DOCSLIB.ORG

WIN Wind-Powered Water Injection

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
WIN Wind-Powered Water Injection WIN WIN - Wind-powered water injection – Industry innovation and the development of an «impossible» idea 1st of March 2017 Johan Slätte, Senior Engineer Ungraded 1 DNV GL © 2014 04 November 2015 SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER Presentation outline • Introduction to DNV GL • Background to the WIN WIN JIP • Brief introduction to Floating Wind • The innovation project and it’s different phases • Summary and conclusions • Q&A Ungraded 2 DNV GL © 2014 04 November 2015 Industry consolidation 3 DNV GL © 2016 15 June 2016 Our vision: global impact for a safe and sustainable future MARITIME OIL & GAS ENERGY BUSINESS SOFTWARE ASSURANCE RESEARCH & INNOVATION 4 DNV GL © 2016 15 June 2016 Leveraging on experience - Offshore wind industry DNV + GL + KEMA + Nobel Denton + Garrad Hassan = DNV GL Energy The world’s largest certification and advisory firm in renewable energy 5 DNV GL © 2016 15 June 2016 A number of facts… 6 DNV GL © 2016 15 June 2016 WIN WIN - Wind-powered water injection Assessing a new concept for water injection, utilizing wind power WIN WIN is a concept for a new generation of oil recovery technology currently being assessed. It comprises a floating wind turbine which supplies power to a water injection process. The concept is a fully stand-alone system that includes pumps and basic water treatment. Our ambition is that WIN WIN will reduce costs, increase flexibility, and reduce emissions. WIN WIN phase 1 main conclusions 1. Commercially competitive alternative in a range of cases 2. No technical showstoppers identified 3. Technically feasible 7 DNV GL © 2016 15 June 2016 Background - Inspiration for the WIN WIN project Successful operation and deveopments The development of EOR technology / of floating wind technology Tyrihans Raw Seawater injection for EOR Image: Statoil Image: OTC 20078 Winter April 2014 February 2015 May 2016 -> 2013/2014 Phase 2, pilot Concept first presented Partnership formed Project results testing and Idea developed at OTC with call for a and project started presented at OTC commercial project internally joint industry project 8 DNV GL © 2016 15 June 2016 WIN WIN (Phase 1) - A joint industry project 9 DNV GL © 2016 15 June 2016 Phase 1 - A recognized industry effort 10 DNV GL © 2016 15 June 2016 Renewable and O&G integration In 2015/2016 assessment • Statoils Hywind demonstrator, a floating wind turbine located offshore Stavanger, Norway, has been operating since 2009. In the record year of 2011 it produced 10.1 GWh. • The potential for moving the test unit to the Valemon platform has been assessed by statoil. • Valemon is today supported by power from the Kvitebjørn platform, 10 km away • From being able to shut down one of the two gas tubines, a reduction of 11000 tons of CO2 could be a achieved, with associated costs. 11 DNV GL © 2016 15 June 2016 A brief introduction to floating wind 12 DNV GL © 2016 15 June 2016 Floating wind turbines – Three key philosophies SPAR Semisubmersible TLP NREL DNV GL © 2016 15 June 2016 13 Key milestones for floating wind technology 14 DNV GL © 2016 15 June 2016 Key milestones for floating wind technology . 2009: Hywind demo – 1st spar buoy 15 DNV GL © 2016 15 June 2016 Key milestones for floating wind technology . 2009: Hywind demo – 1st spar buoy . 2011: WindFloat demo – 1st semi-sub 16 DNV GL © 2016 15 June 2016 Key milestones for floating wind technology . 2009: Hywind demo – 1st spar buoy . 2011: WindFloat demo – 1st semi-sub . 2012: Kabashima/Goto Spar – 1st concrete/steel 17 DNV GL © 2016 15 June 2016 Key milestones for floating wind technology . 2009: Hywind demo – 1st spar buoy . 2011: WindFloat demo – 1st semi-sub . 2012: Kabashima/Goto Spar – 1st concrete/steel . 2012: VolturnUS – 1st concrete semi-sub 18 DNV GL © 2016 15 June 2016 Key milestones for floating wind technology . 2009: Hywind demo – 1st spar buoy . 2011: WindFloat demo – 1st semi-sub . 2012: Kabashima/Goto Spar – 1st concrete/steel . 2012: VolturnUS – 1st concrete semi-sub . 2013: Compact Semi – 1st turbine connected to: 19 DNV GL © 2016 15 June 2016 Key milestones for floating wind technology . 2009: Hywind demo – 1st spar buoy . 2011: WindFloat demo – 1st semi-sub . 2012: Kabashima/Goto Spar – 1st concrete/steel . 2012: VolturnUS – 1st concrete semi-sub . 2013: Compact Semi – 1st of the Fukushima demonstration unit . 2013: Fukushima floating substation – 1st floating substation 20 DNV GL © 2016 15 June 2016 …and then, in 2015 Source: Windpower Monthly 21 DNV GL © 2016 15 June 2016 Looking forward, the first small projects are soon here WindFloat Atlantic Hywind Scotland . 27.5 MW off Portugal’s coast . 30 MW off Peterhead in Scotland . 30 m€ in funding from NER300 . Financed by ROCs . Operation aimed for 2018 . In operation from 2017 Image: http://www.macartney.com/ Image: Statoil 22 DNV GL © 2016 15 June 2016 Summary – Floating wind . Floating wind offers a potential to reach the high energy yield sites . Technology is developing . Leveraging on the knowledge and competence from O&G . Costs are coming down – The first arrays (several units) are to be commissioned in 2017-2019 . Potential to support O&G / other applications – Business cases . Leading to the WIN WIN JIP Image: Knut Ronold, DNV GL 23 DNV GL © 2016 15 June 2016 WIN WIN – Integration of floating wind with O&G 24 DNV GL © 2016 15 June 2016 Technical Functional Commercial Is oil recovery affected by variable Can WIN WIN inject the required injection rates? volumes of water? How much does it cost? Will the wind-powered system Is it competitive with conventional function in an off-grid environment? technology? 25 DNV GL © 2016 15 June 2016 Concept options and functions I. Stand-alone system with II.Stand-alone system III. Connected to platform topside equipment with subsea equipment I. Standalone system with key equipment (pump, water treatment system) integrated with the floating structure (‘Topside’) II. Standalone system with key equipment subsea (pump, water treatment system) III. Concept option I or II with power cable to production platform (i.e. system is not standalone) 26 DNV GL © 2016 15 June 2016 Use case and system specifications Geographic location: North Sea Water depth [m]: 200 Distance from production host [km]: 30 Reservoir conditions: 1 template, 2 injection wells, normal injectivity with specified injectivity index Target injection rate [bbl/d]: 44 000 Maximum injection rate [bbl/day]: 81 000 Maximum pump discharge pressure [bar]: 130 Water treatment requirements: Water filtration / chemical injection 27 DNV GL © 2016 15 June 2016 Different alternatives: Conventional vs. WIN WIN Conventional Gas Turbine System 3 MW gas turbine located on platform . Subsea flowline between platform and injection well . 16.500 tonnes annual CO2 emission per well . Average 44.000 barrels of water injected per day Wind powered water injection (WIN WIN) . 6 MW wind turbines and 2x2 MW pump . Autonomous system, injection through riser . Zero CO2 emission . Average 44.000 barrels of water injected per day 28 DNV GL © 2016 15 June 2016 The system 29 DNV GL © 2016 15 June 2016 The base case configuration and its functionality 1. A standard wind turbine is mounted to a floating foundation. This foundation also serves as a platform for the water injection system. 2. An electrical micro grid enables controlled start-up and shut-down of the system, and ensures that power demand matches power supply during operation. A battery bank ensures power to critical safety and communication functions during periods of no wind. 3. Communication with the host platform is enabled through satellite communication. A conventional control umbilical can also be used. 4. The system uses sea water, which is pumped topside using lift pumps. 5. The sea water is filtered down to 50 micron using a vertical disc filter with backwashing capability. 6. The water is treated with chemicals. Chemicals are stored on board in vessels, and refilled during other maintenance activities on the platform. 7. Water is injected into the reservoir by injection pumps. 30 DNV GL © 2016 15 June 2016 Performance of WIN WIN . The WIN WIN concept has shown that it can meet the demands in relation to set requirements . Key performance issues addressed in the project include delivering required injection volumes, understanding overall availability as well as investigating start-stop cycles and downtime. For the use case considered and others, WIN WIN exceeds target injection rates over time. Injection volumes over time have been simulated based on realistic wind-data for the use case, showing that volumes exceed target rate, despite some periods of low wind. 31 DNV GL © 2016 15 June 2016 Commercial - CAPEX . Total CAPEX for the use case configuration with process equipment located topside comes to around 75 MEUR. The wind structure and marine operations and logistics are the two main CAPEX drivers, together contributing to more than 50% of CAPEX costs. The pump system and development costs are also significant in the overall investment. 32 DNV GL © 2016 15 June 2016 Commercial - OPEX . To achieve a realistic estimate of the O&M cost and performance, DNV GL has modelled the system taking into account failure rates, repair times and wind and wave data. The resulting annual average operation and maintenance costs are on the order of 4,7 MEUR. Key drivers include parts, chemicals, and vessel costs. Increased reliability of the system would positively influence maintenance frequency and scope, in particular for unscheduled maintenance, reducing operational expenditures. 33 DNV GL © 2016 15 June 2016 WIN WIN is cost-competitive for suitable fields . The use case costs have been compared with a conventional alternative where water injection is accomplished with a flowline from the host. While WIN WIN has higher operational expenditures compared to a conventional alternative, the significantly lower capital expenditure means that it comes out comparable in 20 year life-cycle comparison.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Stochastic Dynamic Response Analysis of a 10 MW Tension Leg Platform Floating Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine
    energies Article Stochastic Dynamic Response Analysis of a 10 MW Tension Leg Platform Floating Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine Tao Luo 1,*, De Tian 1, Ruoyu Wang 1 and Caicai Liao 2 1 State Key Laboratory for Alternate Electrical Power System with Renewable Energy Sources, North China Electric Power University, Beijing 102206, China; [email protected] (D.T.); [email protected] (R.W.) 2 CAS Key Laboratory of Wind Energy Utilization, Institute of Engineering Thermophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +10-6177-2682 Received: 2 October 2018; Accepted: 23 November 2018; Published: 30 November 2018 Abstract: The dynamic response of floating horizontal axis wind turbines (FHWATs) are affected by the viscous and inertia effects. In free decay motion, viscous drag reduces the amplitude of pitch and roll fluctuation, the quasi-static mooring system overestimates the resonant amplitude values of pitch and roll. In this paper, the quasi-static mooring system is modified by introducing linear damping and quadratic damping. The dynamic response characteristics of the FHAWT modified model of the DTU 10 MW tension leg platform (TLP) were studied. Dynamic response of the blade was mainly caused by wind load, while the wave increased the blade short-term damage equivalent load. The tower base bending moment was affected by inclination of the tower and the misaligned angle bwave between wind and wave. Except the yaw motion, other degrees of freedom motions of the TLP were substantially affected by bwave. Ultimate tension of the mooring system was related to the displacement caused by pitch and roll motions, and standard deviation of the tension was significantly affected by the wave frequency response.
    [Show full text]
  • Engineering Challenges for Floating Offshore Wind Turbines
    A national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future Engineering Challenges for Conference Paper NREL/CP-500-38776 Floating Offshore Wind Turbines September 2007 S. Butterfield, W. Musial, and J. Jonkman National Renewable Energy Laboratory P. Sclavounos Massachusetts Institute of Technology Presented at the 2005 Copenhagen Offshore Wind Conference Copenhagen, Denmark October 26–28, 2005 NREL is operated by Midwest Research Institute ● Battelle Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337 NOTICE The submitted manuscript has been offered by an employee of the Midwest Research Institute (MRI), a contractor of the US Government under Contract No. DE-AC36-99GO10337. Accordingly, the US Government and MRI retain a nonexclusive royalty-free license to publish or reproduce the published form of this contribution, or allow others to do so, for US Government purposes. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.
    [Show full text]
  • Floating Offshore Wind 101 Webinar Q & A
    Floating Offshore Wind 101 Webinar Q & A This Q&A document is based on the webinar, Floating Offshore Wind Overview. Cost and Economics Questions Answers Can you comment on the recent report that characterizes offshore wind in the We are unaware of the report being referenced, but we can say recent cost declines in Europe have been United States as too expensive? Is the industry positioned to counter that verified by NREL’s analysis of the revenue generated from negotiated power purchase agreements for assertion? the first few U.S. offshore wind projects suggest offshore wind: 1. Is no more expensive in the United States than in Europe 2. May soon be competitive in many electric markets, especially in the Northeast 3. May be able to provide additional benefits to the utility system, especially in constrained energy markets. What are the most likely financing schemes for U.S. utility-scale projects For early commercial-scale floating wind projects (e.g., those in the mid-2020s), we expect project starting construction in the mid-2020s or later without the benefit of federal tax financing arrangements that are similar to today’s financing of fixed-bottom wind projects in the United credits? Is a single-owner power purchase agreement the most likely financing States. The benefits of the fading tax credits will have to be compensated through other means to make mechanism, absent the past tax benefits for flip structures? projects bankable. These other means include lower costs or technology-specific, state-mandated power purchase agreements or offshore wind renewable energy certificates, which are known as ORECs, and they may need to be used in combination with public financing.
    [Show full text]
  • IEA Wind Technology Collaboration Programme
    IEA Wind Technology Collaboration Programme 2017 Annual Report A MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR Wind energy continued its strong forward momentum during the past term, with many countries setting records in cost reduction, deployment, and grid integration. In 2017, new records were set for hourly, daily, and annual wind–generated electricity, as well as share of energy from wind. For example, Portugal covered 110% of national consumption with wind-generated electricity during three hours while China’s wind energy production increased 26% to 305.7 TWh. In Denmark, wind achieved a 43% share of the energy mix—the largest share of any IEA Wind TCP member countries. From 2010-2017, land-based wind energy auction prices dropped an average of 25%, and levelized cost of energy (LCOE) fell by 21%. In fact, the average, globally-weighted LCOE for land-based wind was 60 USD/ MWh in 2017, second only to hydropower among renewable generation sources. As a result, new countries are adopting wind energy. Offshore wind energy costs have also significantly decreased during the last few years. In Germany and the Netherlands, offshore bids were awarded at a zero premium, while a Contract for Differences auction round in the United Kingdom included two offshore wind farms with record strike prices as low as 76 USD/MWh. On top of the previous achievements, repowering and life extension of wind farms are creating new opportunities in mature markets. However, other challenges still need to be addressed. Wind energy continues to suffer from long permitting procedures, which may hinder deployment in many countries. The rate of wind energy deployment is also uncertain after 2020 due to lack of policies; for example, only eight out of the 28 EU member states have wind power policies in place beyond 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • Renewables Investor Event
    Renewables Investor Event 29 September 2020 1 © Subsea 7 - 2020 Subsea 7 Renewables Forward looking statements This announcement may contain ‘forward-looking statements’ (within the meaning of the safe harbour provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995). These statements relate to our current expectations, beliefs, intentions, assumptions or strategies regarding the future and are subject to known and unknown risks that could cause actual results, performance or events to differ materially from those expressed or implied in these statements. Forward-looking statements may be identified by the use of words such as ‘anticipate’, ‘believe’, ‘estimate’, ‘expect’, ‘future’, ‘goal’, ‘intend’, ‘likely’ ‘may’, ‘plan’, ‘project’, ‘seek’, ‘should’, ‘strategy’ ‘will’, and similar expressions. The principal risks which could affect future operations of the Group are described in the ‘Risk Management’ section of the Group’s Annual Report and Consolidated Financial Statements for the year ended 31 December 2019. Factors that may cause actual and future results and trends to differ materially from our forward-looking statements include (but are not limited to): (i) our ability to deliver fixed price projects in accordance with client expectations and within the parameters of our bids, and to avoid cost overruns; (ii) our ability to collect receivables, negotiate variation orders and collect the related revenue; (iii) our ability to recover costs on significant projects; (iv) capital expenditure by oil and gas companies,
    [Show full text]
  • Floating Offshore Wind: a Situational Analysis Dr. Roberts Proskovics October 2018 | AP-0017
    Floating Offshore Wind: A Situational Analysis Dr. Roberts Proskovics October 2018 | AP-0017 Introduction Floating offshore wind technology is gaining momentum, with more governments and organisations showing interest in its potential to unlock wind resource from deep water its es. As a relatively nascent technology, floating wind has several barriers to overcome before it can be deemed a fully-commercial technology. This Analysis Paper looks at the key strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) surrounding floating offshore wind and its path to full commercialisation, and is aimed at those who might have technical knowledge of bottom-fixed offshore wind, but little or no previous exposure to floating wind technology. Headlines • A clear frontrunner as to the most viable substructure type (semi-submersible, spar and tension-leg platform (TLP)) and primary material (steel or concrete) is yet to emerge. • Currently, TLPs lag behind the other typologies in terms of technology readiness. • Floating offshore wind turbine substructure design should not be optimised against one parameter only, as this can lead to an overall increase in the cost of the substructure (e.g. a substructure optimised solely for mass could become more complex to manufacture). • While floating offshore wind is exposed to various technological challenges (e.g. technology readiness level progression, development of dynamic export cables), the most significant challenges are commercial. • Floating offshore wind remains a relatively nascent technology and is predominantly deployed in demonstration projects. The next step in its commercialisation will be the development of pre- commercial projects. These require government support, which is available in only a few countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Description of an 8 MW Reference Wind Turbine
    Journal of Physics: Conference Series PAPER • OPEN ACCESS Recent citations Description of an 8 MW reference wind turbine - Cyclic flexural test and loading protocol for steel wind turbine tower columns To cite this article: Cian Desmond et al 2016 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 753 092013 Chung-Che Chou et al - Techno-economic system analysis of an offshore energy hub with an outlook on electrofuel applications Christian Thommessen et al View the article online for updates and enhancements. - Evaluating wind turbine power coefficient—An undergraduate experiment Edward W. K. Chan et al This content was downloaded from IP address 170.106.40.139 on 26/09/2021 at 05:57 The Science of Making Torque from Wind (TORQUE 2016) IOP Publishing Journal of Physics: Conference Series 753 (2016) 092013 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/753/9/092013 Description of an 8 MW reference wind turbine Cian Desmond1, Jimmy Murphy1, Lindert Blonk2 and Wouter Haans2 1 MaREI, University College Cork, Ireland 2 DNV-GL, Turbine Engineering, Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract. An 8 MW wind turbine is described in terms of mass distribution, dimensions, power curve, thrust curve, maximum design load and tower configuration. This turbine has been described as part of the EU FP7 project LEANWIND in order to facilitate research into logistics and naval architecture efficiencies for future offshore wind installations. The design of this 8 MW reference wind turbine has been checked and validated by the design consultancy DNV-GL. This turbine description is intended to bridge the gap between the NREL 5 MW and DTU 10 MW reference turbines and thus contribute to the standardisation of research and development activities in the offshore wind energy industry.
    [Show full text]
  • Floating Offshore Wind Turbines: Responses in a Seastate Pareto Optimal Designs and Economic Assessment
    Floating Offshore Wind Turbines: Responses in a Seastate Pareto Optimal Designs and Economic Assessment By Paul Sclavounos, Christopher Tracy and Sungho Lee Department of Mechanical Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology October 2007 Abstract Wind is the fastest growing renewable energy source, increasing at an annual rate of 25% with a worldwide installed capacity of 74 GW in 2007. The vast majority of wind power is generated from onshore wind farms. Their growth is however limited by the lack of inexpensive land near major population centers and the visual pollution caused by large wind turbines. Wind energy generated from offshore wind farms is the next frontier. Large sea areas with stronger and steadier winds are available for wind farm development and 5MW wind turbine towers located 20 miles from the coastline are invisible. Current offshore wind turbines are supported by monopoles driven into the seafloor at coastal sites a few miles from shore and in water depths of 10-15m. The primary impediment to their growth is visual pollution and the prohibitive cost of seafloor mounted monopoles in larger water depths. This paper presents a fully coupled dynamic analysis of floating wind turbines that enables a parametric design study of floating wind turbine concepts and mooring systems. Pareto optimal designs are presented that possess a favorable combination of nacelle acceleration, mooring system tension and displacement of the floating structure supporting a five megawatt wind turbine. All concepts are selected so that they float stably while in tow to the offshore wind farm site and prior to their connection to the mooring system.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Risk in Floating Wind Key Risks and How to Mitigate Them
    An Introduction to Risk in Floating Wind Key risks and how to mitigate them Roberts Proskovics | November 2017 | AP-0014 Summary Technological advances in floating offshore wind have opened up opportunities to exploit the abundant wind resource in deep water sites where it is currently not possible to deploy bottom-fixed wind turbines. However, as a relatively nascent technology, there are still many challenges to be overcome before floating offshore wind can be deployed in full-scale commercial arrays. From a wider set of risks identified using a new risk assessment methodology developed specifically for floating wind, this Analysis Paper highlights the key risks facing the developers of novel floating turbine systems, both technical and non-technical, and sets out how to mitigate them. Headlines • Floating wind is closing in on full-scale commercialisation: an increasing number of countries are ready to support the technology and are including it in their future (in France’s case, near future) electricity generation mix. • The key markets for floating wind in the near future are: countries with deep waters close to shore, countries with isolated island communities with high electricity prices, and in the electrification of oil and gas platforms – that is, using floating wind to power these platforms, as opposed to gas. • Some of the reasons for floating wind’s relatively high levelised cost of energy (LCoE) are clear: it is a technology in the pre-commercialisation stage, it is not in serial production, and it uses only a small number of units per site. But there are other key obstacles that need to be overcome: there is a lack of available operational performance data (which makes floating wind a high-risk investment), and limited collaboration between substructure developers and wind turbine OEMs (in part because there are not enough OEMs to partner with each substructure concept developer).
    [Show full text]
  • North American Offshore Wind Projects Sandy Butterfield Chief Engineer National Renewable Energy Laboratory Golden, Colorado
    North American Offshore Wind Projects Sandy Butterfield Chief Engineer National Renewable Energy Laboratory Golden, Colorado South Carolina Wind Farm Feasibility Study Committee Offshore Wind Projects Horns Rev European Activity Offshore Wind 1,471 MW installed (Jan 2009) 37,442 MW Planned (by 2015) Red = large turbines Blue = under construction Grey = planned EU Offshore Wind Targets 2010 5,000 MW http://www.offshorewindenergy.org/ 2015 15,000 MW http://www.ewea.org/index.php?id=203 2020 20‐40,000 MW 2030 150,000 MW Current Installed Offshore Capacity (Country, MW Installed at the end of 2008) Sweden, 133.3 Netherlands, United 246.8 Kingdom, 590.8 Ireland, 25.2 1,471.25‐MW Germany, 12 Finland, 24 Denmark, 409.15 Belgium, 30 http://www.ewea.org/index.php?id=203 Projects Planned by 2015 Europe and North America Sweden, 3312 United States, 2073 Spain, 1976 United Poland, 533 Kingdom, Norway, 1553 8755.8 Netherlands, 2833.8 Italy, 827.08 40,616‐MW Belgium, 1446 Ireland, 1603.2 Canada, 1100 Denmark, 1276 Finland, 1330 Germany, France, 1070 10927.5 http://www.ewea.org/index.php?id=203 Presentation Scope • “Approximately 30 offshore wind projects have been announced in North America”. • “This presentation will provide brief overviews of the projects announced to date in various regions”. Land-based Shallow Transitional Deepwater Water Depth Floating Offshore Wind Commercially Wind Proven Demonstration Technology Technology Phase Estimated 0m-30m 30m-60m 60m-900m US Resource 430-GW 541-GW 1533-GW No exclusions assumed for resource estimates Commercial
    [Show full text]
  • Offshore Wind in Europe Key Trends and Statistics 2019
    Subtittle if needed. If not MONTH 2018 Published in Month 2018 Offshore Wind in Europe Key trends and statistics 2019 Offshore Wind in Europe Key trends and statistics 2019 Published in February 2020 windeurope.org This report summarises construction and financing activity in European offshore wind farms from 1 January to 31 December 2019. WindEurope regularly surveys the industry to determine the level of installations of foundations and turbines, and the subsequent dispatch of first power to the grid. The data includes demonstration sites and factors in decommissioning where it has occurred. Annual installations are expressed in gross figures while cumulative capacity represents net installations per site and country. Rounding of figures is at the discretion of the author. DISCLAIMER This publication contains information collected on a regular basis throughout the year and then verified with relevant members of the industry ahead of publication. Neither WindEurope nor its members, nor their related entities are, by means of this publication, rendering professional advice or services. Neither WindEurope nor its members shall be responsible for any loss whatsoever sustained by any person who relies on this publication. TEXT AND ANALYSIS: Lizet Ramírez, WindEurope Daniel Fraile, WindEurope Guy Brindley, WindEurope EDITOR: Colin Walsh, WindEurope DESIGN: Lin Van de Velde, Drukvorm FINANCE DATA: Clean Energy Pipeline and IJ Global All currency conversions made at EUR/ GBP 0.8777 and EUR/USD 1.1117 Figures include estimates for undisclosed values PHOTO COVER: Courtesy of Deutsche Bucht and MHI Vestas MORE INFORMATION: [email protected] +32 2 213 11 68 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 7 1. OFFSHORE WIND INSTALLATIONS ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 History
    CHAPTER 1 HISTORY 1.0 INTRODUCTION Since early recorded history, people have been harnessing the energy of the wind. Wind energy propelled boats along the Nile River as early as 5000 B.C. By 200 B.C., simple windmills in China were pumping water, while vertical-axis windmills with woven reed sails were grinding grain in Persia and the Middle East. New ways of using the energy of the wind eventually spread around the world. By the 11th century, people in the Middle East were using windmills extensively for food production; returning merchants and crusaders carried this idea back to Europe. The Dutch refined the windmill and adapted it for draining lakes and marshes in the Rhine River Delta. When settlers took this technology to the New World in the late 19th century, they began using windmills to pump water for farms and ranches, and later, to generate electricity for homes and industry. Industrialization, first in Europe and later in America, led to a gradual decline in the use of windmills. The steam engine replaced European water-pumping windmills. In the 1930s, the Rural Electrification Administration's programs brought inexpensive electric power to most rural areas in the United States. However, industrialization also sparked the development of larger windmills to generate electricity. Commonly called wind turbines, these machines appeared in Denmark as early as 1890. In the 1940s the largest wind turbine of the time began operating on a Vermont hilltop known as Grandpa's Knob. This turbine, rated at 1.25 megawatts in winds of about 30 mph, fed electric power to the local utility network for several months during World War II.
    [Show full text]