MVAr)*
277MVAr
ET
425MVA 400MVA
Landfall
277MVAr 277MVAr
(138.5MVAr)* (138.5MVAr)*
277MVAr
TSO Interface
2000mm2
ET
425MVA 400MVA
277MVAr 277MVAr
(138.5MVAr)* (138.5MVAr)*
277MVAr
ET
425MVA 400MVA
277MVAr 277MVAr
(138.5MVAr)* (138.5MVAr)*
277MVAr

Onshore Substation
Platform* (OSS)
Figure 8-1 : Single Platform 66kV Options (220kV and 275KV)

Wind turbine
400/220kV Tx 220/66kV Tx arrays
ET
400MVA 380MVA
277MVAr 277MVAr
(138.5MVAr)* (138.5MVAr)*
277MVAr
ET
400MVA 380MVA
Landfall
277MVAr 277MVAr
(138.5MVAr)* (138.5MVAr)*
277MVAr
TSO Interface
2000mm2
ET
400MVA 380MVA
277MVAr 277MVAr
(138.5MVAr)* (138.5MVAr)*
277MVAr
ET
400MVA 380MVA
277MVAr 277MVAr
(138.5MVAr)* (138.5MVAr)*
277MVAr

Onshore Substation
Platform* (OSS)
Wind turbine
ET
400MVA 380MVA
418.1MVAr 418.1MVAr
(209.1MVAr)* (209.1MVAr)*
418.1MVAr
ET
400MVA 380MVA
Landfall
418.1MVAr 418.1MVAr
(209.1MVAr)* (209.1MVAr)*
418.1MVAr
TSO Interface
2000mm2
ET
400MVA 380MVA
418.1MVAr 418.1MVAr
(209.1MVAr)* (209.1MVAr)*
418.1MVAr
ET
400MVA 380MVA
418.1MVAr 418.1MVAr
(209.1MVAr)* (209.1MVAr)*
418.1MVAr

Onshore Substation
Platform* (OSS)
Figure 8-2 : Two Platform 66kV Options (220kV and 275KV)

Wind turbine
ET
400MVA 380MVA
277MVAr 277MVAr
(138.5MVAr)* (138.5MVAr)*
277MVAr
ET
400MVA 380MVA
Landfall
277MVAr 277MVAr
(138.5MVAr)* (138.5MVAr)*
277MVAr
TSO Interface
2000mm2
ET
400MVA 380MVA
277MVAr 277MVAr
(138.5MVAr)* (138.5MVAr)*
277MVAr
ET
400MVA 380MVA
277MVAr 277MVAr
(138.5MVAr)* (138.5MVAr)*
277MVAr

Onshore Substation
Platform* (OSS)
Wind turbine
ET
400MVA 380MVA
418.1MVAr 418.1MVAr
(209.1MVAr)* (209.1MVAr)*
418.1MVAr
ET
400MVA 380MVA
Landfall
418.1MVAr 418.1MVAr
(209.1MVAr)* (209.1MVAr)*
418.1MVAr
TSO Interface
2000mm2
ET
400MVA 380MVA
418.1MVAr 418.1MVAr
(209.1MVAr)* (209.1MVAr)*
418.1MVAr
ET
400MVA 380MVA
418.1MVAr 418.1MVAr
(209.1MVAr)* (209.1MVAr)*
418.1MVAr

Onshore Substation
Platform* (OSS)
Figure 8-3 : Four Platform 66kV Options (220kV and 275KV)

Wind turbine
400/220kV Tx 220/132kV Tx
arrays
ET
465MVA 440MVA
277MVAr 277MVAr
(138.5MVAr)* (138.5MVAr)*
277MVAr
ET
465MVA 440MVA
Landfall
277MVAr 277MVAr
(138.5MVAr)* (138.5MVAr)*
277MVAr
TSO Interface
2000mm2
ET
465MVA 440MVA
277MVAr 277MVAr
(138.5MVAr)* (138.5MVAr)*
277MVAr
ET
465MVA 440MVA
277MVAr 277MVAr
(138.5MVAr)* (138.5MVAr)*
277MVAr

Onshore Substation
Platform* (OSS)
Figure 8-4 : Single Platform 132kV Options (220kV)
Wind turbine
ET
465MVA 440MVA
277MVAr 277MVAr
(138.5MVAr)* (138.5MVAr)*
277MVAr
ET
465MVA 440MVA
Landfall
277MVAr 277MVAr
(138.5MVAr)* (138.5MVAr)*
277MVAr
TSO Interface
2000mm2
ET
465MVA 440MVA
277MVAr 277MVAr
(138.5MVAr)* (138.5MVAr)*
277MVAr
ET
465MVA 440MVA
277MVAr 277MVAr
(138.5MVAr)* (138.5MVAr)*
277MVAr

Onshore Substation
Platform* (OSS)
Figure 8-5 : Two Platform 132kV Options (220kV)

Wind turbine
ET
530MVA 500MVA
418.1MVAr 418.1MVAr
(209.1MVAr)* (209.1MVAr)*
418.1MVAr
ET
530MVA 500MVA
Landfall
418.1MVAr 418.1MVAr
(209.1MVAr)* (209.1MVAr)*
418.1MVAr
TSO Interface
500MVA
ET
530MVA
2000mm2
418.1MVAr 418.1MVAr
(209.1MVAr)* (209.1MVAr)*
418.1MVAr
MP Compensation
Onshore Substation Offshore Substation
Platform*
(OSS)
Figure 8-6 : Single Platform 3 Circuit 132kV Options (275kV)
400/275kV Tx 275/132kV Tx Wind turbine

arrays
ET
530MVA 500MVA
418.1MVAr 418.1MVAr
(209.1MVAr)* (209.1MVAr)*
418.1MVAr
ET
530MVA 500MVA
Landfall
418.1MVAr 418.1MVAr
(209.1MVAr)* (209.1MVAr)*
418.1MVAr
TSO Interface
2000mm2
ET
530MVA 500MVA
418.1MVAr 418.1MVAr
(209.1MVAr)* (209.1MVAr)*
418.1MVAr
MP Compensation
Onshore Substation Offshore Substation
Platform*
(OSS)
Figure 8-7 : Three Platform 3 Circuit 132kV Options (275kV)

Wind turbine
400/400kV Tx 400/66kV Tx
arrays
ET
800/400/
400MVA
1600MVA
ET
TSO Interface
800/400/
ET
400MVA
2400mm2
ET
Onshore HVDC Substation Offshore HVDC Substation
400/400kV Tx 400/132kV Tx Wind turbine

arrays
ET
800/440/
440MVA
1600MVA
ET
TSO Interface
880/440/
ET
440MVA
2400mm2
ET
Onshore HVDC Substation Offshore HVDC Substation
Figure 8-8 : HVDC Options (66kV and 132kV Array Options)

9.0 CBA
9.1 Overview
The CBA model has been developed to represent the full electrical lifecycle costs
(calculated over a period of 25 years) and includes the following:
• Capital Expenditure (CAPEX)
o Equipment
 Offshore Equipment
• WTG Switchgear
• Array Cables (including terminations)
• Offshore Platforms
o Structure (topside and support structure)
o Offshore Transformers
o Cable Compensation Reactors
o OSP Switchgear
o Miscellaneous Equipment
• Transmission Export Cables
 Onshore Substation
• Onshore Transformers
• Compensation Reactors
• Reactive Compliance Equipment
• Switchgear
• Substation civil costs
• Miscellaneous equipment
• Operating Expenses (OPEX)
o Reliability (availability)
o Annual electric losses, including energy not supplied

The cost models and analyses were developed and carried out in Microsoft Excel. Inputs
to the model include various costs, net present values (NPVs), technical calculations, data
for electrical parameters of equipment, and the different wind farm topologies. Though not
all analysis results are explicitly shown in the report they are available in the respective
Microsoft Excel workbooks.
It should be noted that the analysis remains a high-level overview considering the relative
merits against CAPEX cost, losses, and availability. The designs are based on basic load
flows. For AC transmission systems, cost and losses associated with any necessary
reactive compensation equipment has been included but no attempt has been made to
undertake a full technical evaluation to assess the suitability or otherwise of the system
configurations at the respective distances considered. The need for filtering to mitigate
either harmonic distortion or stability issues is not included and neither has the impact of
harmonic resonance or transient overvoltage issues been assessed, which are the two
most common reasons for making an AC solution technically nonviable. All of the
aforementioned, in addition to requiring detailed analysis, are very site specific and thus
cannot, for practical reasons, be considered for this exercise.
9.2 CAPEX
CAPEX cost data is representative, based on inhouse data sourced from suppliers,
Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) contractors and research papers.
Fluctuating exchange rates, energy costs, metal prices, labour rates, location and supply
and demand etc. could have a considerable impact on absolute prices; however, for the
purpose of the comparative analysis, these are kept constant across all scenarios.
9.2.1 Offshore Equipment
9.2.1.1 Array Cable
66kV array cables are now widely used within the industry and thus costs are widely
available. The costs utilised represent benchmark costs selected where possible to
remove any local or time specific variables such as fluctuating exchange rates, energy
costs, metal prices, labour rates, location and supply and demand etc. For 132kV leadfree
cables there is significantly more uncertainty over both design and cost.
• Dry designs have lower current ratings (and higher losses) than wet designs due to the
additional metallic screens / water barriers required. For dry cables, losses (and hence
current rating) vary with voltage due to the expected changes in screen design with
increased voltage. For wet cable the cable design is expected to remain constant and
thus losses (and current ratings) are largely independent of voltage.
• Generally wet designs are cheaper than dry design
• Wet designs are bigger, heavier and have higher bending radii due to increased
insulation thickness and armour cross section.
• Aluminium cables are considered to be circa 60-75% of the cost of copper cables but
have lower current ratings and higher losses.
The base case cost assumptions for copper and aluminium cables for different CSAs are
provided in Table 9-1 and are based on dry designs.
Table 9-1 : Array Cable Cost Assumptions (£/m)
66kV 132kV
Cable CSA
Cu Al Cu Al
95 85 64 122 107
120 89 67 126 111
150 94 71 132 116
185 100 75 137 120
240 109 82 145 129
300 119 89 154 137
400 135 102 167 152
500 152 114 182 166
630 173 130 202 185
800 201 151 229 211
1000 234 176 264 243
1200 267 201 296 273
Installation costs are based on £160/m and £172/m, respectively, for 66kV and 132kV,
which reflects the increased dimensions and weights associated with 132kV cables.
The ratings for all cable types and sizes are given in Table 9-2. The copper cables used in
the CBA are highlighted in red, while the equivalent aluminium cables offering the same
minimum current rating are highlighted in green.
Table 9-2: Array Cable Current Rating
66 66 132 132
CSA Cu Alu Cu Alu
Dry Dry Dry Dry
95 330 312
120 370 349
150 410 320 387 311
185 455 360 430 350
240 520 415 491 404
300 575 465 543 452
400 630 520 595 506
500 695 580 656 564
630 760 650 718 632
800 815 715 770 696
1000 859 770 811 749
1200 914 815 863 793
9.2.1.2 WTG Switchgear
Compact WTG switchgear has been developed specifically for 66kV and is currently widely
available in the market. These current designs are generally drawn from the same or
similar product range as the standard distribution switchgear, albeit heavily adapted in
some cases to ensure a compact arrangement. As such, though 132kV compact
switchgear is not available, it is again likely to be a modified version of this standard range
though from the higher current end.
Stakeholder feedback suggests that switchgear costs would remain broadly the same in
the long-term as competition increased and 132kV became the norm.
9.2.1.3 Offshore Platforms
No common design currently exists for offshore substations, resulting in multiple cost
variations. In general, substations are either containerised (offshore transformer module
(OTM) design), or fully integrated to provide protection from the marine environment.
Improved methods of marinization have resulted in this no longer being a necessity for the
larger items such as transformers and reactors.
Because the platform structural steel is a major cost contributor, minimising offshore
equipment and optimising layout can have significant cost benefits. For example, multi-
deck platforms or installation direct on a weather deck can reduce structural steel usage.
However, a drawback is that equipment maintenance becomes more complex.
It should be noted that though smaller, single circuit, substations are based on a monopile
substructure common with the WTGs used in the field and larger substations (two and
three circuit platforms) are based on jacket substructures, the actual cost delta between a
jacket and monopile is not that significant. The monopile is easier to fabricate and install,
but typically weighing more than the jacket. Cable deck and transition piece are included
with the jacket but would be extra to the monopile. Selection largely comes down to
developer preference accounting for metocean, water depth and topside weight. For these
studies, the substructure cost is based on a fixed percentage.
The Offshore platform is typically broken down into equipment costs (primary and
miscellaneous), topside cost, jacket costs and transport and hook-up costs.
For ODOW OSP, total platform costs have been derived by ODE for each option being
considered (number of platforms, no of circuits, array voltage, transmission voltage and
compensation type).
Table 9-3 : Offshore Platform Costs
Array Number of Transmission

No of Total OSS Cost
Voltage cct per voltage Compensation
platforms
(kV) Platform (kV) (£m)
1 132 4 220 Mid 356.8
1 132 4 275 Mid 379.6
1 66 4 220 50:50 389.3
1 66 4 275 50:50 430.1
1 132 4 220 50:50 392.3
1 132 4 275 50:50 421.9
1 132 3 275 Mid 364.6
2 132 2 220 Mid 380.4
2 66 2 220 50:50 412.5
2 66 2 275 50:50 453.9
2 132 2 220 50:50 415.9
2 132 2 275 50:50 457.2
3 132 1 275 Mid 399.9
4 66 1 220 50:50 410.5
4 66 1 275 50:50 451.6
For the midpoint compensation, costs have been derived as follows:

• Topside costs are calculated based on £20 million + £70/kVA.
• Substructure costs are calculated based on 20% of the combined topside and
equipment costs.
• Transport and hook-up costs are based on 20% of the combined topside and
equipment costs.
• Primary electrical equipment is individually costed.
• Miscellaneous equipment cost is assumed to be 20% of the primary equipment cost.
Table 9-4 : Midpoint Compensation Platform Costs
Array Transmission
No of Number of cct MP Platform Cost
Voltage voltage Compensation
platforms per Platform
(kV) (kV) (£m)
1 132 4 220 Mid 178.81
1 132 4 275 Mid 248.84
1 132 3 275 Mid 193.60
2 132 2 220 Mid 178.81
3 132 1 275 Mid 193.60
9.2.1.4 Offshore Transformers
Substation transformer costs are, based on common practice, assumed to be based on

MVA rating rather than voltage ratio and are, hence, independent of array voltage.
Autotransformers are typically 80% of the equivalent dual wound transformer and offshore
transformers are typically 10% more expensive than their onshore equivalent.
As a rule, offshore transformers tend to be of the two-winding or three-winding types due

to the relatively large voltage ratio. An increase in array voltage would reduce the
transformer voltage ratio and thus, potentially facilitate the use of autotransformers.
However, further work would be required to assess the impact on both earthing and
protection systems offshore, as a result of such a change as well as any necessary
changes to array cable design to facilitate the use of potentially higher earth fault currents.
The requirements are very much project specific and outside the scope of this study. It
should be noted, however, the use of autotransformers would only be considered if they
proved to be cost effective. Hence, they would only add further to any business case, not
detract.
Table 9-5 : Offshore Transformer Supply Costs
Dual wound transformer Auto transformer
Rating (MVA)
(£ million) (£ million)
380 4.4 3.5
400 4.7 3.7
440 5.2 4.1
500 6.0 4.8
760 10.0 8.0
780 10.4 8.3
9.2.1.5 Cable Compensation Reactors
Compensation reactors are required for AC-connected offshore wind farms to mitigate the
impact of cable charging current to enable grid code compliance when generators are not
operating and to maximise the transfer capability of the transmission export cable. For this
study, both a compensation split of 50:50 between the onshore and offshore export cables
and 25:50:50 (midpoint compensation scheme) have been considered, which is common
industry practice in studies of this nature.
Offshore compensation reactor costs are calculated at £15.525k/Mvar which includes the
impact on offshore substation structural costs.
9.2.1.6 OSP Switchgear
Switchgear cost is a function of both voltage and current. Effectively, the switchgear offered
at any voltage in the range 66kV (72.5kV) to 150kV (170kV) is equipment drawn from the
same product range. Note 110kV equipment is essentially 132kV equipment.
Lower voltage equipment is cheaper but has lower current ratings. To achieve the
necessary higher current rating, equipment selection may need to be drawn from a higher
voltage range at a higher cost. For example, a 4,000A 72.5kV circuit breaker is largely
equivalent to a 4,000A 110kV, 132kV, or 150kV circuit breaker. Cost savings are only
achievable at the lower current end.
As an example: a 9-panel switchboard comprising 1 incomer (4000A) and 8 feeders (500A)

would be circa £1.310 million (8 x 500A (8 x £130k) + 1 x 4000A (1 x £270k) at 66kV and
£2.430 million (9 x 4000A (9 x £270k)) at 150kV - a difference of £1.12 million.
Circuit breaker bay costs are provided in Table 9-6.

Table 9-6 : OSP Circuit Breaker Costs
Circuit Breaker Bay Costs (£ ‘000)

Circuit Current
Um =72.5kV Um = 123/145kV Um = 170kV
Rating
66kV 110/132kV 150kV
2,500A 130 N/A N/A
3,150A N/A 195 N/A
4,000A N/A N/A 270
Double busbar options are typically 10-15% more expensive. Similarly, for SF6 free
options.
9.2.1.7 Transmission Export Cables
For each scenario comprising offshore substations, a transmission export cable size has
been calculated. Cost for supply and installation of these export cables are summarised in
Table 9-7 below.
Table 9-7 : Transmission Export Cable Cost
Transmission Cable (Lead sheathed)
Cable CSA CAPEX / material Cost Installation Cost
mm2 220kV 275kV 220kV 275kV
£/m £/m £/m £/m
500 482 506 110 116
630 506 531 110 116
800 538 565 110 116
1000 574 603 110 116
1200 612 643 110 116
1600 648 680 110 116
1800 686 720 110 116
2000 760 798 110 116
9.2.2 Onshore Equipment
9.2.2.1 Onshore Transformers
Onshore substation transformer costs, based on common practice, are assumed to be

based on MVA rating rather than voltage ratio and are, hence, independent of array
voltage. Autotransformers are again typically 80% of the equivalent dual wound
transformer cost and onshore transformers are typically 10% less expensive than their
offshore equivalent.
As a rule, onshore transformers tend to be autotransformers as the voltage ratio is

relatively small.
Table 9-8 : Onshore Substation Transformer Costs
Dual wound transformer Autotransformer
Rating (MVA)
(£ million) (£ million)
400 4.2 3.4
425 4.5 3.6
465 5.0 4.0
530 5.8 4.6
800 9.8 7.8
825 10.2 8.2
9.2.2.2 Compensation Reactors
Compensation reactors are required for AC-connected offshore wind farms to mitigate the
impact of cable charging current. The use of compensation both enables grid code
compliance when generators are not operating and maximises the transfer capability of
the transmission export cable. For this study, a compensation split of 50:50 between the
onshore and offshore cables has been assumed as previously discussed in section
9.2.1.5.
Onshore compensation reactor costs are calculated at £7.5k/Mvar.
9.2.2.3 Reactive Compliance Equipment
Each scenario includes the cost of a Statcom, rated to supply the necessary reactive power
to ensure grid code compliance at the onshore grid interface point. Statcom costs are
calculated as £10m/100Mvar.
9.2.2.4 Switchgear
Onshore switchgear has been assumed to be GIS technology. The cost of GIS switchgear
bays and are inclusive of civil and installation costs and these are provided in Table 9-9
for the different voltage levels.
Table 9-9 : Onshore Transmission Substation Switchgear Costs
Voltage (kV) Bay costs (£ million)

400kV 2.6
220/275kV 2.1
<150kV 0.85
9.2.2.5 Substation Civil Costs
Onshore civil engineering and material costs for the substation switchyard have been
assumed as a nominal 20% of the capital cost of the onshore substation equipment, i.e.,
transformer, reactors etc.
9.2.2.6 Miscellaneous Equipment
Miscellaneous substation equipment includes the following:

• LV Switchgear (total)
• Diesel Generator
• Auxiliary Transformer
• Neutral Earthing Resistor (NER)
• Control room (unmanned) equipment (panels)
• Lighting and small power.
The total estimated cost of the miscellaneous substation equipment is £5 million.
9.2.3 Harmonic Filters
The need for filtering to mitigate either harmonic distortion or stability issues is not included,
and the impact of harmonic resonance or transient overvoltage issues have not been
assessed. Both harmonic distortion and stability are very project specific. However, simple
analyses of an OTM solution shows that while the impact of array voltage has the effect of
moving, and magnifying, the resonance point at the offshore GEP (transformer LV
terminals), it has little impact at the onshore interface point (400kV connection), the point
of grid code compliance (As a result, any harmonic mitigation necessary is likely to be
independent of array voltage and hence for the purposes of the comparative analyses in
this study, it is not considered to have a material impact.
9.3 HVDC
The supply chain for HVDC transmission systems, convertors and cables, is limited and
hence costs are very much project-specific
Convertor costs, which are largely voltage driven not power (MW) driven, are based on the
latest published costs for other 320kV offshore projects and comprise the onshore
substation (complete), offshore substation including structure (jacket and topside) and
HVDC cables.
The base case option, 320KV 1500MW Symmetrical monopole, equates to:
• Onshore substation £266.00m
• Offshore substation £434.00m
• Export Cable £165.44m
• Total £865.44m
Should a higher voltage be necessary due to cable capacity issue, then for a 500KV
1500MW Symmetrical monopole the convertor costs would expect to increase by circa
50% (£1050m) but with a slight reduction in cable costs to £141.76m giving an overall cost
of £1191.76m (+37.7%).
For a grid code compliant options (based on current regulations) a 2 x 320KV 750MW
Symmetrical monopole system would include convertor costs that are effectively 2 x the
base case option (£1400m) plus 2 x 1000mm2 cable pairs (£248m) equating to £1648m
just under twice the base case option (+90%).
A 320KV 1500MW bipole option is also effectively twice the cost of the symmetrical
monopole. Two convertors per station are required (£1400m) plus a single pair of
2400mm2 cables (£165.44m). the total cost equates to £1565.44m (+80.8%). Note, the
cost would increase further should an earth return conductor be required.
9.4 OPEX
The following sections outline the assumed operational and maintenance costs of an
offshore wind farm. The information has been taken from a variety of sources and also
based on experience in conducting OPEX calculations for several UK offshore wind farms.
9.4.1 Equipment Reliability / Availability
Reliability data gathered from a variety of research papers and other sources shows that
mean time to failure (MTTF) and mean time to repair (MTTR) rates have a large variation
depending on the data source that is used. Reliability, availability, and maintenance issues
are a key driver behind the electrical design. To enable a clear and robust comparison to
be made and in order to circumvent the issues of limited and low-quality reliability data for
cables and other offshore components, availability calculations based on high, medium
and low MTTR and MTTF scenarios have been developed to test the design options.
Sensitivity analysis is undertaken with this data to show that any preferred solutions are
not dependent on specific reliability assumptions.
Note, in particular, that the assumptions for cable failure are independent of either type
(lead or lead free) or use (transmission or array), hence, they are independent of voltage.
Data for cable reliability varies widely and is generally split into manufacturing and
installation faults versus external and environmental faults. There is no evidence to
suggest that manufacturing faults increase with voltage whilst external and environmental
faults, caused by for example fishing, anchor drag and seabed movement, are also not
voltage related. The use of a “per km” basis reflects the higher probability (i.e. more
certainty) of failure with greater lengths of cable is installed. The reliability data used in the
analysis are summarised in Table 9-10 below.
Table 9-10 : Equipment Reliability Assumptions
Equipment Reliability Worst Case Mid Case Best Case

Export Cable Failure Rate 0.001/km/year 0.0008/km/year 0.0005/km/year
Export Cable MTTR 3 months 2 months 1 month
Array Cable Failure Rate 0.001/km/year 0.0008/km/year 0.0005/km/year
Array Cable MTTR 3 months 2 months 1 month
WTG Transformer Failure Rate 0.0131/year 0.0131/year 0.0131/year
WTG Transformer MTTR 1 month 20 days 10 days
Offshore Transformer Failure Rate 0.03/year 0.03/year 0.03/year
Offshore Transformer MTTR 6 months 4 months 3 months
Grid Transformer Failure Rate 0.03/year 0.03/year 0.03/year
Grid Transformer MTTR 6 months 4 months 3 months
Circuit Breaker Failure Rate 0.025/year 0.025/year 0.025/year
Equipment Reliability Worst Case Mid Case Best Case

Circuit Breaker MTTR 1 month 20 days 10 days
Converter Failure Rate 0.12 0.12 0.12
Circuit Breaker MTTR 3 months 2 months 1 month
9.4.2 Energy Yield and Losses
A wind farm, by its very nature, does not operate continuously at full load and so any loss
analysis should consider the variability of the wind and, thus, the variability of both the
electrical losses and lost availability.
Losses are calculated by evaluating the losses at each wind speed. Using generic wind
distribution data (Figure 9-1) and generic WTG power curves (Figure 9-2) the power
output, for each wind speed, after losses, for the WTGs can be established. For each case,
the losses in the system are calculated and then combined with the associated number of
hours per year to derive total annual losses.
For availability, a lost energy approach is used, similar to the approach for electrical losses,
in that the site wind distribution curves, WTG power curves and reliability data are used to
calculate availability figures based on the need, or otherwise, to curtail the WTG output.
This results in a more refined approach to availability, than simple lost capacity
calculations, in that, from the wind developer’s perspective, it is lost revenue through lost
energy that is the issue, not the loss of an asset. In simple terms, if the wind is not blowing,
then equipment outage does not lead to loss of energy.
The power curve for the WTG size is estimated by scaling up the power curve of a
reference WTG. This can be adjusted for the wake effect, if necessary, to provide the net
power curve. The power curve for a 20MW WTG is pictured in Figure 9-2.
Figure 9-1 : Generic Wind Speed Profile for Offshore Wind Warms
20 MW Turbine
25000
20000
15000
MW
10000 Net
5000 Gross
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Wind Speed (m/s)
Figure 9-2 : Generic Power Curve for A 20MW WTG
The nominal energy output for a 20MW WTG was calculated by applying the power curve
to a typical offshore wind profile, as shown in Figure 9-1, yielding a gross capacity factor
of 49.46% and net capacity factor, after wake effects, of 42.80%.
In order to not only determine the relative merits of each design with respect to the loss
and availability figures but also determine the cost of energy (COE) losses over the lifespan
of the wind farm (25 years in this study), capitalised loss figures are calculated using an
NPV of £684.4/MWh derived below for:
• A COE of £50/MWh.
• An Inflation rate (Inf) of 2.0%.
• An Interest rate (Int) of 8%.
25
1 + Inf i−1
NPVEnergy = £COE x � � �
1 + Int
i=1
9.5 Lifecycle Cost Analysis
Life cycle analysis of the options under consideration demonstrate (Figure 9-3) that:
• HVDC options are more cost-effective than any HVAC option.
It should, however, be noted that this relates to a 320kV HVDC Symmetrical monopole
option only, which is currently non-compliant with Grid Code requirements and may not
be technically viable due to cable limitations. A technically viable solution (see section
9.3) is nearly 40% more expensive, whilst compliant solutions are nearly double. In
reality a technically viable fully compliant HVDC solution at 1500MW is unlikely to be
cost effective.
• Adding a midpoint compensation platform is a more expensive option than the use of
50:50 compensation.
It should, however, be noted that midpoint compensation is only likely to be required if
cable current ratings are exceeded and no other practical option is available.
• On a like for like basis, 275KV offers no advantage over 220kV.
The potential exists at 275kV to utilise 3 circuits rather than 4. However, the current
expectation though is that a 3-circuit solution will require midpoint compensation and
is, hence, not as cost effective.
• 132kV array solutions are more cost-effective than 66kV solutions.
The life-cycle costs range from £1248m to £1568m with a differential cost from the best
solution (HVDC with 132kV array) to the worst solution (HVAC 275kV 4cct) of £320m.
Cost breakdown including respective MWh values for losses and availability is given in the
subsequent tables.
Figure 9-3 : Life Cycle Costs (£m)

Table 9-11 : Options
Scenario
Option No of
Array Voltage Transmission Compensation
Platforms
1 132kV array HVDC 1 plat 50:50
2 66kV array HVDC 1 plat 50:50
3 132kV array 4x220kV 1 plat 50:50
5 132kV array 3x275kV 1 plat Mid
Table 9-12 : CAPEX Costs (£m)
Capex (£m)
Option Transmission
Array Cable Offshore Sub Midpoint Sub Onshore Sub Total
Cable
1 79.61 165.44 434.00 0.00 266.00 945.05
2 106.52 165.44 434.00 0.00 266.00 971.96
3 79.61 521.28 392.28 0.00 131.57 1124.74
4 79.61 547.34 421.86 0.00 136.65 1185.47
5 79.61 410.51 364.58 193.63 117.38 1165.71
6 106.52 521.28 389.31 0.00 129.31 1146.42
7 74.69 521.28 415.85 0.00 131.57 1143.39
8 106.52 547.34 430.10 0.00 134.39 1218.35
9 93.74 521.28 412.53 0.00 127.95 1155.51
10 74.69 547.34 457.19 0.00 136.65 1215.88
Capex (£m)
Option Transmission
Array Cable Offshore Sub Midpoint Sub Onshore Sub Total
Cable
11 93.74 547.34 453.87 0.00 133.03 1227.99
12 82.39 521.28 410.51 0.00 127.95 1142.14
13 68.68 410.51 399.90 193.63 117.38 1190.11
14 82.39 547.34 451.64 0.00 133.03 1214.40
15 79.61 521.28 356.82 178.81 124.32 1260.84
16 74.69 521.28 380.40 178.81 122.96 1278.14
17 79.61 547.34 379.56 248.84 129.13 1384.48
Table 9-13 : Losses (£m)
Losses (£m)
Option Turbine Transmission Offshore Onshore
Array Cable Total
Transformers Cable Transformers Transformers
1 19.94 11.30 28.68 2.24 2.24 64.41
2 26.87 11.30 28.68 2.24 2.24 71.33
3 19.94 11.30 108.98 11.25 10.62 162.10
4 19.94 11.30 69.75 11.25 10.62 122.86
5 19.94 11.30 88.55 11.50 10.73 142.03
6 26.87 11.30 108.98 10.65 9.95 167.75
7 16.81 11.30 109.00 11.25 10.62 158.98
8 26.87 11.30 69.75 10.65 9.95 128.52
9 20.38 11.30 109.00 11.32 10.65 162.65
10 16.81 11.30 69.76 11.25 10.62 119.74
11 20.38 11.30 69.76 11.32 10.65 123.41
12 16.74 11.30 109.04 11.32 10.66 159.06
13 14.80 11.30 88.55 11.50 10.73 136.89
14 16.74 11.30 69.79 11.32 10.66 119.80
15 16.47 11.30 108.98 11.25 10.62 158.62
16 16.81 11.30 109.00 11.25 10.62 158.98
17 16.47 11.30 69.75 11.50 10.62 119.64
Table 9-14 : Losses (MWh)
Losses (MWh)
Array Cable Total
1 29142 16514 41906 3275 3275 94112
2 39254 16514 41906 3275 3275 104224
3 29142 16514 159239 16432 15519 236846
4 29142 16514 101913 16432 15519 179520
5 29142 16514 129388 16805 15679 207528
Losses (MWh)
Array Cable Total
6 39254 16514 159239 15566 14539 245112
7 24563 16514 159268 16434 15521 232299
8 39254 16514 101913 15566 14539 187785
9 29772 16514 159268 16540 15567 237661
10 24563 16514 101931 16434 15521 174962
11 29772 16514 101931 16540 15567 180324
12 24456 16514 159324 16543 15571 232408
13 21629 16514 129388 16805 15679 200015
14 24456 16514 101968 16543 15571 175051
15 24059 16514 159239 16432 15519 231763
16 24563 16514 159268 16434 15521 232299
17 24059 16514 101913 16805 15519 174810
Table 9-15 : (Un)Availability (£m)
Availability (£m)
Array Cable Total
1 5.35 8.03 71.84 76.97 76.97 239.17
2 4.48 8.03 71.84 76.97 76.97 238.30
3 5.35 8.03 50.49 2.98 1.46 68.32
4 5.35 8.03 42.01 2.98 1.46 59.84
5 5.35 8.03 43.55 8.48 7.07 72.49
6 4.48 8.03 50.49 5.65 3.90 72.56
7 4.67 8.03 64.66 7.72 6.86 91.94
8 4.48 8.03 42.01 5.65 3.90 64.08
9 3.54 8.03 64.66 10.07 9.22 95.53
10 4.67 8.03 60.21 7.72 6.86 87.50
11 3.54 8.03 60.21 10.07 9.22 91.08
12 2.95 8.03 103.47 16.96 16.96 148.37
13 3.92 8.03 103.47 16.96 16.96 149.34
14 2.95 8.03 103.47 16.96 16.96 148.37
15 5.35 8.03 50.49 2.98 1.46 68.32
16 4.67 8.03 64.66 7.72 6.86 91.94
17 5.35 8.03 42.01 7.68 1.46 64.54
Table 9-16 : (Un)Availability (MWh)
Availability (MWh)
Array Cable Total
1 7823 11740 104968 112465 112465 349460
2 6552 11740 104968 112465 112465 348189
3 7823 11740 73777 4350 2139 99828
4 7823 11740 61386 4350 2139 87437
5 7823 11740 63639 12387 10334 105923
6 6552 11740 73777 8261 5695 106024
7 6823 11740 94476 11280 10021 134340
8 6552 11740 61386 8261 5695 93633
9 5173 11740 94476 14716 13476 139580
10 6823 11740 87981 11280 10021 127845
11 5173 11740 87981 14716 13476 133084
12 4307 11740 151186 24778 24778 216789
13 5729 11740 151186 24778 24778 218212
14 4307 11740 151186 24778 24778 216789
15 7823 11740 73777 4350 2139 99828
16 6823 11740 94476 11280 10021 134340
17 7823 11740 61386 11217 2139 94305
Costs are dominated by transmission (Figure 9-4), with the array accounting for circa 10%
of the overall lifecycle cost. A breakdown of the array costs (Figure 9-5) shows that the
costs are dominated by array cable CAPEX and electrical losses, which results in the
132kV options being more cost-effective than 66kV. The higher voltage inevitably results
in lower losses due to the lower current flows. The solutions are also lower in CAPEX as,
despite 132KV cables costing relatively more, the 132kV options use less cables (more
WTGs per string and hence less strings) and a higher proportion of the smaller (240mm2
cables).
This is demonstrated Table 9-17 where the total installed cable and split between 800mm2
and 240mm2 is shown for the 1 platform and 2 platform options.
Table 9-17 : Array Cable Length
Total 800mm2 240mm2
132kV array 1 platform 199.2 70.6 128.5
66kV array 1 platform 268.1 161.1 107.0
132kV array 2 platforms 183.9 61.8 122.1
66kV array 2 platforms 233.5 123.7 109.7
Overall, this results to a cable CAPEX saving of £19m-£27m (23 to 25%) and a lifecycle
saving of £21.5m-£33m (18 to 21%).
At transmission levels, the lifecycle costs remain dominated by CAPEX costs, which are
broken down by substation (onshore, offshore, midpoint and export cables); Figure 9-6.
Whilst HVDC substations remain relatively expensive compared to HVAC, the HVDC
option requiring only a single DC cable pair (2 conductors) has significantly lower cable
costs in comparison to the 3 and 4 circuit HVAC options, which overall gives lower costs.
The DC option also results in lower electrical losses. The only relative downside to HVDC
is the higher cost of unavailability as a result of the more complex technology and higher
number of series components. The upside of multiple HVAC circuits is multiple parallel
paths and thus more options in the event of failure. The best case HVDC options is circa
£100m (7.5%) cheaper than the best AC solution.
Considering the transmission cable in isolation (Figure 9-7) clearly show the benefit of
HVDC. Equally it can be shown that though 275kV results in lower losses, this does not
overcome the increased CAPEX. The cost of unavailability increases as the number of
platforms increase. Combining the circuits on a single platform affords easy / cheap
interconnection (bus section circuit breaker) and, hence, improved availability. For the 2,
3 and 4 platform options, unavailability can be improved through the use of cable
interconnectors at either array level (66/132kV) or transmission level (220/275kV).
However, this comes at a cost and in the case of an array level interconnection only partial
benefit; fully rated array interconnections are prohibitively expensive and, thus, where
used, a compromise is reached.
The CBA indicates that the variation in platform costs (Figure 9-8) is not a significant driver.
Fewer platforms tend to be more cost effective than more; one is better than four with a
differential cost over the range of circa £100m. 220kV is more cost effective than 275kV
as it uses smaller compensation reactors. Though midpoint compensation reduces
platform cost (smaller reactors), the additional cost of the midpoint compensation platform
is prohibitively expensive if not required for technical reasons. Array voltage has negligible
impact.
Variation at the onshore substation (Figure 9-9) is relatively small (£20m). 275kV is again
more expensive than 220kV, as the equipment is more expensive, and 3 circuits is cheaper
than 4 circuits. In theory, the onshore variation is expected to be small as the solutions do
not vary much. The main differential results from a change in transformer rating due to
string imbalance
Figure 9-4 : Life Cycle Cost (£m) Split – Transmission / array

Figure 9-5 : Life Cycle Cost (£m) - Array

Figure 9-6 : Life Cycle Cost (£m) – Transmission

800.00
700.00
Ava i l a bi l i ty Tra ns mi s s i on Ca bl e
600.00
500.00
400.00
£m
Los s es Tra ns mi s s i on Ca bl e
300.00
200.00
100.00
Ca pex Tra ns mi s s i on Ca bl e
0.00
50:50 50:50 50:50 50:50 Mi d 50:50 50:50 50:50 50:50 50:50 50:50 50:50 Mi d 50:50 Mi d Mi d Mi d
1 pl a t 1 pl a t 1 pl a t 1 pl a t 1 pl a t 1 pl a t 2 pl a t 1 pl a t 2 pl a t 2 pl a t 2 pl a t 4 pl a t 3 pl a t 4 pl a t 1 pl a t 2 pl a t 1 pl a t
HVDC HVDC 4x220kV 4x275kV 3x275kV 4x220kV 4x220kV 4x275kV 4x220kV 4x275kV 4x275kV 4x220kV 3x275kV 4x275kV 4x220kV 4x220kV 4x275kV
132kV 66kV 132kV 132kV 132kV 66kV 132kV 66kV 66kV 132kV 66kV 66kV 132kV 66kV 132kV 132kV 132kV
a rra y a rra y a rra y a rra y a rra y a rra y a rra y a rra y a rra y a rra y a rra y a rra y a rra y a rra y a rra y a rra y a rra y
Figure 9-7 : Life Cycle Cost (£m) – Transmission Cable

700.00
600.00
500.00
Ca pex Mi dpoi nt Sub
400.00
300.00
200.00
100.00 Ca pex Offs hore Sub
0.00
50:50 50:50 50:50 50:50 Mi d 50:50 50:50 50:50 50:50 50:50 50:50 50:50 Mi d 50:50 Mi d Mi d Mi d
HVDC HVDC 4x220kV 4x275kV 3x275kV 4x220kV 4x220kV 4x275kV 4x220kV 4x275kV 4x275kV 4x220kV 3x275kV 4x275kV 4x220kV 4x220kV 4x275kV
Figure 9-8 : OSP Cost (£m)

140.00
135.00
130.00
125.00
120.00
Ca pex Ons hore Sub
115.00
110.00
105.00
50:50 50:50 Mi d 50:50 50:50 50:50 50:50 50:50 50:50 50:50 Mi d 50:50 Mi d Mi d Mi d
1 pl a t 1 pl a t 1 pl a t 1 pl a t 2 pl a t 1 pl a t 2 pl a t 2 pl a t 2 pl a t 4 pl a t 3 pl a t 4 pl a t 1 pl a t 2 pl a t 1 pl a t
4x220kV 4x275kV 3x275kV 4x220kV 4x220kV 4x275kV 4x220kV 4x275kV 4x275kV 4x220kV 3x275kV 4x275kV 4x220kV 4x220kV 4x275kV
132kV 132kV 132kV 66kV a rra y 132kV 66kV a rra y 66kV a rra y 132kV 66kV a rra y 66kV a rra y 132kV 66kV a rra y 132kV 132kV 132kV
a rra y a rra y a rra y a rra y a rra y a rra y a rra y a rra y a rra y
Figure 9-9 : Onshore Substation Cost (£m)

9.6 Sensitivity
The CBA analysis is based on generic base case data and, thus, results are subject to
movement. However, the general ranking is unlikely to change.
Though the absolute cost of 220kV and 275kV may vary, the relative cost is expected to
be consistent as the cost drivers are constant.
132kV cable designs costs are very much an unknown at this stage. This may impact the
overall saving but the benefits are expected to remain.
Studies have been undertaken based on copper array cable. The use of aluminium as an
alternative is possible and is widely used. The selection is driven by cable cost at the time
of purchase. It should be noted that aluminium has a lower current density than copper
and, thus, larger cables are required in order to achieve the equivalent array design.
Both losses and unavailability have been derived from generic WTG and wind data and
capitalised based on an appropriate NPV. Though these may all change, losses and
unavailability have little impact on option selection.
Increasing WTG rating (assuming Transmission Entry Capacity (TEC) remains 1500MW)
will have negligible impact on the transmission design and, hence, limited impact on cost.
Savings would be expected as a result of a reduction in overall array cable volumes. The
value of the saving would depend largely on the WTG layout and their connectivity.
It was noted that there are essentially four main options for the connection of offshore
WTGs: tapered radial strings, branches, loops, and redundant rings. As previously
explained, selection is largely subject to cost benefit analyses and an individual
developer’s attitude to risk / availability. Radial strings, branches, or a combination of both
are the most common options as they offer the simplest method for connecting what can
be complex WTG layouts. However, the potential downside is any cable fault results in
total loss of all generation below the faulted cable. With repair times being typically weeks
to months, this lost energy can be quite significant. Both the loop and ring options, where
employed, provide redundancy but both have their drawbacks. A fully redundant ring
requires full-size cables to be utilised across the wind farm and, thus, is expensive. Equally,
due to cable load limits the number of stings must be doubled. For the 20MW machines in
this case, a maximum of 2 WTGs would be acceptable at 66kV and 4 (possibly 5) at 132kV.
To form rings, an even number of strings is required per transformer or significant
imbalance can occur. For ODOW, 66kV is clearly not practical and the current connectivity
at 132kV does not lend itself to a ring arrangement. A loop arrangement is less complex
as full-size strings are acceptable. Two adjacent strings are connected together such that
in the event of cable failure an alternative path exists for power flow. As the string is still
tapered the amount of energy must be curtailed and, hence, the cost can be prohibitive.
As with rings, an even number of strings is required. Again, this option does not suit the
ODOW 132kV array options.
Both losses and availability have been capitalised based on a an NPV value of
£684.4/MWh derived form an Inflation rate of 2.0%. an Interest rate of 8%. Due to current
events this may prove to be optimistic. Taking an arbitrary but pessimistic inflation rate of
15.0% results in an NPV value of 2936.6/MWh. The impact on life cycle cost is significant
but the general ranking, with the exception of the HVDC options is largely unaffected.
Though HVDC has relatively low losses its unavailability, due to single circuit configuration,
is high in comparison to HVAC. For HVAC solution improvements are seen for high
voltages (275 rather than 220kV) and hence low losses and for lower numbers of platforms
through increased availability.
2500.00
Ava i l a bi l i ty Ons hore Tra ns formers
Ava i l a bi l i ty Offs hore Tra ns formers
2000.00 Ava i l a bi l i ty Tra ns mi s s i on Ca bl e
Ava i l a bi l i ty Turbi ne Tra ns formers
Ava i l a bi l i ty Arra y Ca bl e
1500.00
Los s es Compens a �on
Los s es Ons hore Tra ns formers
Los s es Offs hore Tra ns formers

1000.00
Los s es Tra ns mi s s i on Ca bl e
Los s es Turbi ne Tra ns formers
Los s es Arra y Ca bl e
500.00
Ca pex Ons hore Sub
Ca pex Mi dpoi nt Sub
Ca pex Offs hore Sub

0.00
50:50 50:50 Mi d 50:50 50:50 50:50 Mi d 50:50 50:50 Mi d 50:50 50:50 50:50 Mi d 50:50 Mi d 50:50
Ca pex Tra ns mi s s i on Ca bl e
4x275kV 4x275kV 3x275kV 4x275kV 4x220kV 4x275kV 4x275kV 4x220kV 4x220kV 4x220kV HVDC 4x220kV HVDC 4x220kV 4x275kV 3x275kV 4x220kV Ca pex Arra y Ca bl e
Figure 9-10 : Life Cycle Costs (£m) – NPV = 2936.6/MWh

10.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
At 1500MW and with an export length of 160km, ODOW is on the practical limits of both
HVDC and HVAC technology. Though the ±320kVDC symmetrical monopole solution
proposed is the most cost-effective solution, it is not compliant with UK grid code and, thus,
can be discounted unless ODOW is aware that changes to the Grid Code are expected. It
should also be noted that even if such changes were forthcoming, at 1500MW and
±320kVDC the HVDC cables required for such a solution would be at the extremes of their
range and, thus, there is a risk that the solution may not be practical. A fully compliant
HVDC solution comprising a bipole solution would be prohibitively expensive. For the
purpose of comparison, an assumption of twice the cost of the monopole can be
considered as a reasonable estimate.
Whilst the CBA ranks the HVAC options, the final solution is likely to be decided by the
technical ability of the export cable to carry the load current. Essentially, the current
carrying capacity of the export cable, which is dependent on both the installation
conditions, specifically at the Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) section of the route,
manufacturer specific data and cable compensation scheme applied. The transmission
cable selection in all cases is on or close to the limit of the maximum practical (for this
study) cable size (2000mm2) based on standard generic cable data and installation
conditions (2m burial depth, 0.8km/W TR, 15° ground temp). It may be feasible in
consultation with the cable manufacturers to utilise larger cross sections, especially for
short lengths, such as the HDD section. Increased current carrying capacities may be
achievable through changes to cable design, specifically armour, screen and insulation
properties and diameters. Also, increased capacity can be achieved through the dynamic
rating of the cable, but at this stage no definitive solution can be selected. It is noted that
the issue is exacerbated for the 4-circuit options due to the imbalanced loading across the
offshore transformers and thus the imbalance loading across the export cables. This is
imbalance is shown to be worse for the 132kV array options, with one circuit currently
expected to carry up to 440MW, as opposed to 375MW if balanced.
The inclusion of midpoint compensation improves the distribution of charging current and,
thus, affords better cable utilisation. Though this comes at a cost, it may be the only
practical option.
With this current WTG arrangement, a 132kV array solution would tend to lead to 275kV
4-circuit (unbalanced) solution or a 275kV 3-circuit solution with midpoint compensation,
with the former resulting in the least risk. However, it may be prudent to optimise the array
connections around balance rather than cost and thus making a 220kV 4-circuit (balance)
solution with midpoint compensation viable. The cost penalty associated with increased
string cost being likely to be offset by the savings on the transmission system.
One conclusion that can be drawn is that fewer platforms tend to be more-cost effective
than more platforms, due to economies of scale. The cost saving resulting from a single
platform overcoming the additional array cable costs. However, larger platforms are more
difficult to install due to their increased weight and dimensions and may require a multiple
lift strategy, which must be designed into the platform.
To conclude, until more details are available with regards to the export cable route and,
specifically, the landfall section and advice is sought from cable manufacturers regarding
their cable current capacity, it is difficult to recommend an option to take to the next stage.
Ignoring HVDC, which is technically non-compliant, then, electrically, a 4-circuit single
offshore platform with midpoint compensation offers the least risk. 275KV offers a bit more
flexibility than 220KV, especially if the string arrangement cannot be balanced better.
132kV array voltage offers an advantage over 66kV and for the ratings being looked at,
and in the timescales considered, is likely to be the default solution. Tapered or teed /
branched arrays are now common practice and there is no reason to suggest this approach
is not the most appropriate for ODOW.
10.1 Post study Note
Subsequent to the completion of the concept report further work has been undertaken:
1. The 2-platform array connectivity has been reconfigured and reassessed to give a
more balanced loading across the platform transformers.
It was concluded that the preferred option for the next stage of studies was the 220kV
4-circuit 2-platform option with midpoint compensation using 132kV strings. However,
initial turbine array arrangements resulted in an imbalance in transformer loading and
thus exacerbating cable capacity issues. The minimum export cable size must be rated
to accommodate the capacity of the highest circuit loading and, thus, any imbalance
increase minimum cable rating.
The loading for the initial assent is given in Figure 10-1 and indicates a maximum
loading of 440MW (nominal 1155A @ 220KV).
Table 10-1 : 1 Platform (132kV) BALANCED String Arrangement (4 Transformers)
String Arrangement (No of WTGs) No Of

String Circuit
WTGs per
No Capacity
1 2 3 circuit
1 9 8 17 340
2 6 7 6 19 380
3 6 8 8 22 440
4 9 8 17 340
By reconfiguring the WTG connectivity (Figure 10-2) the imbalance can be reduced
resulting in a maximum loading of 380MW (nominal 997A @ 220KV).
Table 10-2 : 1 Platform (132kV) UNBALANCED String Arrangement (4 Transformers)
String Arrangement (No of WTGs) No Of

String Circuit
WTGs per
No Capacity
1 2 3 circuit
1 6 6 6 18 360
2 7 6 6 19 380
3 7 6 6 19 380
4 7 6 6 19 380
The change of approach has an impact on the CBA. The increased number of strings
from 10 to 12 results in more array cable and, thus, higher capex. However, due to
reduction in loading per circuit the split between the length of larger and smaller cables
changes and thus the increase in capex is relatively small (£1.9m).
The balance configuration however results in lower electrical losses (lower currents per
string) and better availability (more strings) than the unbalanced version such that the
actual lifecycle cost increase is only £1.07m. This would be expected to be more than
offset by the savings on transformer cost alone through the reduction from 4 x 440MVA
to 4 x 380MVA.
Comparative values of 132kV balanced verses 132kV unbalanced and the 66kV
benchmark are given below.
Figure 10-1 : Comparative Costs

Table 10-3 : Array Cable Lengths / Costs
Length (km) Cost (£m)
Total 800 240 800 240 Total
66kV array 233.5 123.7 109.7 44.7 29.5 74.2

132kV array 183.9 61.8 122.1 24.9 38.7 63.5
132kV array (Balanced) 192.4 52.0 140.3 20.9 44.5 65.4
2. ITPEnergised have been commissioned to provide more certainty on the export cable
design (HVDC and HVAC) and more specifically the route installation conditions.
Though the assessment remains preliminary, it suggests:
a. That soil resistivity in particular could be significantly less along the offshore route
than that estimated here, thus allowing for smaller cables, even aluminium cable to
be utilised.
b. That though the landfall HDD section is a definite pinch point, the use of a 2500mm2
copper cable with stainless steel armour in conjunction with bentonite filled ducts
is viable.
c. The onshore route is more onerous than those estimated here and, thus, cables
with larger cross sectional are required. However, the onshore route is not
expected to be a limiting factor.
A extract of the ITPE report is provided in Table 10-4 and Table 10-5 from which it has
been determined, based on the cable options presented, the following will be taken
forward:
• 220kV 2500mm2 Aluminium cable for the onshore export route
• 220kV 1600mm2 Aluminium cable for the offshore export route
• 220KV 2500mm2 Copper cable for the landfall HDD section.
It was noted that for the 320KV symmetrical monopole option no cable solution was
possible; even considering cable cross sections up to and including 3000mm2. Should
HVDC prove to be necessary then a 500/525KV option would be required.
10.2 Recommendation
Based on the earlier study and the subsequent updated information, it has been concluded
that the 4-circuit option with midpoint compensation is the least risk option to take forward.
Feedback from the structural consultants suggests that due to the weight and dimensions
of the preliminary topside and jacket design, that a 2-platform solution may be more
practical than a single-platform solution.
To summarise, provisional ratings are as follows:

• 220kV 4-circuit 2-platform with midpoint compensation comprising 4 off:
• 220kV 2500mm2 Aluminium cable for the onshore export route
• 220kV 1600mm2 Aluminium cable for the offshore export route
• 220KV 2500mm2 Copper cable for the landfall HDD section
• 277Mvar midpoint compensation reactor
• 138.5Mvar onshore compensation reactor
• 138.5Mvar offshore compensation reactor
• 400Mvar onshore transformers
• 380Mvar offshore transformers
• And 12 off 132kV balanced string arrays (3 per circuit)
Note, all ratings will be confirmed during more detailed studies and compensation reactors
optimised for the selected cable parameters and actual current flows. Detailed studies will
include any necessary DRPCP and harmonic filter requirements.
Wind turbine
ET
400MVA 380MVA
138.5MVAr 138.5MVAr
277MVAr
ET
2500mm2 Cu
400MVA 380MVA
Landfall –
138.5MVAr 138.5MVAr
277MVAr
TSO Interface
Subsea-1600mm2 Al
ET
400MVA 380MVA
138.5MVAr 138.5MVAr
277MVAr
ET
400MVA 380MVA
Land –
138.5MVAr 2500mm2 138.5MVAr
Al 277MVAr

Onshore Substation
Platform* (OSS)
Figure 10-2 : Final Preferred Solution

Table 10-4 : Export Cable Options (ITPE report) – Onshore Cables

Table 10-5 : Export Cable Options (ITPE Report) – Landfall and Offshore Cables
APPENDIX A : OSS PLATFORM COSTS

Sheet Title Preliminary Adjustments for OSS Cost on OD OWF Scenarios 1500MW, 1-4 x OSS Modular, 2 x OSS Enclosed Sheet Number 1 Doc No. ODE TBA
Purpose Electrical Transmission Screening Study Project OUTER DOWSING OWF Date 23rd June 2022 * TNEI Preliminary MP Cost Estimated
Compensation
Number of cct per Transmission OSS Transformer Mid Point (MP) OSS with 150 MVA Delta to OSS for
No of platforms Array Voltage Subsea cable (mm2) Land cable (mm2) reactor rating per OSS Cost *MP Cost Total Revised OSS Cost Total Cost
Platform voltage rating per cct compensation* of RC per cct change in RC on OSS
cct
(MW) (kV) (kV) (MVA) (MVA) (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m)
132kV array 4x220kV 2 plat Mid 1500 2 132 2 220 2000 1200 375 138.5 Yes 330.4 178.81 530.3 355.8 -2.9 352.8 352.8
132kV array 4x220kV 1 plat Mid 1500 1 132 4 220 2000 1200 375 138.5 Yes 296.8 178.81 496.7 324.8 -2.9 321.8 321.8
132kV array 4x275kV 1 plat Mid 1500 1 132 4 275 2000 1200 375 209.1 Yes 331.1 248.84 608.4 329.4 15.1 344.6 344.6
66kV array 4x220kV 1 plat 50:50 1500 1 66 4 220 2000 1200 375 277 No 369.7 0.00 369.7 321.8 32.5 354.3 354.3
66kV array 4x275kV 1 plat 50:50 1500 1 66 4 275 2000 1200 375 418.1 No 443.9 0.00 443.9 326.5 68.6 395.1 395.1
R.C. on OSS 150MVA/cct 150MVA/cct 150MVA/cct 150MVA/cct 150MVA/cct 150MVA/cct 150MVA/cct 150MVA/cct 150MVA/cct 150MVA/cct 150MVA/cct 150MVA/cct 150MVA/cct 150MVA/cct 150MVA/cct 150MVA/cct 150MVA/cct 150MVA/cct 150MVA/cct 150MVA/cct
Rating 66kV/220kV 66kV/220kV 66kV/220kV 66kV/220kV 66kV/220kV 66kV/275kV 66kV/275kV 66kV/275kV 66kV/275kV 66kV/275kV 132kV/220kV 132kV/220kV 132kV/220kV 132kV/220kV 132kV/220kV 132kV/275kV 132kV/275kV 132kV/275kV 132kV/275kV 132kV/275kV
Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate
Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value
Description Sc 1 Sc 2 Sc 3 Sc 4 Sc 5 Sc 1 Sc 2 Sc 3 Sc 4 Sc 5 Sc 1 Sc 2 Sc 3 Sc 4 Sc 5 Sc 1 Sc 2 Sc 3 Sc 4 Sc 5
OSS Scenario 1 x1500 MW 2 x750 MW 3 x 500MW 4 x 375 MW 2 x 750MW 1 x1500 MW 2 x750 MW 3 x 500MW 4 x 375 MW 2 x 750MW 1 x1500 MW 2 x750 MW 3 x 500MW 4 x 375 MW 2 x 750MW 1 x1500 MW 2 x750 MW 3 x 500MW 4 x 375 MW 2 x 750MW
Modular OSS Modular OSS Modular OSS Modular OSS Enclosed OSS Modular OSS Modular OSS Modular OSS Modular OSS Enclosed OSS Modular OSS Modular OSS Modular OSS Modular OSS Enclosed OSS Modular OSS Modular OSS Modular OSS Modular OSS Enclosed OSS
with each with each with each with each with with each with each with each with each with with each with each with each with each with with each with each with each with each with
3 circuits 2 circuits 1 cicuit 1 cicuit 2 circuits 3 circuits 2 circuits 1 cicuit 1 cicuit 2 circuits 3 circuits 2 circuits 1 cicuit 1 cicuit 2 circuits 3 circuits 2 circuits 1 cicuit 1 cicuit 2 circuits
of 500 MVA of 375 MVA of 500 MVA of 375 MVA of 375 MVA of 500 MVA of 375 MVA of 500 MVA of 375 MVA of 375 MVA of 500 MVA of 375 MVA of 500 MVA of 375 MVA of 375 MVA of 500 MVA of 375 MVA of 500 MVA of 375 MVA of 375 MVA
Euros Euros Euros Euros Euros Euros Euros Euros Euros Euros Euros Euros Euros Euros Euros Euros Euros Euros Euros Euros
million million million million million million million million million million million million million million million million million million million million
Foundation
OSS Jacket & Piles EPC Supply 22.9 40.0 51.5 54.2 43.5 22.9 40.0 51.5 54.2 43.5 22.9 40.0 51.5 54.2 43.5 22.9 40.0 51.5 54.2 43.5
OSS Jacket & Piles Transport & Installation Construct 15.9 21.8 29.3 35.7 22.4 15.9 21.8 29.3 35.7 22.4 15.9 21.8 29.3 35.7 22.4 15.9 21.8 29.3 35.7 22.4
TOTAL x JACKET(s) and Piles 38.8 61.8 80.9 89.9 65.9 38.8 61.8 80.9 89.9 65.9 38.8 61.8 80.9 89.9 65.9 38.8 61.8 80.9 89.9 65.9
Topsides
OSS Topsides EPC Supply 299.8 306.9 275.1 259.9 326.9 305.3 313.0 327.1 303.9 333.0 303.3 310.8 325.2 301.8 330.8 308.7 316.9 330.4 307.6 336.9
OSS Topsides Transport & Installation Construct 25.5 27.6 34.5 37.1 30.5 25.5 27.6 34.5 37.1 30.5 25.5 27.6 34.5 37.1 30.5 25.5 27.6 34.5 37.1 30.5
OSS Topsides Commissioning & Testing Construct 12.4 16.1 13.7 17.3 16.1 12.4 16.1 13.7 17.3 16.1 12.4 16.1 13.7 17.3 16.1 12.4 16.1 13.7 17.3 16.1
TOTAL TOPSIDES 337.7 350.6 323.2 314.2 373.5 343.1 356.7 375.3 358.3 379.6 341.2 354.4 373.4 356.1 377.4 346.6 360.5 378.6 362.0 383.5
376.5 412.4 404.1 404.1 439.4 382.0 418.5 456.1 448.1 445.5 380.0 416.3 454.2 446.0 443.3 385.4 422.4 459.5 451.8 449.4
Euros Euros Euros Euros Euros Euros Euros Euros Euros Euros Euros Euros Euros Euros Euros Euros Euros Euros Euros Euros
million million million million million million million million million million million million million million million million million million million million
NOTES
£ Rate per MVA per
£ /Euro
1 All values are preliminary estimated values compiled for OSS screening and compariosn purposes only. cct
2 Costs show CAPEX only and exclude Devex, Owners PM, CAR Insurance, OPEX and Decommissioning 1.17 64000
3 Costs Exclude Owners Risk Contingency for Economic, Political, Execution and Contract risks.
4 Costs exclude Contractor's volume discounts for multiple scopes and also exlcude Contractor's secondary mark up on major contracts.
5 All Costs are based on inhouse benchmarks as at 1st Jan 2022 and exclude escalation / inflation thereafter
6 Costs Exclude all site land (and seabed) leases which are all assumed to be Opex costs.
APPENDIX B : CABLE INSTALLTION CONDITIONS –

SENSITIVITY (2000MM2 CU CABLE)
220kV Copper 2m burial depth, 0.8km/W TR, 15degrees ground temp 1208 460.3 220kV Copper 2m burial depth, 0.8km/W TR, 15degrees ground temp 1208 460.3
50:50 Compensated 964 367.3 1208 460.3
Minimum (4 cct) 984.1198 375 -5% 5% Minimum (4 cct) 984.1198 375 -5% 5%
ratio 1.020871 0.969828 1.071915 ratio 0.814669 0.773935 0.855402
Sea K.m/W HDD K.m/W

1.5m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 10m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 1.180 1.118 1.065 1.019 0.978 0.942 0.909 0.879 0.852 10 0.913 0.876 0.843 0.814 0.787 0.762 0.740 0.719 0.700
12 1.164 1.104 1.052 1.006 0.965 0.929 0.897 0.868 0.841 12 0.901 0.865 0.832 0.803 0.777 0.752 0.730 0.710 0.691
O 14 1.149 1.089 1.038 0.992 0.953 0.917 0.885 0.856 0.829 O 14 0.889 0.853 0.821 0.792 0.766 0.742 0.720 0.700 0.681
C C
15 1.141 1.082 1.031 0.986 0.946 0.911 0.879 0.850 0.824 15 0.883 0.847 0.815 0.787 0.761 0.737 0.715 0.695 0.677
16 1.133 1.074 1.023 0.979 0.940 0.904 0.873 0.844 0.818 16 0.877 0.841 0.810 0.781 0.755 0.732 0.710 0.690 0.672
18 1.118 1.059 1.009 0.965 0.926 0.892 0.860 0.832 0.806 18 0.864 0.830 0.798 0.770 0.745 0.721 0.700 0.680 0.662
Sea K.m/W HDD K.m/W

2.0m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 15m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 1.148 1.086 1.034 0.988 0.947 0.911 0.879 0.850 0.823 10 0.891 0.853 0.820 0.790 0.763 0.738 0.715 0.695 0.676
12 1.133 1.072 1.020 0.975 0.935 0.900 0.868 0.839 0.812 12 0.879 0.842 0.809 0.779 0.753 0.728 0.706 0.686 0.667
O 14 1.118 1.058 1.007 0.962 0.923 0.887 0.856 0.827 0.801 O 14 0.867 0.831 0.798 0.769 0.742 0.718 0.696 0.676 0.657
C C
15 1.110 1.051 1.000 0.956 0.916 0.881 0.850 0.822 0.796 15 0.861 0.825 0.792 0.763 0.737 0.713 0.691 0.671 0.653
16 1.103 1.044 0.993 0.949 0.910 0.875 0.844 0.816 0.790 16 0.855 0.819 0.787 0.758 0.732 0.708 0.687 0.667 0.648
18 1.087 1.029 0.979 0.936 0.897 0.863 0.832 0.804 0.779 18 0.843 0.807 0.776 0.747 0.721 0.698 0.677 0.657 0.639
Sea K.m/W HDD K.m/W

2.5m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 20m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 1.124 1.063 1.011 0.965 0.925 0.889 0.857 0.828 0.802 10 0.875 0.837 0.804 0.774 0.746 0.722 0.699 0.679 0.660
12 1.110 1.049 0.998 0.953 0.913 0.878 0.846 0.818 0.792 12 0.864 0.826 0.793 0.763 0.737 0.712 0.690 0.670 0.651
O 14 1.095 1.035 0.984 0.940 0.901 0.866 0.835 0.807 0.781 O 14 0.852 0.815 0.782 0.753 0.727 0.702 0.680 0.660 0.642
C C
15 1.088 1.028 0.978 0.934 0.895 0.860 0.829 0.801 0.775 15 0.847 0.810 0.777 0.748 0.721 0.698 0.676 0.656 0.637
16 1.080 1.021 0.971 0.927 0.888 0.854 0.823 0.795 0.770 16 0.841 0.804 0.772 0.743 0.716 0.693 0.671 0.651 0.633
18 1.065 1.007 0.957 0.914 0.876 0.842 0.812 0.784 0.759 18 0.829 0.793 0.761 0.732 0.706 0.683 0.661 0.641 0.623
Sea K.m/W HDD K.m/W

3.0m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 25m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 1.106 1.045 0.993 0.948 0.908 0.872 0.841 0.812 0.786 10 0.864 0.826 0.792 0.762 0.734 0.710 0.687 0.667 0.648
12 1.092 1.031 0.980 0.935 0.896 0.861 0.830 0.801 0.776 12 0.853 0.815 0.781 0.752 0.725 0.700 0.678 0.658 0.639
O 14 1.077 1.018 0.967 0.923 0.884 0.849 0.818 0.791 0.765 O 14 0.841 0.804 0.771 0.741 0.715 0.691 0.669 0.649 0.630
C C
15 1.070 1.011 0.960 0.916 0.878 0.844 0.813 0.785 0.760 15 0.836 0.798 0.766 0.736 0.710 0.686 0.664 0.644 0.626
16 1.063 1.004 0.954 0.910 0.872 0.838 0.807 0.780 0.754 16 0.830 0.793 0.760 0.731 0.705 0.681 0.659 0.639 0.621
18 1.048 0.990 0.940 0.897 0.859 0.826 0.796 0.768 0.744 18 0.818 0.782 0.749 0.721 0.695 0.671 0.650 0.630 0.612
Sea K.m/W
5m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 1.058 0.998 0.946 0.902 0.863 0.829 0.798 0.770 0.745
12 1.044 0.985 0.934 0.890 0.852 0.818 0.787 0.760 0.735
O 14 1.031 0.972 0.922 0.878 0.840 0.807 0.777 0.749 0.725
C
15 1.024 0.965 0.915 0.872 0.835 0.801 0.771 0.744 0.720
16 1.017 0.959 0.909 0.866 0.829 0.796 0.766 0.739 0.715
18 1.002 0.945 0.896 0.854 0.817 0.784 0.755 0.728 0.704
Sea K.m/W
220KV
10m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 1.001 0.942 0.892 0.849 0.811 0.777 0.748 0.721 0.697
12 0.988 0.930 0.880 0.837 0.800 0.767 0.738 0.711 0.687
4 circuit
O 14 0.975 0.917 0.868 0.826 0.789 0.757 0.728 0.701 0.678
C
15 0.968 0.911 0.862 0.820 0.784 0.751 0.723 0.697 0.673
16 0.962 0.905 0.856 0.815 0.778 0.746 0.717 0.692 0.668
50:50 Compensation
18 0.948 0.892 0.844 0.803 0.767 0.735 0.707 0.682 0.659
Sea K.m/W
15m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 0.972 0.913 0.863 0.821 0.784 0.751 0.722 0.696 0.672
12 0.959 0.901 0.852 0.810 0.773 0.741 0.712 0.686 0.663
O 14 0.946 0.889 0.841 0.799 0.763 0.731 0.703 0.677 0.654
C
15 0.940 0.883 0.835 0.794 0.758 0.726 0.698 0.672 0.649
16 0.933 0.877 0.829 0.788 0.752 0.721 0.693 0.667 0.644
18 0.920 0.864 0.817 0.777 0.742 0.710 0.683 0.658 0.635
Sea K.m/W
20m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 0.952 0.894 0.845 0.803 0.766 0.734 0.705 0.679 0.656
12 0.940 0.882 0.834 0.792 0.756 0.724 0.696 0.670 0.647
O 14 0.927 0.870 0.823 0.781 0.746 0.714 0.686 0.661 0.638
C
15 0.921 0.864 0.817 0.776 0.741 0.709 0.681 0.656 0.633
16 0.914 0.858 0.811 0.771 0.735 0.704 0.676 0.652 0.629
18 0.901 0.846 0.800 0.760 0.725 0.694 0.667 0.642 0.620
Mid Compensated 1152 439.0 1208 460.3
ratio 0.854271 0.811557 0.896984 ratio 0.814669 0.773935 0.855402
Sea K.m/W HDD K.m/W

1.5m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 10m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 1.180 1.118 1.065 1.019 0.978 0.942 0.909 0.879 0.852 10 0.913 0.876 0.843 0.814 0.787 0.762 0.740 0.719 0.700
12 1.164 1.104 1.052 1.006 0.965 0.929 0.897 0.868 0.841 12 0.901 0.865 0.832 0.803 0.777 0.752 0.730 0.710 0.691
O 14 1.149 1.089 1.038 0.992 0.953 0.917 0.885 0.856 0.829 O 14 0.889 0.853 0.821 0.792 0.766 0.742 0.720 0.700 0.681
C C
15 1.141 1.082 1.031 0.986 0.946 0.911 0.879 0.850 0.824 15 0.883 0.847 0.815 0.787 0.761 0.737 0.715 0.695 0.677
16 1.133 1.074 1.023 0.979 0.940 0.904 0.873 0.844 0.818 16 0.877 0.841 0.810 0.781 0.755 0.732 0.710 0.690 0.672
18 1.118 1.059 1.009 0.965 0.926 0.892 0.860 0.832 0.806 18 0.864 0.830 0.798 0.770 0.745 0.721 0.700 0.680 0.662
Sea K.m/W HDD K.m/W

2.0m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 15m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 1.148 1.086 1.034 0.988 0.947 0.911 0.879 0.850 0.823 10 0.891 0.853 0.820 0.790 0.763 0.738 0.715 0.695 0.676
12 1.133 1.072 1.020 0.975 0.935 0.900 0.868 0.839 0.812 12 0.879 0.842 0.809 0.779 0.753 0.728 0.706 0.686 0.667
O 14 1.118 1.058 1.007 0.962 0.923 0.887 0.856 0.827 0.801 O 14 0.867 0.831 0.798 0.769 0.742 0.718 0.696 0.676 0.657
C C
15 1.110 1.051 1.000 0.956 0.916 0.881 0.850 0.822 0.796 15 0.861 0.825 0.792 0.763 0.737 0.713 0.691 0.671 0.653
16 1.103 1.044 0.993 0.949 0.910 0.875 0.844 0.816 0.790 16 0.855 0.819 0.787 0.758 0.732 0.708 0.687 0.667 0.648
18 1.087 1.029 0.979 0.936 0.897 0.863 0.832 0.804 0.779 18 0.843 0.807 0.776 0.747 0.721 0.698 0.677 0.657 0.639
Sea K.m/W HDD K.m/W

2.5m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 20m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 1.124 1.063 1.011 0.965 0.925 0.889 0.857 0.828 0.802 10 0.875 0.837 0.804 0.774 0.746 0.722 0.699 0.679 0.660
12 1.110 1.049 0.998 0.953 0.913 0.878 0.846 0.818 0.792 12 0.864 0.826 0.793 0.763 0.737 0.712 0.690 0.670 0.651
O 14 1.095 1.035 0.984 0.940 0.901 0.866 0.835 0.807 0.781 O 14 0.852 0.815 0.782 0.753 0.727 0.702 0.680 0.660 0.642
C C
15 1.088 1.028 0.978 0.934 0.895 0.860 0.829 0.801 0.775 15 0.847 0.810 0.777 0.748 0.721 0.698 0.676 0.656 0.637
16 1.080 1.021 0.971 0.927 0.888 0.854 0.823 0.795 0.770 16 0.841 0.804 0.772 0.743 0.716 0.693 0.671 0.651 0.633
18 1.065 1.007 0.957 0.914 0.876 0.842 0.812 0.784 0.759 18 0.829 0.793 0.761 0.732 0.706 0.683 0.661 0.641 0.623
Sea K.m/W HDD K.m/W

3.0m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 25m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 1.106 1.045 0.993 0.948 0.908 0.872 0.841 0.812 0.786 10 0.864 0.826 0.792 0.762 0.734 0.710 0.687 0.667 0.648
12 1.092 1.031 0.980 0.935 0.896 0.861 0.830 0.801 0.776 12 0.853 0.815 0.781 0.752 0.725 0.700 0.678 0.658 0.639
O 14 1.077 1.018 0.967 0.923 0.884 0.849 0.818 0.791 0.765 O 14 0.841 0.804 0.771 0.741 0.715 0.691 0.669 0.649 0.630
C C
15 1.070 1.011 0.960 0.916 0.878 0.844 0.813 0.785 0.760 15 0.836 0.798 0.766 0.736 0.710 0.686 0.664 0.644 0.626
16 1.063 1.004 0.954 0.910 0.872 0.838 0.807 0.780 0.754 16 0.830 0.793 0.760 0.731 0.705 0.681 0.659 0.639 0.621
18 1.048 0.990 0.940 0.897 0.859 0.826 0.796 0.768 0.744 18 0.818 0.782 0.749 0.721 0.695 0.671 0.650 0.630 0.612
Sea K.m/W
5m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 1.058 0.998 0.946 0.902 0.863 0.829 0.798 0.770 0.745
12 1.044 0.985 0.934 0.890 0.852 0.818 0.787 0.760 0.735
O 14 1.031 0.972 0.922 0.878 0.840 0.807 0.777 0.749 0.725
C
15 1.024 0.965 0.915 0.872 0.835 0.801 0.771 0.744 0.720
16 1.017 0.959 0.909 0.866 0.829 0.796 0.766 0.739 0.715
18 1.002 0.945 0.896 0.854 0.817 0.784 0.755 0.728 0.704
Sea K.m/W
220KV
10m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 1.001 0.942 0.892 0.849 0.811 0.777 0.748 0.721 0.697
12 0.988 0.930 0.880 0.837 0.800 0.767 0.738 0.711 0.687
4 circuit
O 14 0.975 0.917 0.868 0.826 0.789 0.757 0.728 0.701 0.678
C
15 0.968 0.911 0.862 0.820 0.784 0.751 0.723 0.697 0.673
16 0.962 0.905 0.856 0.815 0.778 0.746 0.717 0.692 0.668
Mid Point Compensation

18 0.948 0.892 0.844 0.803 0.767 0.735 0.707 0.682 0.659
Sea K.m/W
15m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 0.972 0.913 0.863 0.821 0.784 0.751 0.722 0.696 0.672
12 0.959 0.901 0.852 0.810 0.773 0.741 0.712 0.686 0.663
O 14 0.946 0.889 0.841 0.799 0.763 0.731 0.703 0.677 0.654
C
15 0.940 0.883 0.835 0.794 0.758 0.726 0.698 0.672 0.649
16 0.933 0.877 0.829 0.788 0.752 0.721 0.693 0.667 0.644
18 0.920 0.864 0.817 0.777 0.742 0.710 0.683 0.658 0.635
Sea K.m/W
20m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 0.952 0.894 0.845 0.803 0.766 0.734 0.705 0.679 0.656
12 0.940 0.882 0.834 0.792 0.756 0.724 0.696 0.670 0.647
O 14 0.927 0.870 0.823 0.781 0.746 0.714 0.686 0.661 0.638
C
15 0.921 0.864 0.817 0.776 0.741 0.709 0.681 0.656 0.633
16 0.914 0.858 0.811 0.771 0.735 0.704 0.676 0.652 0.629
18 0.901 0.846 0.800 0.760 0.725 0.694 0.667 0.642 0.620
Mid Compensated 1152 439.0 1279 487.4 2500mm2
ratio 0.854271 0.811557 0.896984 ratio 0.769445 0.730972 0.807917
Sea K.m/W HDD K.m/W

1.5m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 10m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 1.180 1.118 1.065 1.019 0.978 0.942 0.909 0.879 0.852 10 0.913 0.876 0.843 0.814 0.787 0.762 0.740 0.719 0.700
12 1.164 1.104 1.052 1.006 0.965 0.929 0.897 0.868 0.841 12 0.901 0.865 0.832 0.803 0.777 0.752 0.730 0.710 0.691
O 14 1.149 1.089 1.038 0.992 0.953 0.917 0.885 0.856 0.829 O 14 0.889 0.853 0.821 0.792 0.766 0.742 0.720 0.700 0.681
C C
15 1.141 1.082 1.031 0.986 0.946 0.911 0.879 0.850 0.824 15 0.883 0.847 0.815 0.787 0.761 0.737 0.715 0.695 0.677
16 1.133 1.074 1.023 0.979 0.940 0.904 0.873 0.844 0.818 16 0.877 0.841 0.810 0.781 0.755 0.732 0.710 0.690 0.672
18 1.118 1.059 1.009 0.965 0.926 0.892 0.860 0.832 0.806 18 0.864 0.830 0.798 0.770 0.745 0.721 0.700 0.680 0.662
Sea K.m/W HDD K.m/W

2.0m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 15m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 1.148 1.086 1.034 0.988 0.947 0.911 0.879 0.850 0.823 10 0.891 0.853 0.820 0.790 0.763 0.738 0.715 0.695 0.676
12 1.133 1.072 1.020 0.975 0.935 0.900 0.868 0.839 0.812 12 0.879 0.842 0.809 0.779 0.753 0.728 0.706 0.686 0.667
O 14 1.118 1.058 1.007 0.962 0.923 0.887 0.856 0.827 0.801 O 14 0.867 0.831 0.798 0.769 0.742 0.718 0.696 0.676 0.657
C C
15 1.110 1.051 1.000 0.956 0.916 0.881 0.850 0.822 0.796 15 0.861 0.825 0.792 0.763 0.737 0.713 0.691 0.671 0.653
16 1.103 1.044 0.993 0.949 0.910 0.875 0.844 0.816 0.790 16 0.855 0.819 0.787 0.758 0.732 0.708 0.687 0.667 0.648
18 1.087 1.029 0.979 0.936 0.897 0.863 0.832 0.804 0.779 18 0.843 0.807 0.776 0.747 0.721 0.698 0.677 0.657 0.639
Sea K.m/W HDD K.m/W

2.5m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 20m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 1.124 1.063 1.011 0.965 0.925 0.889 0.857 0.828 0.802 10 0.875 0.837 0.804 0.774 0.746 0.722 0.699 0.679 0.660
12 1.110 1.049 0.998 0.953 0.913 0.878 0.846 0.818 0.792 12 0.864 0.826 0.793 0.763 0.737 0.712 0.690 0.670 0.651
O 14 1.095 1.035 0.984 0.940 0.901 0.866 0.835 0.807 0.781 O 14 0.852 0.815 0.782 0.753 0.727 0.702 0.680 0.660 0.642
C C
15 1.088 1.028 0.978 0.934 0.895 0.860 0.829 0.801 0.775 15 0.847 0.810 0.777 0.748 0.721 0.698 0.676 0.656 0.637
16 1.080 1.021 0.971 0.927 0.888 0.854 0.823 0.795 0.770 16 0.841 0.804 0.772 0.743 0.716 0.693 0.671 0.651 0.633
18 1.065 1.007 0.957 0.914 0.876 0.842 0.812 0.784 0.759 18 0.829 0.793 0.761 0.732 0.706 0.683 0.661 0.641 0.623
Sea K.m/W HDD K.m/W

3.0m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 25m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 1.106 1.045 0.993 0.948 0.908 0.872 0.841 0.812 0.786 10 0.864 0.826 0.792 0.762 0.734 0.710 0.687 0.667 0.648
12 1.092 1.031 0.980 0.935 0.896 0.861 0.830 0.801 0.776 12 0.853 0.815 0.781 0.752 0.725 0.700 0.678 0.658 0.639
O 14 1.077 1.018 0.967 0.923 0.884 0.849 0.818 0.791 0.765 O 14 0.841 0.804 0.771 0.741 0.715 0.691 0.669 0.649 0.630
C C
15 1.070 1.011 0.960 0.916 0.878 0.844 0.813 0.785 0.760 15 0.836 0.798 0.766 0.736 0.710 0.686 0.664 0.644 0.626
16 1.063 1.004 0.954 0.910 0.872 0.838 0.807 0.780 0.754 16 0.830 0.793 0.760 0.731 0.705 0.681 0.659 0.639 0.621
18 1.048 0.990 0.940 0.897 0.859 0.826 0.796 0.768 0.744 18 0.818 0.782 0.749 0.721 0.695 0.671 0.650 0.630 0.612
Sea K.m/W
5m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 1.058 0.998 0.946 0.902 0.863 0.829 0.798 0.770 0.745
12 1.044 0.985 0.934 0.890 0.852 0.818 0.787 0.760 0.735
O 14 1.031 0.972 0.922 0.878 0.840 0.807 0.777 0.749 0.725
C
15 1.024 0.965 0.915 0.872 0.835 0.801 0.771 0.744 0.720
16 1.017 0.959 0.909 0.866 0.829 0.796 0.766 0.739 0.715
220KV
18 1.002 0.945 0.896 0.854 0.817 0.784 0.755 0.728 0.704
Sea K.m/W
4 circuit
10m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 1.001 0.942 0.892 0.849 0.811 0.777 0.748 0.721 0.697
12 0.988 0.930 0.880 0.837 0.800 0.767 0.738 0.711 0.687
14 0.975 0.917 0.868 0.826 0.789 0.757 0.728 0.701 0.678

O
C
15 0.968 0.911 0.862 0.820 0.784 0.751 0.723 0.697 0.673
16 0.962 0.905 0.856 0.815 0.778 0.746 0.717 0.692 0.668
18 0.948 0.892 0.844 0.803 0.767 0.735 0.707 0.682 0.659
Sea
15m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
K.m/W
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
2500mm2 HDD CSA
10 0.972 0.913 0.863 0.821 0.784 0.751 0.722 0.696 0.672
12 0.959 0.901 0.852 0.810 0.773 0.741 0.712 0.686 0.663
O 14 0.946 0.889 0.841 0.799 0.763 0.731 0.703 0.677 0.654
C
15 0.940 0.883 0.835 0.794 0.758 0.726 0.698 0.672 0.649
16 0.933 0.877 0.829 0.788 0.752 0.721 0.693 0.667 0.644
18 0.920 0.864 0.817 0.777 0.742 0.710 0.683 0.658 0.635
Sea K.m/W
20m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 0.952 0.894 0.845 0.803 0.766 0.734 0.705 0.679 0.656
12 0.940 0.882 0.834 0.792 0.756 0.724 0.696 0.670 0.647
O 14 0.927 0.870 0.823 0.781 0.746 0.714 0.686 0.661 0.638
C
15 0.921 0.864 0.817 0.776 0.741 0.709 0.681 0.656 0.633
16 0.914 0.858 0.811 0.771 0.735 0.704 0.676 0.652 0.629
18 0.901 0.846 0.800 0.760 0.725 0.694 0.667 0.642 0.620
50:50 Compensated 807 384.4 1192 567.8
ratio 0.975583 0.926804 1.024363 ratio 0.660483 0.627459 0.693507
Sea K.m/W HDD K.m/W

1.5m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 10m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 1.180 1.118 1.065 1.019 0.978 0.942 0.909 0.879 0.852 10 0.913 0.876 0.843 0.814 0.787 0.762 0.740 0.719 0.700
12 1.164 1.104 1.052 1.006 0.965 0.929 0.897 0.868 0.841 12 0.901 0.865 0.832 0.803 0.777 0.752 0.730 0.710 0.691
O 14 1.149 1.089 1.038 0.992 0.953 0.917 0.885 0.856 0.829 O 14 0.889 0.853 0.821 0.792 0.766 0.742 0.720 0.700 0.681
C C
15 1.141 1.082 1.031 0.986 0.946 0.911 0.879 0.850 0.824 15 0.883 0.847 0.815 0.787 0.761 0.737 0.715 0.695 0.677
16 1.133 1.074 1.023 0.979 0.940 0.904 0.873 0.844 0.818 16 0.877 0.841 0.810 0.781 0.755 0.732 0.710 0.690 0.672
18 1.118 1.059 1.009 0.965 0.926 0.892 0.860 0.832 0.806 18 0.864 0.830 0.798 0.770 0.745 0.721 0.700 0.680 0.662
Sea K.m/W HDD K.m/W

2.0m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 15m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 1.148 1.086 1.034 0.988 0.947 0.911 0.879 0.850 0.823 10 0.891 0.853 0.820 0.790 0.763 0.738 0.715 0.695 0.676
12 1.133 1.072 1.020 0.975 0.935 0.900 0.868 0.839 0.812 12 0.879 0.842 0.809 0.779 0.753 0.728 0.706 0.686 0.667
O 14 1.118 1.058 1.007 0.962 0.923 0.887 0.856 0.827 0.801 O 14 0.867 0.831 0.798 0.769 0.742 0.718 0.696 0.676 0.657
C C
15 1.110 1.051 1.000 0.956 0.916 0.881 0.850 0.822 0.796 15 0.861 0.825 0.792 0.763 0.737 0.713 0.691 0.671 0.653
16 1.103 1.044 0.993 0.949 0.910 0.875 0.844 0.816 0.790 16 0.855 0.819 0.787 0.758 0.732 0.708 0.687 0.667 0.648
18 1.087 1.029 0.979 0.936 0.897 0.863 0.832 0.804 0.779 18 0.843 0.807 0.776 0.747 0.721 0.698 0.677 0.657 0.639
Sea K.m/W HDD K.m/W

2.5m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 20m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 1.124 1.063 1.011 0.965 0.925 0.889 0.857 0.828 0.802 10 0.875 0.837 0.804 0.774 0.746 0.722 0.699 0.679 0.660
12 1.110 1.049 0.998 0.953 0.913 0.878 0.846 0.818 0.792 12 0.864 0.826 0.793 0.763 0.737 0.712 0.690 0.670 0.651
O 14 1.095 1.035 0.984 0.940 0.901 0.866 0.835 0.807 0.781 O 14 0.852 0.815 0.782 0.753 0.727 0.702 0.680 0.660 0.642
C C
15 1.088 1.028 0.978 0.934 0.895 0.860 0.829 0.801 0.775 15 0.847 0.810 0.777 0.748 0.721 0.698 0.676 0.656 0.637
16 1.080 1.021 0.971 0.927 0.888 0.854 0.823 0.795 0.770 16 0.841 0.804 0.772 0.743 0.716 0.693 0.671 0.651 0.633
18 1.065 1.007 0.957 0.914 0.876 0.842 0.812 0.784 0.759 18 0.829 0.793 0.761 0.732 0.706 0.683 0.661 0.641 0.623
Sea K.m/W HDD K.m/W

3.0m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 25m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 1.106 1.045 0.993 0.948 0.908 0.872 0.841 0.812 0.786 10 0.864 0.826 0.792 0.762 0.734 0.710 0.687 0.667 0.648
12 1.092 1.031 0.980 0.935 0.896 0.861 0.830 0.801 0.776 12 0.853 0.815 0.781 0.752 0.725 0.700 0.678 0.658 0.639
O 14 1.077 1.018 0.967 0.923 0.884 0.849 0.818 0.791 0.765 O 14 0.841 0.804 0.771 0.741 0.715 0.691 0.669 0.649 0.630
C C
15 1.070 1.011 0.960 0.916 0.878 0.844 0.813 0.785 0.760 15 0.836 0.798 0.766 0.736 0.710 0.686 0.664 0.644 0.626
16 1.063 1.004 0.954 0.910 0.872 0.838 0.807 0.780 0.754 16 0.830 0.793 0.760 0.731 0.705 0.681 0.659 0.639 0.621
18 1.048 0.990 0.940 0.897 0.859 0.826 0.796 0.768 0.744 18 0.818 0.782 0.749 0.721 0.695 0.671 0.650 0.630 0.612
Sea K.m/W
5m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 1.058 0.998 0.946 0.902 0.863 0.829 0.798 0.770 0.745
12 1.044 0.985 0.934 0.890 0.852 0.818 0.787 0.760 0.735
O 14 1.031 0.972 0.922 0.878 0.840 0.807 0.777 0.749 0.725
C
15 1.024 0.965 0.915 0.872 0.835 0.801 0.771 0.744 0.720
16 1.017 0.959 0.909 0.866 0.829 0.796 0.766 0.739 0.715
18 1.002 0.945 0.896 0.854 0.817 0.784 0.755 0.728 0.704
Sea K.m/W
275KV
10m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 1.001 0.942 0.892 0.849 0.811 0.777 0.748 0.721 0.697
12 0.988 0.930 0.880 0.837 0.800 0.767 0.738 0.711 0.687
4 circuit
O 14 0.975 0.917 0.868 0.826 0.789 0.757 0.728 0.701 0.678
C
15 0.968 0.911 0.862 0.820 0.784 0.751 0.723 0.697 0.673
16 0.962 0.905 0.856 0.815 0.778 0.746 0.717 0.692 0.668
50:50 Compensation
18 0.948 0.892 0.844 0.803 0.767 0.735 0.707 0.682 0.659
Sea K.m/W
15m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 0.972 0.913 0.863 0.821 0.784 0.751 0.722 0.696 0.672
12 0.959 0.901 0.852 0.810 0.773 0.741 0.712 0.686 0.663
O 14 0.946 0.889 0.841 0.799 0.763 0.731 0.703 0.677 0.654
C
15 0.940 0.883 0.835 0.794 0.758 0.726 0.698 0.672 0.649
16 0.933 0.877 0.829 0.788 0.752 0.721 0.693 0.667 0.644
18 0.920 0.864 0.817 0.777 0.742 0.710 0.683 0.658 0.635
Sea K.m/W
20m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 0.952 0.894 0.845 0.803 0.766 0.734 0.705 0.679 0.656
12 0.940 0.882 0.834 0.792 0.756 0.724 0.696 0.670 0.647
O 14 0.927 0.870 0.823 0.781 0.746 0.714 0.686 0.661 0.638
C
15 0.921 0.864 0.817 0.776 0.741 0.709 0.681 0.656 0.633
16 0.914 0.858 0.811 0.771 0.735 0.704 0.676 0.652 0.629
18 0.901 0.846 0.800 0.760 0.725 0.694 0.667 0.642 0.620
Mid Compensated 1109 528.2 1142 544.0
ratio 0.7099151 0.674419 0.745411 ratio 0.689401 0.654931 0.723871
Sea K.m/W HDD K.m/W

1.5m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 10m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 1.180 1.118 1.065 1.019 0.978 0.942 0.909 0.879 0.852 10 0.913 0.876 0.843 0.814 0.787 0.762 0.740 0.719 0.700
12 1.164 1.104 1.052 1.006 0.965 0.929 0.897 0.868 0.841 12 0.901 0.865 0.832 0.803 0.777 0.752 0.730 0.710 0.691
O 14 1.149 1.089 1.038 0.992 0.953 0.917 0.885 0.856 0.829 O 14 0.889 0.853 0.821 0.792 0.766 0.742 0.720 0.700 0.681
C C
15 1.141 1.082 1.031 0.986 0.946 0.911 0.879 0.850 0.824 15 0.883 0.847 0.815 0.787 0.761 0.737 0.715 0.695 0.677
16 1.133 1.074 1.023 0.979 0.940 0.904 0.873 0.844 0.818 16 0.877 0.841 0.810 0.781 0.755 0.732 0.710 0.690 0.672
18 1.118 1.059 1.009 0.965 0.926 0.892 0.860 0.832 0.806 18 0.864 0.830 0.798 0.770 0.745 0.721 0.700 0.680 0.662
Sea K.m/W HDD K.m/W

2.0m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 15m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 1.148 1.086 1.034 0.988 0.947 0.911 0.879 0.850 0.823 10 0.891 0.853 0.820 0.790 0.763 0.738 0.715 0.695 0.676
12 1.133 1.072 1.020 0.975 0.935 0.900 0.868 0.839 0.812 12 0.879 0.842 0.809 0.779 0.753 0.728 0.706 0.686 0.667
O 14 1.118 1.058 1.007 0.962 0.923 0.887 0.856 0.827 0.801 O 14 0.867 0.831 0.798 0.769 0.742 0.718 0.696 0.676 0.657
C C
15 1.110 1.051 1.000 0.956 0.916 0.881 0.850 0.822 0.796 15 0.861 0.825 0.792 0.763 0.737 0.713 0.691 0.671 0.653
16 1.103 1.044 0.993 0.949 0.910 0.875 0.844 0.816 0.790 16 0.855 0.819 0.787 0.758 0.732 0.708 0.687 0.667 0.648
18 1.087 1.029 0.979 0.936 0.897 0.863 0.832 0.804 0.779 18 0.843 0.807 0.776 0.747 0.721 0.698 0.677 0.657 0.639
Sea K.m/W HDD K.m/W

2.5m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 20m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 1.124 1.063 1.011 0.965 0.925 0.889 0.857 0.828 0.802 10 0.875 0.837 0.804 0.774 0.746 0.722 0.699 0.679 0.660
12 1.110 1.049 0.998 0.953 0.913 0.878 0.846 0.818 0.792 12 0.864 0.826 0.793 0.763 0.737 0.712 0.690 0.670 0.651
O 14 1.095 1.035 0.984 0.940 0.901 0.866 0.835 0.807 0.781 O 14 0.852 0.815 0.782 0.753 0.727 0.702 0.680 0.660 0.642
C C
15 1.088 1.028 0.978 0.934 0.895 0.860 0.829 0.801 0.775 15 0.847 0.810 0.777 0.748 0.721 0.698 0.676 0.656 0.637
16 1.080 1.021 0.971 0.927 0.888 0.854 0.823 0.795 0.770 16 0.841 0.804 0.772 0.743 0.716 0.693 0.671 0.651 0.633
18 1.065 1.007 0.957 0.914 0.876 0.842 0.812 0.784 0.759 18 0.829 0.793 0.761 0.732 0.706 0.683 0.661 0.641 0.623
Sea K.m/W HDD K.m/W

3.0m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 25m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 1.106 1.045 0.993 0.948 0.908 0.872 0.841 0.812 0.786 10 0.864 0.826 0.792 0.762 0.734 0.710 0.687 0.667 0.648
12 1.092 1.031 0.980 0.935 0.896 0.861 0.830 0.801 0.776 12 0.853 0.815 0.781 0.752 0.725 0.700 0.678 0.658 0.639
O 14 1.077 1.018 0.967 0.923 0.884 0.849 0.818 0.791 0.765 O 14 0.841 0.804 0.771 0.741 0.715 0.691 0.669 0.649 0.630
C C
15 1.070 1.011 0.960 0.916 0.878 0.844 0.813 0.785 0.760 15 0.836 0.798 0.766 0.736 0.710 0.686 0.664 0.644 0.626
16 1.063 1.004 0.954 0.910 0.872 0.838 0.807 0.780 0.754 16 0.830 0.793 0.760 0.731 0.705 0.681 0.659 0.639 0.621
18 1.048 0.990 0.940 0.897 0.859 0.826 0.796 0.768 0.744 18 0.818 0.782 0.749 0.721 0.695 0.671 0.650 0.630 0.612
Sea K.m/W
5m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 1.058 0.998 0.946 0.902 0.863 0.829 0.798 0.770 0.745
12 1.044 0.985 0.934 0.890 0.852 0.818 0.787 0.760 0.735
O 14 1.031 0.972 0.922 0.878 0.840 0.807 0.777 0.749 0.725
C
15 1.024 0.965 0.915 0.872 0.835 0.801 0.771 0.744 0.720
16 1.017 0.959 0.909 0.866 0.829 0.796 0.766 0.739 0.715
18 1.002 0.945 0.896 0.854 0.817 0.784 0.755 0.728 0.704
275KV
Sea K.m/W
10m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 1.001 0.942 0.892 0.849 0.811 0.777 0.748 0.721 0.697
4 circuit
12 0.988 0.930 0.880 0.837 0.800 0.767 0.738 0.711 0.687
O 14 0.975 0.917 0.868 0.826 0.789 0.757 0.728 0.701 0.678
C
15 0.968 0.911 0.862 0.820 0.784 0.751 0.723 0.697 0.673

16 0.962 0.905 0.856 0.815 0.778 0.746 0.717 0.692 0.668
18 0.948 0.892 0.844 0.803 0.767 0.735 0.707 0.682 0.659
Sea K.m/W
15m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 0.972 0.913 0.863 0.821 0.784 0.751 0.722 0.696 0.672
12 0.959 0.901 0.852 0.810 0.773 0.741 0.712 0.686 0.663
O 14 0.946 0.889 0.841 0.799 0.763 0.731 0.703 0.677 0.654
C
15 0.940 0.883 0.835 0.794 0.758 0.726 0.698 0.672 0.649
16 0.933 0.877 0.829 0.788 0.752 0.721 0.693 0.667 0.644
18 0.920 0.864 0.817 0.777 0.742 0.710 0.683 0.658 0.635
Sea K.m/W
20m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 0.952 0.894 0.845 0.803 0.766 0.734 0.705 0.679 0.656
12 0.940 0.882 0.834 0.792 0.756 0.724 0.696 0.670 0.647
O 14 0.927 0.870 0.823 0.781 0.746 0.714 0.686 0.661 0.638
C
15 0.921 0.864 0.817 0.776 0.741 0.709 0.681 0.656 0.633
16 0.914 0.858 0.811 0.771 0.735 0.704 0.676 0.652 0.629
18 0.901 0.846 0.800 0.760 0.725 0.694 0.667 0.642 0.620
Mid Compensated 1109 528.2 1142 544.0
ratio 0.9465534 0.899226 0.993881 ratio 0.919201 0.873241 0.965161
Sea K.m/W HDD K.m/W

1.5m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 10m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 1.180 1.118 1.065 1.019 0.978 0.942 0.909 0.879 0.852 10 0.913 0.876 0.843 0.814 0.787 0.762 0.740 0.719 0.700
12 1.164 1.104 1.052 1.006 0.965 0.929 0.897 0.868 0.841 12 0.901 0.865 0.832 0.803 0.777 0.752 0.730 0.710 0.691
O 14 1.149 1.089 1.038 0.992 0.953 0.917 0.885 0.856 0.829 O 14 0.889 0.853 0.821 0.792 0.766 0.742 0.720 0.700 0.681
C C
15 1.141 1.082 1.031 0.986 0.946 0.911 0.879 0.850 0.824 15 0.883 0.847 0.815 0.787 0.761 0.737 0.715 0.695 0.677
16 1.133 1.074 1.023 0.979 0.940 0.904 0.873 0.844 0.818 16 0.877 0.841 0.810 0.781 0.755 0.732 0.710 0.690 0.672
18 1.118 1.059 1.009 0.965 0.926 0.892 0.860 0.832 0.806 18 0.864 0.830 0.798 0.770 0.745 0.721 0.700 0.680 0.662
Sea K.m/W HDD K.m/W

2.0m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 15m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 1.148 1.086 1.034 0.988 0.947 0.911 0.879 0.850 0.823 10 0.891 0.853 0.820 0.790 0.763 0.738 0.715 0.695 0.676
12 1.133 1.072 1.020 0.975 0.935 0.900 0.868 0.839 0.812 12 0.879 0.842 0.809 0.779 0.753 0.728 0.706 0.686 0.667
O 14 1.118 1.058 1.007 0.962 0.923 0.887 0.856 0.827 0.801 O 14 0.867 0.831 0.798 0.769 0.742 0.718 0.696 0.676 0.657
C C
15 1.110 1.051 1.000 0.956 0.916 0.881 0.850 0.822 0.796 15 0.861 0.825 0.792 0.763 0.737 0.713 0.691 0.671 0.653
16 1.103 1.044 0.993 0.949 0.910 0.875 0.844 0.816 0.790 16 0.855 0.819 0.787 0.758 0.732 0.708 0.687 0.667 0.648
18 1.087 1.029 0.979 0.936 0.897 0.863 0.832 0.804 0.779 18 0.843 0.807 0.776 0.747 0.721 0.698 0.677 0.657 0.639
Sea K.m/W HDD K.m/W

2.5m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 20m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 1.124 1.063 1.011 0.965 0.925 0.889 0.857 0.828 0.802 10 0.875 0.837 0.804 0.774 0.746 0.722 0.699 0.679 0.660
12 1.110 1.049 0.998 0.953 0.913 0.878 0.846 0.818 0.792 12 0.864 0.826 0.793 0.763 0.737 0.712 0.690 0.670 0.651
O 14 1.095 1.035 0.984 0.940 0.901 0.866 0.835 0.807 0.781 O 14 0.852 0.815 0.782 0.753 0.727 0.702 0.680 0.660 0.642
C C
15 1.088 1.028 0.978 0.934 0.895 0.860 0.829 0.801 0.775 15 0.847 0.810 0.777 0.748 0.721 0.698 0.676 0.656 0.637
16 1.080 1.021 0.971 0.927 0.888 0.854 0.823 0.795 0.770 16 0.841 0.804 0.772 0.743 0.716 0.693 0.671 0.651 0.633
18 1.065 1.007 0.957 0.914 0.876 0.842 0.812 0.784 0.759 18 0.829 0.793 0.761 0.732 0.706 0.683 0.661 0.641 0.623
Sea K.m/W HDD K.m/W

3.0m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 25m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 1.106 1.045 0.993 0.948 0.908 0.872 0.841 0.812 0.786 10 0.864 0.826 0.792 0.762 0.734 0.710 0.687 0.667 0.648
12 1.092 1.031 0.980 0.935 0.896 0.861 0.830 0.801 0.776 12 0.853 0.815 0.781 0.752 0.725 0.700 0.678 0.658 0.639
O 14 1.077 1.018 0.967 0.923 0.884 0.849 0.818 0.791 0.765 O 14 0.841 0.804 0.771 0.741 0.715 0.691 0.669 0.649 0.630
C C
15 1.070 1.011 0.960 0.916 0.878 0.844 0.813 0.785 0.760 15 0.836 0.798 0.766 0.736 0.710 0.686 0.664 0.644 0.626
16 1.063 1.004 0.954 0.910 0.872 0.838 0.807 0.780 0.754 16 0.830 0.793 0.760 0.731 0.705 0.681 0.659 0.639 0.621
18 1.048 0.990 0.940 0.897 0.859 0.826 0.796 0.768 0.744 18 0.818 0.782 0.749 0.721 0.695 0.671 0.650 0.630 0.612
Sea K.m/W
5m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 1.058 0.998 0.946 0.902 0.863 0.829 0.798 0.770 0.745
12 1.044 0.985 0.934 0.890 0.852 0.818 0.787 0.760 0.735
O 14 1.031 0.972 0.922 0.878 0.840 0.807 0.777 0.749 0.725
C
15 1.024 0.965 0.915 0.872 0.835 0.801 0.771 0.744 0.720
16 1.017 0.959 0.909 0.866 0.829 0.796 0.766 0.739 0.715
18 1.002 0.945 0.896 0.854 0.817 0.784 0.755 0.728 0.704
275KV
Sea K.m/W
10m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 1.001 0.942 0.892 0.849 0.811 0.777 0.748 0.721 0.697
3 circuit
12 0.988 0.930 0.880 0.837 0.800 0.767 0.738 0.711 0.687
O 14 0.975 0.917 0.868 0.826 0.789 0.757 0.728 0.701 0.678
C
15 0.968 0.911 0.862 0.820 0.784 0.751 0.723 0.697 0.673

16 0.962 0.905 0.856 0.815 0.778 0.746 0.717 0.692 0.668
18 0.948 0.892 0.844 0.803 0.767 0.735 0.707 0.682 0.659
Sea K.m/W
15m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 0.972 0.913 0.863 0.821 0.784 0.751 0.722 0.696 0.672
12 0.959 0.901 0.852 0.810 0.773 0.741 0.712 0.686 0.663
O 14 0.946 0.889 0.841 0.799 0.763 0.731 0.703 0.677 0.654
C
15 0.940 0.883 0.835 0.794 0.758 0.726 0.698 0.672 0.649
16 0.933 0.877 0.829 0.788 0.752 0.721 0.693 0.667 0.644
18 0.920 0.864 0.817 0.777 0.742 0.710 0.683 0.658 0.635
Sea K.m/W
20m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 0.952 0.894 0.845 0.803 0.766 0.734 0.705 0.679 0.656
12 0.940 0.882 0.834 0.792 0.756 0.724 0.696 0.670 0.647
O 14 0.927 0.870 0.823 0.781 0.746 0.714 0.686 0.661 0.638
C
15 0.921 0.864 0.817 0.776 0.741 0.709 0.681 0.656 0.633
16 0.914 0.858 0.811 0.771 0.735 0.704 0.676 0.652 0.629
18 0.901 0.846 0.800 0.760 0.725 0.694 0.667 0.642 0.620
Mid Compensated 1109 528.2 1207 574.9 estimate
ratio 0.9465534 0.899226 0.993881 ratio 0.8697 0.826215 0.913185
Sea K.m/W HDD K.m/W

1.5m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 10m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 1.180 1.118 1.065 1.019 0.978 0.942 0.909 0.879 0.852 10 0.913 0.876 0.843 0.814 0.787 0.762 0.740 0.719 0.700
12 1.164 1.104 1.052 1.006 0.965 0.929 0.897 0.868 0.841 12 0.901 0.865 0.832 0.803 0.777 0.752 0.730 0.710 0.691
O 14 1.149 1.089 1.038 0.992 0.953 0.917 0.885 0.856 0.829 O 14 0.889 0.853 0.821 0.792 0.766 0.742 0.720 0.700 0.681
C C
15 1.141 1.082 1.031 0.986 0.946 0.911 0.879 0.850 0.824 15 0.883 0.847 0.815 0.787 0.761 0.737 0.715 0.695 0.677
16 1.133 1.074 1.023 0.979 0.940 0.904 0.873 0.844 0.818 16 0.877 0.841 0.810 0.781 0.755 0.732 0.710 0.690 0.672
18 1.118 1.059 1.009 0.965 0.926 0.892 0.860 0.832 0.806 18 0.864 0.830 0.798 0.770 0.745 0.721 0.700 0.680 0.662
Sea K.m/W HDD K.m/W

2.0m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 15m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 1.148 1.086 1.034 0.988 0.947 0.911 0.879 0.850 0.823 10 0.891 0.853 0.820 0.790 0.763 0.738 0.715 0.695 0.676
12 1.133 1.072 1.020 0.975 0.935 0.900 0.868 0.839 0.812 12 0.879 0.842 0.809 0.779 0.753 0.728 0.706 0.686 0.667
O 14 1.118 1.058 1.007 0.962 0.923 0.887 0.856 0.827 0.801 O 14 0.867 0.831 0.798 0.769 0.742 0.718 0.696 0.676 0.657
C C
15 1.110 1.051 1.000 0.956 0.916 0.881 0.850 0.822 0.796 15 0.861 0.825 0.792 0.763 0.737 0.713 0.691 0.671 0.653
16 1.103 1.044 0.993 0.949 0.910 0.875 0.844 0.816 0.790 16 0.855 0.819 0.787 0.758 0.732 0.708 0.687 0.667 0.648
18 1.087 1.029 0.979 0.936 0.897 0.863 0.832 0.804 0.779 18 0.843 0.807 0.776 0.747 0.721 0.698 0.677 0.657 0.639
Sea K.m/W HDD K.m/W

2.5m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 20m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 1.124 1.063 1.011 0.965 0.925 0.889 0.857 0.828 0.802 10 0.875 0.837 0.804 0.774 0.746 0.722 0.699 0.679 0.660
12 1.110 1.049 0.998 0.953 0.913 0.878 0.846 0.818 0.792 12 0.864 0.826 0.793 0.763 0.737 0.712 0.690 0.670 0.651
O 14 1.095 1.035 0.984 0.940 0.901 0.866 0.835 0.807 0.781 O 14 0.852 0.815 0.782 0.753 0.727 0.702 0.680 0.660 0.642
C C
15 1.088 1.028 0.978 0.934 0.895 0.860 0.829 0.801 0.775 15 0.847 0.810 0.777 0.748 0.721 0.698 0.676 0.656 0.637
16 1.080 1.021 0.971 0.927 0.888 0.854 0.823 0.795 0.770 16 0.841 0.804 0.772 0.743 0.716 0.693 0.671 0.651 0.633
18 1.065 1.007 0.957 0.914 0.876 0.842 0.812 0.784 0.759 18 0.829 0.793 0.761 0.732 0.706 0.683 0.661 0.641 0.623
Sea K.m/W HDD K.m/W

3.0m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 25m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 1.106 1.045 0.993 0.948 0.908 0.872 0.841 0.812 0.786 10 0.864 0.826 0.792 0.762 0.734 0.710 0.687 0.667 0.648
12 1.092 1.031 0.980 0.935 0.896 0.861 0.830 0.801 0.776 12 0.853 0.815 0.781 0.752 0.725 0.700 0.678 0.658 0.639
O 14 1.077 1.018 0.967 0.923 0.884 0.849 0.818 0.791 0.765 O 14 0.841 0.804 0.771 0.741 0.715 0.691 0.669 0.649 0.630
C C
15 1.070 1.011 0.960 0.916 0.878 0.844 0.813 0.785 0.760 15 0.836 0.798 0.766 0.736 0.710 0.686 0.664 0.644 0.626
16 1.063 1.004 0.954 0.910 0.872 0.838 0.807 0.780 0.754 16 0.830 0.793 0.760 0.731 0.705 0.681 0.659 0.639 0.621
18 1.048 0.990 0.940 0.897 0.859 0.826 0.796 0.768 0.744 18 0.818 0.782 0.749 0.721 0.695 0.671 0.650 0.630 0.612
Sea K.m/W
5m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 1.058 0.998 0.946 0.902 0.863 0.829 0.798 0.770 0.745
12 1.044 0.985 0.934 0.890 0.852 0.818 0.787 0.760 0.735
O 14 1.031 0.972 0.922 0.878 0.840 0.807 0.777 0.749 0.725
C
15 1.024 0.965 0.915 0.872 0.835 0.801 0.771 0.744 0.720
16 1.017 0.959 0.909 0.866 0.829 0.796 0.766 0.739 0.715
275KV
18 1.002 0.945 0.896 0.854 0.817 0.784 0.755 0.728 0.704
Sea K.m/W
10m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10
12
14
1.001
0.988
0.975
0.942
0.930
0.917
0.892
0.880
0.868
0.849
0.837
0.826
0.811
0.800
0.789
0.777
0.767
0.757
0.748
0.738
0.728
0.721
0.711
0.701
0.697
0.687
0.678
3 circuit
O
C
15 0.968 0.911 0.862 0.820 0.784 0.751 0.723 0.697 0.673
16 0.962 0.905 0.856 0.815 0.778 0.746 0.717 0.692 0.668
18 0.948 0.892 0.844 0.803 0.767 0.735 0.707 0.682 0.659
Sea
15m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
K.m/W
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
2500mm2 HDD CSA
10 0.972 0.913 0.863 0.821 0.784 0.751 0.722 0.696 0.672
12 0.959 0.901 0.852 0.810 0.773 0.741 0.712 0.686 0.663
O 14 0.946 0.889 0.841 0.799 0.763 0.731 0.703 0.677 0.654
C
15 0.940 0.883 0.835 0.794 0.758 0.726 0.698 0.672 0.649
16 0.933 0.877 0.829 0.788 0.752 0.721 0.693 0.667 0.644
18 0.920 0.864 0.817 0.777 0.742 0.710 0.683 0.658 0.635
Sea K.m/W
20m 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
10 0.952 0.894 0.845 0.803 0.766 0.734 0.705 0.679 0.656
12 0.940 0.882 0.834 0.792 0.756 0.724 0.696 0.670 0.647
O 14 0.927 0.870 0.823 0.781 0.746 0.714 0.686 0.661 0.638
C
15 0.921 0.864 0.817 0.776 0.741 0.709 0.681 0.656 0.633
16 0.914 0.858 0.811 0.771 0.735 0.704 0.676 0.652 0.629
18 0.901 0.846 0.800 0.760 0.725 0.694 0.667 0.642 0.620

123-ODE-ELE-A-RA-000001 - Revb - Outer Dowsing OWF - Concept Electrical System Report

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

123-ODE-ELE-A-RA-000001 - Revb - Outer Dowsing OWF - Concept Electrical System Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Doc No: 123-ODE-ELE-A-RA-000001

OUTER DOWSING PRE-FEED Page: 1

Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind

Concept Electrical System Report

ODOW Document No: 123-ODE-ELE-A-RA-000001

ODE Document No: 503201-ODW-ODE-RP-EL-0001

Revision Sections affected Date

Copyright © ODE Group Ltd (and respective subsidiaries) 2022

This notice is governed by English law.

Table 9-5 : Offshore Transformer Supply Costs ............................................................................ 61

Figure 4-15 : German Offshore Wind Development Area .............................................................. 26

1.2 Project Description

Figure 1-1: ODOW Project Area

1.3 Document Purpose

1.4 System of Units

All drawings shall be dimensioned and detailed using SI Units.

2.0 ACRONYMS AND TERMS DEFINITIONS

ACRONYM DEFINITION / DESCRIPTION

NER Neutral Earthing Resistor

HOLD No. DESCRIPTION OF HOLD SECTIONS

N/A N/A N/A

4.0 ELECTRICAL SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE DESIGN

4.1 AC Collector Substations

Collector array voltage is generally stepped up in an offshore substation before

4.1.1 WTG Strings / Array Cables

4.1.1.1 Tapered Radial Strings

Figure 4-1 : Radial String Topology

4.1.1.2 Tees (Branches)

Figure 4-2 : Tee Topology

4.1.1.3 Loops (Tapered Ring)

Figure 4-3 : Loop Topology

4.1.1.4 Redundant Rings

Figure 4-4 : Redundant Ring Topology

Figure 4-5 : Conventional Design

Figure 4-6 : Parallel Breakers – Solid Busbar

Figure 4-7 : Parallel Breakers – Split Busbar

Figure 4-8 : 3 Winding Transformer Solution

Transformers are the heaviest components on an offshore substation platform (up to a

The development of water-cooled transformers has the potential to reduce transformer

4.2 HVAC Transmission System

The use of HVAC cables for transmission on land is a well-established technology.

Figure 4-9 : Individual Cables Per Transformer (option 1)

Figure 4-10 : Individual Cables Per Offshore Substation (option 2)

As is to be expected, the number of cables may be reduced by increasing the voltage, or

4.3 Transmission Circuit(s)

4.3.1 HVAC Transmission

It is possible to increase the cable transfer capability by adding reactive compensation at

4.3.2 HVDC Transmission

threshold is exceeded, the economics of a HVDC technology solution become more

4.4 HVDC Technology

4.4.1 CSC-HVDC and VSC-HVDC Configurations

Current Source Converter (CSC)-HVDC is a mature technology. The first CSC-HVDC

Figure 4-13 : VSC-HVDC Transmission with a Symmetrical Monopole

Figure 4-14 : VSC-HVDC Transmission with a Bipolar Configuration

4.4.2 VSC-HVDC Suppliers and Ratings

±500kVDC M10 M11 M12 M12x

±640kVDC M13 M14 M15 M15x

Base power MVA 427 839 1,281 1,635

AC current AC 580 1,140 1,740 2,610

4.4.3 Case Studies

German Offshore Wind Farm Connections

TenneT, one of the European transmission network operators (Netherlands and

Figure 4-15 : German Offshore Wind Development Area