Regional Green Energy Transition

REGIONAL GREEN ENERGY TRANSITION

NSAC event, Amsterdam 19 March 2019

Amsterdam | 26 February 2019 THE ENERGY FUTURE THAT WE ARE LOOKING INTO

Perspective - power system

■ 80-95% reduction (compared to 1990) in CO2 emissions before 2050 ■ full decarbonisation of the electricity supply well before 2045

Bio Offshore wind (North Sea)

Hydro

Nuclear

Offshore wind (other seas) Onshore wind

■ large scale, far offshore ■ cross-border spatial ■ sufficient interconnection ■ flexibility to support non- wind planning capacity to maintain dispatchable generation ■ accelerated deployment ■ minimum impact / maximum operational security benefit to environment

NGO-meeting 18-3-2019 2 THE NORTH SEA WIND POWER HUB Developing large scale offshore wind power in the North Sea, to be supplied to European markets, using a modular “hub and spoke” concept

• Offshore hubs in the North Sea could each connect up to approximately 30 GW wind power and distribute generated power to European markets

through a network of cables (spokes) and/or pipelines (H2 production)

• From a hub, generated power will be transmitted to markets around the North Sea

• The network of transmission cables will also function as interconnectors, directly connecting European energy markets

North Sea Wind Power Hub Consortium TenneT Netherlands, TenneT Germany, Energinet, Gasunie and Port of Rotterdam joined forces to develop a large scale European energy system for offshore wind in the North Sea.

Title of the presentation Month, Year 3 …MUCH MORE WIND IN THE NORTH SEA

OFFSHORE WIND IS ESSENTIAL TO MEET PARIS ACROSS SCENARIOS

70 – 150 GW by 2040 Equals 7-15 times current installed capacity

NGO-meeting 18-3-2019 4 NORTH SEA WIND POWER HUB PREFEASIBILITY PROJECT

• Regional North Sea approach

• Hub and spoke infrastructure concept

• Wind power and interconnection combined

• Integrating flexibility options (P2G/P2X)

NSWPH IS STANDING ON TWO LEGS

Leg 1: Leg 2: North Sea International First Concrete Concept Coordinated Roll Out

Source: NSWPH Concept Paper ‘The Vision’ HUB AND SPOKE VS BAU SEEN FROM ABOVE

AC Radial

DC Radial

H&S …AND FROM THE SIDE

Business as usual Hub and spoke

Large scale far from shore Far from shore Hub and spoke DC Close to shore platform

AC platform > 80 km offshore …AND IN TERMS OF SAVED INFRASTRUCTURE

THE NEED FOR AN INTEGRAL SPATIAL PLANNING APPROACH

The large-scale offshore wind roll-out will impact the North Sea environment and Spatial will require cross-border cooperation Claims and co-utilization. ? To avoid delays in OWF deployment that would jeopardize meeting the Paris Environmental Public Agreement climate goals Concerns

…the consortium is eager to initiate and facilitate discussions with policy makers, environmental organisations and Techno other relevant stakeholders Economic

…and to contribute to these discussions by providing insight into the techno- economic and security of supply impacts of spatial planning choices

North Sea Spatial Planning

OWF Spatial Planning Cost Drivers 27 Sept 2018 10 KEY INSIGHTS FROM COST EVALUATION STUDY Hub & Spoke has 5-6% cost reduction potential • Limited area with relatively shallow • Near shore locations very attractive waters (<55m water depth) from LCOE perspective

AC-radial only DC-radial only Hub and Spoke

• Trench in central North Sea (>55m • Sand mining areas has the highest • Higher LCOE in central water depth) spatial adaptation costs • part of North Sea (deeper waters)

Offshore Wind Cost Analysis February 2019 11 KEY STUDY INSIGHTS

First indication on co-utilization costs show 1-2% increase of average LCoE Excluding nature areas will increase average LCoE of roll-out with approximately 3% Not all impacts of offshore wind area use are straightforward to monetize (e.g. long-term environmental effects) Most attractive locations (a.o): Borkum Riffgrund, Dogger Bank, Danish Coast, Norfolk Sandbanks

Offshore Wind Cost Analysis February 2019 12 STUDY LIMITATIONS

• France and Belgium are not included

• Applied power density Higher power densities would allow for less spatial claim, but also (potentially) lower yield

• No future decommissioning of oil & gas platforms Potentially increasing the remaining space for OWF development

• Monopile foundation up to 55m water depth Applying different substructures will change cost input, hence the LCOE (experts argue impact is limited)

• Floating turbines not considered Floating turbines can be deployed in deeper waters, increasing the remaining space for OWF development

• Uncertainty on OWF wake losses Potentially overestimating the yield predictions for large clustered OWFs

Offshore Wind Cost Analysis February 2019 13 WAY FORWARD

Continued outreach to North Sea stakeholders Spatial Claims Provide techno-economic ? perspective in the spatial planning debate Environmental Public Concerns Three test areas being examined in deeper detail (based on study results) Techno Economic

North Sea Spatial Planning

OWF Spatial Planning Cost Drivers 27 Sept 2018 14 LOOKING AT THE WIDER NORTH SEA BY ANALYSING DRIVERS AND DYNAMICS IN THREE EXPLORATORY LOCATIONS

THE LOCATIONS ARE EXPLORATORY

This mean that the consortium:

• does NOT yet consider itself in a position to make any decisions on spatial planning matters, • has NO preferred location yet, • is NOT developing a specific project yet, • has taken NO decision yet on any realization • is NOT in an environmental impact assessment process, • does NOT yet apply for permits.

NGO-meeting 18-3-2019 16 MATURATION TIMELINE

Mid 2019 2025-2030 2030-2035 NSWPH ORGANISATIONAL SETUP AND CONTACTS

Main coordinator: Peter Godt-Larsen, team lead for the permits and legal work stream, [email protected], +45 2491 7348.

Country stakeholder managers/SPOC’s Denmark: Charlotte Melchiorsen, [email protected], +45 3154 8414 Germany: David Scharte, david.scharte@tennet.eu, +49 151 527 632 26 The Netherlands: Henk van Bruggen, [email protected], +31 625 774 954

NGO-meeting 18-3-2019 18 Questions?