1

Presentation to

IEEE Richmond Section

07 September 2006

Saifur RahmanGeorge Hagerman

Manisa PipattanasompornVT Advanced Research Institute

Wind Energy: Opportunities and Challenges for Offshore Applications

Wind Energy: Opportunities and Challenges for Offshore Applications

Presentation Outline

Offshore wind energy resource

• Wind resource basics

• Virginia’s offshore wind energy potential

Offshore wind energy technology

• Involves a variety of engineering disciplines

• Large economic development impacts

Offshore wind energy developments

• Global context

• European examples

• U.S. project proposals

Research and development opportunities in Virginia

• Virginia Coastal Energy Research Consortium

• University-industry R&D partnership opportunities

2

Wind Speed and Power Density Classes

On US East Coast, Greatest Areasfor Economical Wind Power are Offshore

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

N.Engl Mid-Atl Calif Pac. NW

Land

Offshore

Land areas with Class 4 resource

(400-500 watts/m2) or better

Offshore areas with Class 5 resource

(500-600 watts/m2)or better AND

depth < 25 m, with two-thirds excluded for other ocean use (fishing, shipping)

Economically Developable Area (km2)

3

Mid-Atlantic Offshore Wind Resource isin Shallower Depths than in Other Regions

Virginia’s Offshore Wind EnergyPotential Much Larger than Onshore

Class 4+ areas needed for economical onshore projects are largely in national forests and

parks, and even projects on private land seem

difficult to permit

Class 5+ areas needed for economical offshore projects are in federal

waters beyond 3-n.mile limit of state jurisdiction

4

Less Regulatory Variabilityto Develop Offshore Wind

Two National Forests, Blue Ridge National Park, state

parklands, and county-by-county zoning variability

Only one regulatory authority (US Minerals Management Service)

Virginia has Unique FeaturesFavorable to Offshore Wind Power

Minimal probability ofmajor hurricane strike

(Categories 3 through 5)

Robust coastaltransmission gridClass 6 wind

energy resourcelocated within10-15 miles(16-24 km) ofshoreline and close to major, growing centers of power demand 500 kV

115 kV

230 kV

5

Offshore Wind Can Meet a Large Portion of Virginia’s Energy Demand

Using the same spacing of wind turbines as shown in photo at left,

an ocean shelf area the size ofVirginia Beach could supply

20% of the state’s annualelectricity demand

Calculations assume same turbine density as shown here off the coast of Wales

With wind turbines installed at a density of 10 MW per sq.km, an ocean area of 640 sq.km could produce 21,000 GWh/yr, compared with state consumption of 104,200 GWh/yr in 2005

Largest ExistingOffshore Turbine is REpower 5M

Beatrice Projectin North Sea will demonstrate twoREpower 5-MW

turbines in offshore application for the

first time. Other firsts for Europe

include:

Deepest water(45 m depth)

Farthest offshore(25 km)

Tower platform and anchoring concept

750-tonnetruss-work

platform

Rotor diameter = 126 m

Suction-caisson anchor

410-tonneturbine and 210-tonne

tower

Each rotor bladeweighs 18 tonnes

Sep 2004 installation of turbine rotor in onshore prototype at Brunnsbutel, Germany, in Schleswig-Holstein

6

Horns Rev 2-MW TurbinesInstalled Using Self-Propelled A2 SEA Vessels

North Hoyle 2-MW TurbinesInstalled Using Towed Seacore Jack-Up Rigs

7

Large Rotor Blades Shipped by Water –Offshore Wind Projects Minimize Transfers

GE 3.6 MW rotor (104 m diameter)

Business opportunities in Virginia

Estimated maritime industry value of fabrication, installation, and service contractsin Virginia

Turbines

45%

8

New Sustainable Business Value of$150-200 Million per Year in Maritime Sector Alone

Typical capital cost breakdown formonopile-based offshore wind project

Estimated maritime industry value of fabrication, installation, and service contracts to supply 20% of Virginia’s electricity:

• Based on total installed turbine capacity = 6,500 MW

• At $1,600 per installed kW, total capital investment = $10.4 billion

• Assuming an installation rate of 325 MW per year= $520 million per year over 20-year build-out

• Value of local fabrication and installation contracts = $166 million per year until fully built out

• Value of local offshore service contracts = $190 million per year after fully built out

32% of capital costis in local fabrication

and installation

Project management

2% Power transmission

8%

Turbines

45%

Installation

7%Power collection

13%

Support structure

25%

Submarine Power Collectionand Transmission to Shore

About 20% of the capital cost for an offshore wind project is inpower cabling, grid interconnection equipment, and electrical testing

Three-phase AC power cable from transformer platform to shore

9

Worldwide Growth in Wind Energy

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Rest of the World

India

Denmark

USA

Spain

Germany

Global Summary

• At the end of 2005, Germany hosted nearly one-third (31%) of world’s wind generation capacity

• This is followed by Spain (17%), USA (16%), India (6%) and Denmark (5%)

• Offshore wind now accounts for only1.4% of global total windgeneration capacity – tremendous growth potential as onshore sites become developed to maximum acceptable extent

Global power plant capacity: 3,736 GW (2004)

Global wind power capacity: 59.3 GW (end of 2005)

German wind capacity: 18.4 GW (end of 2005)

European offshore wind: 0.85 GW (end of 2005)

Global power plant capacity: 3,736 GW (2004)

Global wind power capacity: 59.3 GW (end of 2005)

German wind capacity: 18.4 GW (end of 2005)

European offshore wind: 0.85 GW (end of 2005)

10

European Offshore Wind Energy Projects

Selected European Project Data

316587Totals

Vestas 2 MW30602004UKScroby Sands

GE Wind 3.6 MW725.22004IrelandArklow Bank

Bonus 2.3 MW721582004DenmarkNysted

Vestas 2 MW30602003UKNorth Hoyle

Bonus 2.3 MW10232003DenmarkSamsø

2 Vestas 3 MW,1 Bonus 2.3 MW and 1 Nordex 2.3 MW410.62003DenmarkFrederikshaven

Vestas 2MW801602002DenmarkHorns Rev

NEG Micon 2 MW5102001SwedenYttre Stengrund

GE Wind 1.5 MW710.52001SwedenUttgrunden

Bonus 2 MW20402001DenmarkMiddelgrunden

Vestas 2 MW23.82000UKBlyth Offshore

Wind World 500 kW52.51997SwedenGotland

Nordtank 600 kW1911.41996HollandDronten

Vestas 500 kW105.01995DenmarkTunø Knob

NedWind 500 kW42.01994HollandLely

Bonus 450 kW114.951991DenmarkVindeby

Turbine Make andRated Capacity

No. of Turbines

MWOperationalCountryLocation

Cu

rren

t w

orl

d’s

larg

est

11

Horns Rev Project Overview

Project capacity = 160 MW (80 turbines), occupying 5.5 km x 5.4 km area (~ 5 MW per sq.km)Mean wind speed = 9.7 m/s at 70-m hub height (Class 6)Annual energy output = 600 GWh (43% capacity factor)Capital investment = 270 million Euro ($325 million à $2,030/kW)

Offshore Wind Energy is “Next Wave” ofNew Wind Project Construction in Germany

12

The proposed offshore wind energy project in

Cape Cod, Massachusetts

This proposed project is the America’s first and the world’s largest offshore wind farm in Nantucket Sound, MASS

Highlights:

�130 wind turbines

�417 feet tall

�Spread over 24 sq miles

�Up to 420 MW (3/4 of the cape and Islands electricity needs)

The Facts

� Nantucket Sound is famous for natural beauty and abundant, diverse and unique wildlife, recreational boating and fishing, which is very essential to the economy

Distance in miles

Location:The plant will be about 5 miles from land at its closest point

13

The concerns

� May impact fish and fishing industry

� May impact tourism industry

� May interfere navigation systems

� May interfere vital sea lanes

� May impact migratory bird paths

� May impact environment

� May have visual impacts

U.S. Offshore Wind DevelopmentLags 5-10 Years Behind Europe

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorizes the U.S. Department of the Interior (DoI) to have regulatory jurisdiction over renewable energy development in federal waters beyond the 3-mile limit of state jurisdiction. DoI has designated its Minerals Management Service (MMS) as the implementing agency for this new authority.

MMS has assumed oversight of two ongoing U.S. offshore wind energy projects: the Cape Wind project off Massachusetts, and the Long Island Power Authority project off New York. All other offshore wind projects must wait for MMS to issue its new rules for marine renewable energy projects.

14

Visual Impact can be Mitigatedby Siting Turbines Farther Offshore

Photo simulation for Long Island offshore wind project indicates

negligible visual impact beyond11 n.mi (20 km; look at far right)

Natural sea haze and humidity, more common during summer tourist season, will obscure horizon details

Siting Far Offshore also Better Avoids Migratory Shorebird Flyways

Migratory shorebirds fly down the Chesapeake Bay and DelMarVa Peninsula, foraging in coastal marshes and lagoons behind barrier islands. Offshore wind project effects on pelagic birds and migratory shorebirds blown offshore by storms need to be researched.

15

VCERC Intended to Operate as a University – Industry Partnership

Integration of marine renewables into Virginia Energy Plan

Ensuring compatibility with other marine uses and coastal resources

Identification of manufacturing job creation opportunities and industry benefits of long-term, price-stable energy supply

Ocean engineering

Northern Virginia presence (interaction with MMS & DOE)

Physical, chemical, & geological ocean sciences

Biological ocean sciences

Renewable energy curriculum development

Entrepreneurship development

High-tech workforce training

Virginia Coastal Energy Research Consortium Non-University VCERC Directors

Wind energy engineering

Identification of waterfront development opportunities

VCERC submitting a CRADA Proposalto Develop Large-Blade Testing Facility

Opportunities to develop remote structural monitoring methods for non-destructive

testing of long,composite aerospace structures

Wind turbine blades require static (bending, twist) and dynamic

(fatigue) load testing to ensure durability for book life of project. No North American test facilities

now exist that are capable of testing 70 m long blades.

16

Hybridizing Marine Renewables with Offshore Gas for Baseload Power

ADVANTAGES:

• Provides high-value baseload power

• Avoids utility needfor land-based “spinning reserve”to accommodatewind variability

• Submarine power cable to shore more secure, with less environmental impact than gas pipeline

• Avoids onshoresiting challenge of finding cooling water for land-based gas power plants

• Prolongs offshore gas reservoir life for more secure future

Eclipse Energy’s hybrid project in

Irish Sea to come on line in 2007

Thank You!

Any questions?

George HagermanEmail: hagerman@vt.edu

Saifur RahmanEmail: srahman@vt.edu