Energy for Sustainable Development 37 (2017) 10–19

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy for Sustainable Development

Review of offshore wind farm cost components

Angel G. Gonzalez-Rodriguez
Department of Electronic Engineering and Automation, University of Jaen, Campus las Lagunillas s/n 23009, Jaen, Spain

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: This paper reviews the data available in the bibliography relative to most important economical factors in
Received 8 May 2016 an offshore wind farm, including the acquisition/installation of wind turbines and foundations, electrical
Received in revised form 1 December 2016 infrastructure, design and project management, and operation/maintenance. These data are necessary to
Accepted 3 December 2016 carry out any profitability analysis, or optimization procedure. In order to establish a common reference,
Available online 2 February 2017
prices have been translated into a unique currency and taken to the present year. Taking into account these
considerations, the paper presents an estimation of the different costs as a function of the farm size. Finally,
Keywords: the main cost drivers affecting the capital and operating expenditures are presented and discussed.
Offshore wind farms
© 2016 International Energy Initiative. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Costs
Electrical infrastructure
CAPEX
Levelized cost of energy

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Design and project management, and SCADA systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Design and project management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
SCADA system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Turbines and foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Turbine cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Foundation cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Electrical infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Cables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Inner array cables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Installation cost of inner array cables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Export cables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Installation cost of export cables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Acquisition cost of onshore HV cable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Excavation and Installation of onshore HV cable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Substations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Offshore substation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Power factor compensating devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
HV connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Shoreline transitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Onshore substation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Connection to the grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Yearly cash flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Operation and maintenance costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

E-mail address: agaspar@ujaen.es.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2016.12.001
0973-0826/© 2016 International Energy Initiative. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 A. Gonzalez-Rodriguez / Energy for Sustainable Development 37 (2017) 10–19 11

Price of MWh and expected increase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Subsidies, depreciation and annual taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Decommissioning costs and residual price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Factors affecting the economic data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Unavailability of prices and costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Evolution of commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
High demand and lack of competitiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Wind turbine supplies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Meteorological conditions and weather downtime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Tidal currents, seabed conditions and biologically sensitive areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Distances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix A. Supplementary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Introduction operation in the North Sea. Data have been mainly obtained from
4coffshore.com, and prices have been normalized into the same
A large number of studies have been conducted in order to opti- reference (in this paper euros at 2016), as usual for comparison pur-
mize the design of onshore wind farms. The objective in these studies poses (Kaiser and Snyder, 2010). To this end, the reviewed values
is to select and place the components that optimize a specific eco- have been converted into euros and increased according to the
nomic indicator, such as the internal rate of return, the net present accumulated inflation (see Fig. 2).
value, or mainly, the levelized cost of energy (LCOE). These economic The observed ascending price trend of Fig. 1 has gone against
figures take into account the investment, decommissioning cost, the the convention of decreasing costs usually achieved through
revenues derived from the energy sold, and the operation and main- economies of scale, learning curves and supply chain improvements
tenance cost. Lately, similar studies are being performed for Offshore (Douglas-Westwood, 2010). Factors for this trend included exploring
Wind Farms (OWFs). deeper waters and higher commodity prices, reduction and cen-
Accordingly, before addressing the problem of optimizing an tralization of supply chain competition, and increasing demand for
OWF, consistent data are required on the most significant aspects common supply from onshore wind (EWEA, 2009). Recent years have
involved in the planning, construction, operation and decommission- seen a descending trend in the commodities prices and a lower vessel
ing of the wind farm. Many aspects of the engineering related to this demand from the oil and gas sector. This is balanced by the compe-
technology can be easily found. There is therefore sufficient informa- tition with onshore wind turbine supply, and exploration of deeper
tion regarding the foundation techniques (Kaiser and Snyder, 2010; waters, thus resulting in the price stagnation observed in Fig. 1.
Loman, 2009; Vølund, 2005) electrical infrastructure, (ODIS, 2009) In order to reduce the commented uncertainty to a minimum, and
(Offshore Development Information Statement) (Nikolaos, 2004), to provide a LCOE estimator with relatively dependable values, it is
availability and reliability (Larsen et al., 2005), or wakes in offshore necessary to gather as much data as available. In this sense, it is pos-
power plants (Frandsen et al., 2006). sible to find valuable reports compiling the sources relative to invest-
However, the theoretical, qualitative, or heuristic study of the ment costs (Rosenauer), (Gooch et al., 2009), with a thorough study
factors influencing the profitability of a site is worthless if it fails of different foundation techniques, although the electrical infrastruc-
to include realistic data on the economic costs of each concept ture is not generally dealt with in the same profusion. Therefore, it is
involved in the analysis. Unfortunately, the number of sources and necessary to complete these data with information about the inter-
their dependability are very reduced. These are important factors array cables and their characteristics in order to evaluate the power
that contribute to the uncertainty in the profitability assessment losses of each cable and allow a designer to choose the most suit-
of an OWF. Additional sources for this uncertainty come from the able cable as a function of its price and the expected power flow.
following factors: In addition, the present paper reviews the bibliography in order to
complete previous reports with additional sources and new values in
• Variable competitiveness in the supply chain, order to take into account other important items in the profitability
• Volatility in the commodities prices, with a strong influence on analysis of an OWF: design and project management, operation and
turbines, cables and foundations, maintenance, mobilization/demobilization, and decommissioning.
• Prices given at different currencies and years, Table 1 presents a list of commissioned OWFs from which use-
• Different metocean and seabed conditions, which modify the ful economic values have been extracted. Since all economic data
characteristics of the foundations and the downtime periods are translated into €2016 , the last column represents the normaliza-
due to rough weather, and tion factor that must multiply the original cost in order to obtain its
• Different distances from the park site to the nearest harbor normalized value in €2016 .
with enough staging and manufacturing facilities. In Table 2, the reviewed OWFs are planned, under construc-
tion, or they are hypothetical projects that are used as case studies
These factors will be explained in the Factors affecting the eco- (CS) by the authors. The last rows are related to estimated costs of
nomic data section, but we can anticipate that the first two ones components obtained from experienced companies (Est).
are responsible for the variability over time in the main components The study obtained from the review of these parks and sources
of Capital Expenditure (CapEx) and Operating Expenditure (OpEx). is aimed to provide the programmer of layout optimization algo-
The price evolution of the main components in an OWF is presented rithms with the information necessary to execute it in a coherent
in Ernst & Young (2009). This report shows that the overall cost way. Such data are realistic but they cannot be considered reliable
of acquisition plus installation per MW has markedly increased in for a complete, accurate and thorough study of the cost of invest-
recent years. The same is presented in Fig. 1 which represents the ment, operation and decommissioning. However, since those costs
investment cost per installed MW of a number of wind farms in where there is a greater unavailability are fixed costs, such as in
12 A. Gonzalez-Rodriguez / Energy for Sustainable Development 37 (2017) 10–19

Fig. 1. Investment per MW translated into present euros (2016) of commissioned OWFs. The bubble size represents the park capacity.

management, finance and administration, then they are considered insurance, cost of finance, licences, public relations and market-
as a secondary factor in the optimization analysis. Alternatively, ing, environmental-impact assessment, design engineering, and con-
these values can be used as a first estimation of the investment struction management. Detailed costs for them can be found in
cost and the profitability of an OWF to be projected in a particular Garrad Hassan (2003) and ODE (2007). Table 3 shows the compiled
location. values.
The following sections break down the most important com-
ponents affecting the LCOE, compiled from a number of sources. SCADA system
The extracted data are presented in the following groups, one per
section: design and project management, and SCADA, in the Design The value of 1 M£/30 turbines (56 k€2016 ) has been found in ODE
and project management, and SCADA systems section; turbine (2007, page 38), and 25 k£/turbine (45 k€2016 ) in Garrad Hassan
and foundation, in the Turbines and foundations section; electrical (2003, page I.3) .
infrastructure, in the Electrical infrastructure section; operation and
maintenance costs, in the Yearly cash flow section; and decommis-
sioning costs and residual price, in the Decommissioning costs and Turbines and foundations
residual price section. Factors affecting the economic data section
discusses the main cost drivers affecting the installation and oper- Turbine cost
ation of OWFs, and the sources of the variability in the observed
costs. As represented in Douglas-Westwood (2010, page 15) , the over-
Finally, the conclusions, scope and limitation of this study are all turbine cost consists of: acquisition cost (AC = 85%); shipping
presented in the Conclusions section. and assembling (SA = 5%); and electrical installation (EI = 10%).
Shipping depends on the distance to the wind farm, although it
Design and project management, and SCADA systems constitutes the least significant item.
With regard to only the acquisition cost, a trended cost (in GBP)
There are several methods of extrapolating these costs from the for turbines as a function of their capacity is given in ODE (2007,
reference data. As an example, ODE (2007) indicates that many of the page 47)
design/management costs are proportional to the square root of the
size. This is a reflection of the economies of scale. ACt = −255016 + 2E6Ln(MW) (1)
Design and project management
which for 3.6 MW, results in 2.7 M£.
This activity consists of a variety of items: geophysical and Most of the sources do not split the overall turbine cost into these
bathymetric surveys, meteorological mast and wind monitoring, three items, and therefore only the overall cost is presented. Table 4

Fig. 2. Inflation and accumulated inflation over the past twelve years. The accumulated inflation is calculated taking 2016 as reference (100 %).
 A. Gonzalez-Rodriguez / Energy for Sustainable Development 37 (2017) 10–19 13

Table 1
Commissioned OWFs in which actual costs are available. The first column lists the reference used along the paper. Following columns are: OWF name, type of foundation (monopile
or gravity based), number of turbines and their capacity, commissioning date, CAPEX, distance to the grid, water depth, the currency in which the costs were expressed, and the
normalization factor to convert the available cost into present (2016) €.

Ref. Wind farm Fnd. Capacity Date CAPEX Dist. km Depth m Curr. Norm. factor

1.Md Middelgrunden GB 20×2MW Mar-01 47.7 M€ 3.5 3–6 €2001 1.3011

2.SS Scroby Sands MP 30×2MW Dec-04 79.8 M£ 31 3–12 £2004 1.7971
3.PA Prinses Amalia MP 60×2MW Jun-08 383 M€ 30 19–24 €2008 1.1111
4.NH North Hoyle MP 30×2MW Mar-04 82 M£ 10 7–11 £2004 1.7972
5.KF Kentish Flats MP 30×3MW May-05 105 M£ 12.5 5 £2003 1.7902
6.HR Horns Rev MP 80×2MW Jul-03 278 M€ 55 6–14 €2003 1.2461
7.HR2 Horns Rev2 MP 92×2.3MW May-09 407 M€ 98 9–17 DKK2009 0.1471
8.Ny Nysted GB 72×2.3MW Dec-03 269 M€ 61 6–9 €2003 1.2463
$2007 0.84323
9.BB Burbo Bank MP 25×3.6MW Oct-07 181 M€ 19 8 $2007 0.84324
10.AB Arklow Bank MP 7×3.6MW Dec-03 47.4 M€ 12 15 $2007 0.84324
1
The value corresponds to the distance to shore.
2
Costs for these OWFs are given in the corresponding currency.
3
Costs for Nysted are given by Gerdes et al. (2006) in €2003 and by Bellone and Dale (2007) in $2007 .
4
Costs for these OWFs are given by Bellone and Dale (2007) in $2007 .

lists the available data for these costs, together with the base cur- significantly different to Eqs. (2) or (3), which indicates the impor-
rency, the base capacity (in MW), and the normalized overall cost in tance of the acquisition year on the turbine cost. The fairly high
€2016 . The curve that best fits these data was CoC and the exponent lower than the unity reflect the presence of
economies of scale on this item.
Cost = 1081 • Cap0.9984 (2)

where the Cost of the turbines is expressed in k€2016 and Cap is Foundation cost
the OWF capacity in MW. The coefficient of correlation (CoC) was
0.85. The exponent close to 1 might suggest that a linear trend is This cost includes transport, installation, and scour protection
preferable. The resulting expression is to prevent the erosion of sediment around the foundation. In case
of GBS foundation, it should also include seabed preparation. The
cost is strongly dependent on the type of foundation (gravity,
Cost = 1527 • Cap − 38 303 (3)
monopile, jacket, or tripod), and in the case of steel solutions, on
the price of this commodity. The type of foundation depends, in
with CoC = 0.997. Despite this fair correlation, the negative inde- turn, on the water depth and the seabed characteristics, and to
pendent term (−38303) discredits this expression. Disregarding the a minor extent, on the turbine capacity and the wave conditions.
last four rows, corresponding to the year 2014, the dependence is Nielsen (2003, page 10) highlights that the increase per m of addi-
given by tional water depth is roughly 2%.
Table 5 presents the information extracted from the reviewed
Cost = 1374 • Cap0.87 with CoC = 0.968 (4) sources.

Table 2
Planned or hypothetical OWFs in which costs are estimated. First column lists the reference used along the paper. Following columns are: OWF name, type of foundation (Monopile,
Jacket or Tension Leg), number of turbines and their capacity, estimated CAPEX, distance to the shore, water depth, currency in which the costs were expressed, and normalization
factor.

Ref. Wind farm Fnd. Capacity CAPEX Dist. km Depth m Curr. Norm. factor

11.Du Dudgeon MP 67×6MW 1300M£ 35 12–24 $2014 0.737

12.Wi Wikinger Jk 70×5MW 1350 M€ 35 36–40 $2014 0.737
13.No Nordsee One MP 54×6.15MW 1200 M€ 45 28 $2014 0.737
14.CW Cape Wind MP 130×3.6MW 2620 M$ 11 3–15 $2010 0.879
15.BW Bluewater Wind MP 150×3MW 1000 M$ 24 10–33 $2010 0.879
16.CP Coastal Point Jk 60×2.5MW 360 M$ 8 15 $2010 0.879
17.GS Garden State Jk 96×3.6MW 1500 M$ 33 21–30 $2010 0.879
CS-1 Nikolaos (2004) TL 110×4.5MW 50 €2004 1.222
CS-2 Douglas-Westwood (2010) MP 120×5MW 16.2GNOK 15 20 NOK2010 0.135
CS-3 Kaiser and Snyder (2010) 83×3.6MW 19 $2010 0.879
CS-4 Green et al. (2007) 167×3MW 15 20 $2007 0.843
CS-5 Clasadonte and Matarazzo (2009) 8×3MW 52.9 M€ 13 €2009 1.094
CS-6 ODE (2007)1 30×3.6MW £2007 1.696
CS-7 Nielsen (2003) 80×3MW 12 10 €2003 1.246
Est-1 EWEA (2009)2 €2009 1.094
Est-2 Ernst & Young (2009) £2009 1.278
Est-3 Garrad Hassan (2003) 100 MW £2003 1.790
Est-4 Smith et al. (2015) $2014 0.737
Est-5 ODIS (2009)3 £2009 1.278
1
ODE, for Offshore Design Engineering Ltd, UK.
2
EWEA, for European Wind Energy Association.
3
ODIS, for Offshore Development Information Statement, UK.
14 A. Gonzalez-Rodriguez / Energy for Sustainable Development 37 (2017) 10–19

Table 3 • In Nikolaos (2004, page 95) with a cost of 100 €/m

Design and project management. (122 €2016 /m).
k€2016
Park Source Cost MW
A supplementary cable extension of 40 m must be added to each
CS-1 (Nikolaos, 2004, page 98) 2.9M€/495MW 7
turbine for connections.
3.PA (Slengesol et al., 2010, page 93) 10M€/120 MW 92
CS-6 (ODE, 2007, page 38) 5.6M£/108MW1 88
2.SS (Gerdes et al., 2006, page 127) 1.737M£/60 MW 52 Installation cost of inner array cables
4.NH (Slengesol et al., 2010, page 91) 80k£/MW 144 Cable lay activity is one of the most challenging aspect of con-
1.Md (Slengesol et al., 2010, page 89) 4M€/40 MW 130 struction. Table 8 presents the compiled data for this cost includ-
1.Md (Larsen et al., 2005, page 2) 2.98M€/40MW 89
ing transport, and laying/burying operations. Except in bedrock
Est-1 (EWEA, 2009, page 217) 100k€/MW 109
CS-2 (Douglas-Westwood, 2010, page 15) 2.7MNOK/MW 365 seafloors, this cost can be lower than in the case of export cables,
because, thanks to a lower shipping transit cost, the burial depth is
1
Project management + FEED + Engineering phase.
lower. Green et al. (2007, page 5) propose that only laying is enough.
However, insurers statistics show that cables are responsible for over
The following expression is the regression curve that best fits fifty percent of damages paid (Slengesol et al., 2010) . As an example
these data, after suppressing two outliers given by Gerdes et al. (2006), the anchor of a construction vessel
destroyed one of the interconnection cables in Horns Rev park when
CoF = 363 P 1.06 with CoC = 0.9975 (5) it was laid unprotected on the seabed. Since repair and remedial
works are very expensive, it is advisable to bury the cables to a depth
with the cost of foundation CoF and capacity P expressed in k€2016 that depends on the seabed subsidence.
and MW, respectively. The exponent close to 1 does not reflect any
Export cables
economy of scale.
ODIS (2009, page 29) provides the values of Table 9 for 3-core
In addition to these data, Table 6 extracted from Loman (2009)
132 kV and 220 kV subsea cables, in which a J-tube de-rating factor
and Douglas-Westwood (2010) lists the cost of various solutions
of 0.88 has been applied.
for a 5 MW turbine at a reference water depth of 35 m for a num-
Additional data are found in:
ber of technologies. The costs have been translated into k€2016 and
they include design, fabrication and installation. An additional cost of
252–383k€/5MW must be included for gravity-based structures due • Green et al. (2007, page 5), with 755 $/m (636 €2016 ) for a
to seabed preparation. 630mm2 cable, 170 kV, and 860$/m (725 €2016 ) for a 630mm2
cable, 150 kV.
• Nielsen (2003, page 13), with 500 €/m (623 €2016 ) for a 630mm2
Electrical infrastructure
cable, 150 kV.
• Nikolaos (2004, page 98), with 260 €/m (318 €2016 ) for a 150 kV
Cables
cable.
Inner array cables
Table 7 has been obtained from information provided by Green Installation cost of export cables
et al. (2007) with respect to 2 manufacturers, designated as A and B. This cost is presented in Table 10.
Prices were given in $2006 /m, and are normalized into €2016 /m.
These data can be used for the selection of the most suitable cable Acquisition cost of onshore HV cable
in terms of the purchase cost and the energy losses throughout the Table 11 presents the prices and capacity regarding 1-core cop-
lifespan of the installation. per cables (XLPE insulated, corrugated aluminium armoured cable),
Additional data are found: obtained from a manufacturer.

• In Nielsen (2003, page 14) with a cost of 85 €/m (106 €2016 /m) Excavation and Installation of onshore HV cable
for Cu sections of 150mm2 ODIS (2009, page 29) establishes an interval from 300£/m in
• In Douglas-Westwood (2010, page 35) with a cost of agricultural land to 530£/m in roads (383 €2016 /m–677 €2016 /m).
1.4 MNOK/km (189 €2016 /m) for Cu sections of 250mm2 , or ODE (2007, page 40) indicates a value of 125£/m (212 €2016 /m)
a cost of 3.8 MNOK/km (513 €2016 /m) for Cu sections of plus disruption downtime of 25%, and (Garrad Hassan, 2003, page I.5)
380mm2 , and a value of 300£/m (537 €2016 /m).

Table 4
Cost of the turbine acquisition, shipping and assembling, and electrical installation.
k€2016
Park Source Curr. MW AC SA EI MW

Est-4 (Smith et al., 2015, page 71) k$ 1494 1494 • 2053 1513
CS-2 (Douglas-Westwood, 2010, page 15) MNOK 600 11.9 0.7 1.1 1850
11.Du (Smith et al., 2015, page 71) k$ 402 402 • 2112 1557
12.Wi (Smith et al., 2015, page 71) k$ 350 350 • 1645 1212
13.No (Smith et al., 2015, page 71) k$ 332 332 • 1998 1473
8.Ny (Bellone and Dale, 2007, page 7) M$ 165.6 94.9 11.1 540
Est-3 (Garrad Hassan, 2003, page I.5) M£ 100 52.5 940
9.BB (Bellone and Dale, 2007, page 6) M$ 90 69.6 8.1 728
10.AB (Bellone and Dale, 2007, page 6) M$ 25.2 16.3 1.9 609
CS-5 (Clasadonte and Matarazzo, 2009, page 106) k€ 24 30.400 1386
CS-6 (ODE, 2007, pages 40-47) k£ 3.6 2700 216 135 1437
CS-7 (Nielsen, 2003, page 34) k€ 3.5 2975 1059
Est-1 (EWEA, 2009, page 217) k€ 1 815 892
Est-2 (Ernst & Young, 2009, page 29) k£ 1 1500 1917
 A. Gonzalez-Rodriguez / Energy for Sustainable Development 37 (2017) 10–19 15

Table 5
Foundation costs.
k€2016
Park Source Curr. MW Acq Inst MW

CS-2 (Douglas-Westwood, 2010, page 15) mNOK 600 MP 4.33 1.8 828
CS-1 (Nikolaos, 2004, page 198) m€ 495 TL 520 1163
8.Ny (Bellone and Dale, 2007, page 7) m$ 165.6 GB 33.84 32.58 338
8.Ny (Gerdes et al., 2006, page 103) m€ 165.6 GB 45 339
8.Ny (Vølund, 2005, page 3) m€ 165.6 GB 0.26 324
Est-3 (Garrad Hassan, 2003, page I.5) m£ 100 MP 22.5 12 618
9.BB (Bellone and Dale, 2007, page 6) m$ 90 MP 24.83 23.91 457
1.Md (Larsen et al., 2005, page 8) m€ 40 GB 9.92 592
1.Md (Vølund, 2005, page 3) m€ 40 GB 0.32 416
10.AB (Bellone and Dale, 2007, page 7) m$ 25.2 MP 5.8 5.58 381
CS-6 (ODE, 2007, pages 20,39) m£ 3.6 MP 0.67 0.33 471
CS-7 (Nielsen, 2003, page 31) k€ 1 GB 359 447
Est-1 (EWEA, 2009, page 217) k€ 1 350 383
Est-2 (Ernst & Young, 2009, page 29) k£ 1 700 895

MP: monopile GB: gravity based TL: tension leg.

Substations HV connection

Offshore substation Regulations in some countries like Denmark and Germany dictate
As pointed out by Douglas-Westwood (2010) and Slengesol et al. that the acquisition and installation of export cable supply, as well as
(2010), a cost effective grid connection at medium voltage to exist- the onshore grid connection is covered by the grid operator Slengesol
ing onshore substations is possible if the OWF is small, or it is close et al. (2010). Consequently, these costs are frequently gathered in a
to the shore. It is the case of Middelgrunden, Egmond aan Zee, Scroby single item.
Sands or Kentish Flats. Otherwise, an offshore substation must be
included with the electrical equipment to transform the medium
Shoreline transitions
inter-array voltage (typically 30–34 kV) to the transmission net-
A barge of around 1.3M£(1661k€2016 ) is given in ODIS (2009,
work high voltage. This equipment will be supported on a jacket or
page 52) , mainly for the horizontal directional drilling, from land to
monopile (for smaller platforms) foundation. The substation capacity
sea.
determines the cost and weight of the electrical equipment (mainly
transformer and gas insulated switchgears), and in turn the weight
and cost of the substructure, which also depends on the water depth. Onshore substation
The cost for both components, electrical equipment and platform, The available data is presented in Table 13.
are approximately equal for HVAC substations. In the case of HVDC,
Douglas-Westwood (2010) increases the former cost in 500%, and
ODIS (2009) in about 50%. Connection to the grid
Table 12 lists the available data. The cost of the offshore substa- Grid connection can be highly variable, depending on whether
tion CoS can be expressed as: the grid is sufficiently strong or if it needs reinforcement. It can be
covered by subsidies (Gerdes et al., 2006, page 144) or by the grid
operator (Slengesol et al., 2010, pages 11–12) .
CoS = 539 P 0.678 with CoC = 0.861 (6)
The expression relating the cost of the connection to the grid and
the park capacity (see Table 14), after extracting an outlier, is:
with the cost CoS and capacity P expressed in k€2016 and MW, respec-
tively. The exponent lower than the unity reflects the presence of
economies of scale on this component. CCG = 8.047P 1.66 with CoC = 0.82 (7)

Power factor compensating devices with the cost CCG and capacity P expressed in k€2016 and MW, respec-
It may be necessary to include HVAC shunt reactors in three tively. The exponent higher than the unity contradicts the economy
core cables to compensate for the reactive power of AC transmis- of scale, and it is due to other important issues, like the necessity of
sion networks. Its price is not significant: 2k£/100MVAr at 132kV reinforcing the grid in case of large OWFs.
(2556 €2016 ) (ODIS, 2009, page 36).
HVAC static VAR compensators (SVC) and STATCOM can com-
pensate either reactive or capacitive characteristics, to regulate the Table 7
local voltage at the interface point. From ODIS (2009, pages 40–42), Characteristics and price for inner array cables, extracted from Green et al. (2007).
CSVC = 5k£+ 50£/MV Ar = 6390€2016 + 63900€2016 /MV Ar and Cross area Fixed losses Variable losses Imax Price Norm. price
Cstatcom = 100£/MV Ar = 128k€2016 /MV Ar. (mm2 ) (W/m) (mW/m/A1/2 ) (A) ($/m) (€2016 /m)

A95 0 0.714 380 152 128

Table 6 A150 6 0.435 430 228 192
Cost in k€2016 /MW for different foundation techniques, as extracted from Loman A400 24 0.192 680 381 321
(2009) and (Douglas-Westwood, 2010, page 26). A630 34 0.123 780 571 481
A800 50 0.0862 900 600 506
Depth (m) Gravity based Steel monopile Steel jacket Tripod
B95 0 0.833 260 455 384
520–875 678 665 842 B150 6 0.5 360 494 416
< 20 m 365 581 486 729 B400 8 0.172 640 609 513
∈ [20, 29] 513 729 608 972 B630 10 0.111 790 635 535
∈ [30, 39] 864 972 918 1094 B800 12 0.0862 900 731 616
16 A. Gonzalez-Rodriguez / Energy for Sustainable Development 37 (2017) 10–19

Table 8 Table 10
Installation cost of inner array cables. Installation cost of export cables.

Park Source Original Price Norm. Price Park Source Original price Norm. price
(€2016 /m) (€2016 /m)

CS-3 (Kaiser and Snyder, 2010, page 170) 166 $/m 146 CS-3 (Kaiser and Snyder, 2010, page 170) 179 $/m 157
CS-4 (Green et al., 2007, page 3) 94 $/m 79 Est-5 (ODIS, 2009, page 29) 500£/m 639
CS-4 (Green et al., 2007, page 103) 103 $/m 87 Est-5 (ODIS, 2009, page 46) 552£/m1 705
Est-5 (ODIS, 2009, page 46) 276 £/m∗ 59 CS-6 (ODE, 2007, page 40) 195£/m 331
CS-6 (ODE, 2007, page 40) 195 £/m 331 CS-7 (Nielsen, 2003, page 13) 50€/m 62
CS-7 (Nielsen, 2003, page 13) 50 €/m 62 CS-1 (Nikolaos, 2004, page 95) 70 €/m 86
CS-2 (Douglas-Westwood, 2010, page 35) 1MNOK/km 135
1
Assuming a cable laying rate of 200m/day.
1
Assuming a cable laying rate of 400m/day.

Decommissioning costs and residual price

Yearly cash flow
Offshore decommissioning relates to removal of the superstruc-
Operation and maintenance costs ture (i.e. blades, nacelle, towers and transition piece), foundation,
scour protection and offshore cables. Residual price depends on
Available data are presented in Table 15, and include insurance, whether the foundations are made of concrete or steel, although, in
regular maintenance, repair, spare parts and administration. This general, this is a minor value in comparison to the decommissioning
value is usually given as per MWh and they increase as the equip- cost (around 10%) (Kaiser and Snyder, 2010, page 214).
ment is aging. In the case that it is given in currency per MW, it can Available data are summarized in Table 16, which includes the
be translated to currency per MWh by multiplying by 8766 h/year, distance to the nearest port and the type of foundation. Nevertheless,
and by a load factor (typically 0.35 (Garrad Hassan, 2003; ODE, 2007; this table does not show a strong influence of these factors on the
Slengesol et al., 2010)). Depending on the source, they can include cost.
land rent and internal electricity consumption. Table 15 lists the A linear expression reasonably fits the obtained data, with a fixed
reviewed values. cost of 1606 k€2016 , and a slope of 114 k€2016 /MW (CoC = 0.99).
Although its increase throughout the lifespan is not linear, an
annual slope of 5% can be assumed.
Factors affecting the economic data

Price of MWh and expected increase Unavailability of prices and costs

The selling price of energy greatly depends on the environmen- It is difficult to find documentation regarding the main Cost
tal policy of the country and the energy price in the general market. Drivers for key offshore wind cost components, since the involved
The type of support mechanisms established in Europe (mainly feed- companies usually protect their knowledge in the form of confiden-
in tariff and quota obligations based on green certificates), and the tial data. At best, reports include a generalist breakdown of costs
current subsidies to be applied are listed in EWEA (2009, page 231), which is not sufficient to analyse the variation in LCOE when mod-
Douglas-Westwood (2010, page 87), Slengesol et al. (2010, page 11). ifying the structure, position or the layout of the OWF. Even the
Price can evolve over the lifetime of the wind park. As shown reports elaborated by experienced companies advise that the pre-
in Larsen et al. (2005, page 4) for Middelgrunden wind farm, this is sented Capital Expenditure information have not been verified or
80€/MWh in the first 6 years, 57€/MWh in the following 5 years, and audited.
finally is subject to the market price plus 13€/MWh. This lack of transparency leads to disparity of costs presented by
different authors for the same concept or park, and it is necessary to
Subsidies, depreciation and annual taxes collect data from several sources in order to obtain more dependable
values.
Other data such as investment subsidies, depreciation allowances
and taxes on the cash flows, must also be computed in an account- Evolution of commodities
ing analysis, although this inclusion has not been carried out due to
either unavailability or because certain data remains unspecified for The rolled steel is the main raw material used in the manufacture
every country: fiscal policy, preferential courses of action, and capital of towers, but also monopile and tripod foundations, and transition
amortization tables. pieces. Copper is used in cabling, and to a lesser extent in genera-
Particularly, with regard to the grants, the revenues for different tors and transformers. These metals make up approximately 6% and
wind farms are listed in Slengesol et al. (2010): 10 M£for Barrow, 5% of total LCOE respectively (CrownState, 2012) , and their price
Burbo, Kentish Flats, and Scroby Sands, or 207 MSEK in Lillgrund. The have significantly fluctuated in the past years due to the infrastruc-
value of 27 M€ is given in Gerdes et al. (2006, page 144) . ture growth in China, and, on the other hand, by the recent economic
downturn. As a significant example, the price of copper has quadru-
Table 9 pled in value in the last fifteen years (Index Mundi), although it
Characteristics and price of export cables. is currently decreasing. Fig. 3 shows the evolution of steel, crude
Voltage Section Capacity Price Norm. price oil and copper over this period. The price for steel was obtained
(kV) (mm2 ) (MV A) (£/m) (€2016 /m)

132 500 138 405 518 Table 11

132 630 151 463 592 Acquisition cost of onshore HV cables.
132 800 177 540 690
Voltage (kV) Section (mm2 ) Capacity (MV A) Cost ($) Cost (€/m)
132 1000 189 630 805
220 500 250 660 843 220 500 273 315 232.8
220 630 273 740 946 220 630 297 360 266.0
220 800 295 830 1061 220 800 314 405 299.3
220 1000 314 950 1214 220 1000 348 497 367.3
 A. Gonzalez-Rodriguez / Energy for Sustainable Development 37 (2017) 10–19 17

Table 12 Table 14
Cost of the offshore substation. Cost of the connection to the grid.
k€2016 k€2016
Park Source Cost MW Park Source Cost MW

CS-2 (Douglas-Westwood, 2010, page 38) 0.7 MNOK/MW @ 600 MW1 95 7.HR2 (Slengesol et al., 2010, page 83) 824 MDKK / 209MW 580
CS-4 (Green et al., 2007, page 4) 40.52M$/500MW 68 8.Ny (Bellone and Dale, 2007, page 7) 32.8 M$/ 165.6 MW 167
CS-1 (Nikolaos, 2004, page 98) 25 M€/495MW 61 6.HR (Slengesol et al., 2010, page 82) 40 M€/ 160MW 312
CS-7 (Nielsen, 2003, page 13) 15 M€/ 240MW 78 6.HR (Gerdes et al., 2006, page 79) 40 M€/ 160MW 312
Est-5 (ODIS, 2009, page 44) 28 M£/160MW2 224 CS-6 (ODE, 2007, page 40) 185 k£/108 MW 314
CS-6 (ODE, 2007, pages 38,40) (7.5+1.5) M£/108MW 141 Est-3 (Garrad Hassan, 2003, page I.4) 5 M£/100MW 90
Est-3 (Garrad Hassan, 2003, page I.5) 5 M£/100MW 90 9.BB (Bellone and Dale, 2007, page 6) 19.3 M$/ 90 MW 180
1.Md (Slengesol et al., 2010, page 89) 4.4 M€/40MW 143 4.NH (Slengesol et al., 2010, page 91) 4 M£/ 60MW 120
1.Md (Larsen et al., 2005, page 2) 4.51 M€/40MW 135
1
Estimated from a HVDC substation.
2
For a 1200-tonne substation, which is the weight of Horns Rev’s substation
(Gerdes et al., 2006, page 73).
avoided in winter due to high waves. A sheltered site such as Nysted
will have little weather downtime compared to a more exposed site
from TradingEconomics and Quandl, oil crude from FRED (2016), and like Barrow (and other projects in the Irish Sea, which have chal-
copper from Index Mundi and Quandl. lenging wave conditions). The days in which these operations are not
possible entails an additional cost, which can be alleviated through
High demand and lack of competitiveness an appropriate task schedule. Table 17 presents the available data.
With large new-generation jack-ups the operational weather
Vessels window can be increased, but on the other hand, they are unsuitable
The oil price is also an important factor, not only as a commodity for some sites with soft seabed conditions.
influencing the travelling costs of vessels, but mainly because a high Maintenance plans must also designed accordingly to the loca-
oil price increases the demand of vessels used in the gas and oil sector tion accessibility. In the North Sea, the high waves complicate the
(Skoko et al., 2013) . access by boat, and some tasks (cable laying, pile driving) should
The rental price of vessels had doubled in the past years be avoided in the weather window in which these conditions are
(Douglas-Westwood, 2010; Kaiser and Snyder, 2010; Skoko et al., expected. Accessibility can be drastically increased by including heli-
2013) resulting from a lack of competition among vessel owners/ copter platforms or if boat landings can be performed in high waves.
operators as well as a lack of fit for purpose vessels. The recent col- These extras increase the wind turbine cost.
lapse in crude oil prices has triggered a decline in offshore oil and In addition to the increased downtimes, bad weather condi-
gas exploration and construction activities, which has led to reduced tions also affect the design of foundations. In colder sites such as
vessel day rates, albeit a significant vessel demand is maintained for in the Baltic Sea, foundations must withstand the ice pressure, and
retrofit work and maintenance activities. thus, ice-breaking cones are installed in top of the foundation or in
Different types of vessels are used for the transport and the transition piece, and oversizing may also be required. A more
installation/laying of foundations, turbines, cables and substations. approximated estimation of the necessary foundation weight and the
Four types of vessels are used: liftboats, Jackup barges, self-propelled scour protection should then include the soil type, turbine capac-
installation vessels (SPIV) and heavy-lift vessels. A detailed study ity, depth, wave height, maximum wind speed, or the tidal current
into each type of vessel, its date rate, its main use, the installation (Nielsen, 2003; ODE, 2007).
times as a function of the performed task, and its mobilization costs
can be found in Kaiser and Snyder (2010), CrownState (2012), Garrad Tidal currents, seabed conditions and biologically sensitive areas
Hassan (2003), Skoko et al. (2013) and Gerdes et al. (2006).
Soil type can impact installation procedure. If rocks exist below
Wind turbine supplies the mudline, piles must be drilled rather than driven, which is more
With regards to the wind turbines, the market is dominated by time consuming. Other example of this influence is given by Gerdes
two manufacturers, which also supply onshore wind turbines. Nev- et al. (2006) which stated that the seabed consisting of sorted glacier
ertheless, a decline in wind turbine prices is being observed that deposit (especially moraine clays) at Nysted made not feasible the
reflects a lower steel price and the fact that new turbine suppliers are option of monopile foundations in favour of gravity based ones.
seeking to gain market share and offering turbines at lower prices. Tidal currents must also be taken into consideration because
they can limit the diver intervention, but mainly because, in con-
Meteorological conditions and weather downtime junction with an erodible seabed, they can make scour protection
necessary and bury the cables at enough depths. As indicted in
Metocean conditions play an important role in the schedule of Douglas-Westwood (2010), GBS foundations are not suitable for sites
the installation works and scour protection. In general, locations with heavy erosion. Scroby Sands (located on an huge sand bank
with good wind conditions are more likely to be unavailable for formed by the strong tides) and Arklow Bank represent examples
assembling, laying, or installation. As noted by some project own- of large seabed subsidence due to the tides. At Arklow Bank, sedi-
ers (Slengesol et al., 2010) from experiences at Lillgrund and Scroby ment shifted post-construction, exposing the export cable that was
Sands, some tasks like cable installation or pile driving should be subsequently damaged by a ship anchoring.
Another aspect to be taken into account is the ecological impact of
Table 13
the OWF. In this sense, monopile installation is noisy, produces water
Onshore substation.
turbulence and damage to macro-fauna, and can scare maritime ani-
k€2016
Park Source Cost MW mals (Gooch et al., 2009). Onshore transition type in biologically
CS-4 (Green et al., 2007, page 4) 29.37M$/500MW 50 sensitive areas can increase the export cable installation (Kaiser
CS-1 (Nikolaos, 2004, page 98) 30 M€/495MW 1 75 and Snyder, 2010). The visual impact was considered in Humber
CS-7 (Nielsen, 2003, page 13) 34 M€/240MW 1 177 Gateway OWF, near Spurn Head, moving a possible location 2 km
CS-6 (ODE, 2007, page 38)38 3 M£/108MW 47
farther from the coast of Spurn Head, which is a Heritage Coast site
1
Including onshore cables. (Renewable East, 2005). The assessment of the visual impact, as in
18 A. Gonzalez-Rodriguez / Energy for Sustainable Development 37 (2017) 10–19

Table 15
Operation and maintenance costs.
€2016
Park Source Cost MWh

CS-2 (Douglas-Westwood, 2010, page 40) 0.7 MNOK/MW1 31

CS-5 (Clasadonte and Matarazzo, 2009, page 107) 11€/MWh 12
CS-6 (ODE, 2007, page 28) 4 M£/108MW1 21
5.KF (Slengesol et al., 2010, page 85) 10.31–12.20£/MWh 18–22
4.NH (Slengesol et al., 2010, page 91) 2.75 M£/186GWh 27
2.SS (Slengesol et al., 2010, page 95) 10.05–11.31£/MWh 18–20
1.Md (Larsen et al., 2005, page 5) 8.2€/MWh 10
1.Md (EWEA, 2009, page 218) 12€/MWh 13
1.Md (Slengesol et al., 2010, page 89) 8.2€/MWh 11
Est-1 (EWEA, 2009, page 218) 16 €/MWh 18
Est-2 (Ernst & Young, 2009, page 9) 45 k€/MW1 18
1
Assuming a load factor of 35%.

Table 16
Decommissioning cost for different parks, including data of the distance to the nearest port (in nautical miles
or km), the foundation type (monopile or jacket), original cost as presented in the referenced source, and
normalized cost per MW.
k€2016
Park Source d-port Fnd. MW Cost MW

14.CW (Kaiser and Snyder, 2010, page 215) 60 nm MP 468 63.8 M$ 120
15.BW (Kaiser and Snyder, 2010, page 215) 100 nm MP 450 59.7 M$ 117
17.GS (Kaiser and Snyder, 2010, page 215) 80 nm Jk 350 45.3 M$ 114
16.CP (Kaiser and Snyder, 2010, page 215) 20 nm Jk 150 23.4 M$ 137
CS-5 (Clasadonte and Matarazzo, 2009, page 110) 13.2 2.11 M€ 175
CS-6 (ODE, 2007, page 41) 10 km 3.6 343 k£ 162

Gonzalez-Rodriguez (2016), may be required in order to avoid social only been taken into account in few sources (Gerdes et al., 2006;
rejection. Kaiser and Snyder, 2010; ODE, 2007). The following distances have
been gathered: Middelgrunden, 3.5 km; Nysted, 10 km from Gedser
Distances (service work), 85 km from Nyborg (logistics) and circa 240 km
from Swinoujscie (manufacture); Greater Gabard, 20 nm; Horns Rev,
When analyzing the investment cost, four distances must be 10–15 km from Esbjerg; Scroby Sands, 5–8 km from Great Yarmouth,
taken into account: distance from the OWF to the shore; distance to 25 km from Lowestoft (turbine pre-assembling); Cape Wind, 60 nm;
the grid; distance to the holding port; and distance traveled by the BlueWater Wind, 100 nm; Coastal Point, 20 nm; Garden State, 80 nm.
vessels for their mobilization and demobilization. Finally, the last distance to be taken into account corresponds
The first one determines the visual impact, influences the water to the travel d from the vessel origin port to the work site, and
depth, and serves as a proxy for the length of export cable required. determines the mobilization and demobilization fee. As presented in
It was dealt with in previous sections, mainly Electrical infrastruc- Kaiser and Snyder (2010, page 166), this cost can be roughly obtained
ture section. The second one refers to the distance to a nearby as a function of this distance through the expressions
harbor with enough manufacturing facilities, and staging area for
the turbine assembly or the gravity based foundation construction.
SPIV
This distance determines the time for marine vessels to pick-up Cmob+dem (k€2016 ) ∼ 369 • d(km)
material and equipment at port and return to the work site. There- Jackup
Cmob+dem (k€2016 ) ∼ 272 + 369 • d(km)
fore, it affects the installation time/cost, and is an important factor heavy−lift
for the estimation of the vessel rental cost. Nevertheless, it has Cmob+dem (k€2016 ) ∼ 472 • d(km). (8)

Fig. 3. Evolution of price for steel and Copper in $/metric tonne, and crude oil in $/barrel. This last price has been multiplied by ten for a better resolution.
 A. Gonzalez-Rodriguez / Energy for Sustainable Development 37 (2017) 10–19 19

Table 17 References
Weather downtime.

Park Source Installation Laying Bellone S, Dale D. Town of babylon cost accounting: Long island offshore wind project.
downtime downtime 2007.
Clasadonte MT, Matarazzo A. Application of life cycle cost assessment model to wind
CS-6 (ODE, 2007, page 32) 25% 10% offshore generators. J Commod Sci Technol Qual 2009;48:33–67.
Est-3 (Garrad Hassan, 2003, page I.3) 20% CrownState, Offshore wind cost reduction. Pathways study. 2012.
CS-1 (Nikolaos, 2004, page 112) 20% Douglas-Westwood, Offshore wind assessment for Norway. Technical Report.The
Est-5 (ODIS, 2009, page 46) up to 40% Research Council of Norway. 2010.
Ernst & Young, Cost of and financial support for offshore wind. A report for the
Department of Energy and Climate Change. 2009. URN 09D/534.
EWEA, Wind energy - the facts. Economics: offshore developments: the cost of energy
generated by offshore wind power. 2009.
Frandsen S, Barthelmie R, Pryor S, Rathmann O, Larsen S, Højstrup J, Thøgersen M.
Table 18 Analytical modelling of wind speed deficit in large offshore wind farms. Wind
Mobilization and demobilization costs. Energy. 2006;9:39–53.
Ref Source Cost k€2016 FRED, FRED Economic data. 2016, accessed November 2016. https://fred.stlouisfed.
org/series/DCOILWTICO/downloaddata.
CS-4 (Green et al., 2007, page 3) 7 M$ 5901 Hassan Garrad. Offshore wind. Economies of scale, engineering resource and load
CS-6 (ODE, 2007, pages 39–41) 0.96 M£1 1628 factors. In: Morgan CA, Snodin HM, Scott NC, eds., Technical Report. 2003.
Est-3 (Garrad Hassan, 2003, page I.5) 0.75 M£ 1343 Gerdes G, Tiedemann A, Zeelenberg S. Case study: European offshore wind farms -
CS-7 (Nielsen, 2003, page 13) 0.5 M€ 547 a survey for the analysis of the experiences and lessons learnt by developers of
offshore wind farms. Technical Report. POWER. 2006.
1
0.24 M£for each of the installation/laying activities. Gonzalez-Rodriguez AG. An indicator to objectively quantify the visual impact of an
offshore wind farm. J Renewable Sustainable Energy. 2016;8.:
Gooch SA, Guerrero-Rolando CA, Rodriguez A, Wisniewski J, Moller B. An energy
and cost based GIS approach to offshore wind farm site mapping project. 2009,
Accessed May 2016. http://vbn.aau.dk/files/14420135/08em0808.pdf.
Green J, Bowen A, Fingersh LJ, Wan Y-H. Electrical collection and transmission systems
The figures of Table 18 have been extracted from the literature. for offshore wind power. In: NREL, ed. Offshore Technology Conference, Houston,
Texas. 2007. p. 1–7.
Index Mundi Web page. Commodity prices. Accessed May 2016. http://www.
Conclusions indexmundi.com/commodities/.
Kaiser MJ, Snyder B. Offshore wind energy installation and decommissioning cost esti-
mation in the U.S. outer continental shelf. Technical Report. Energy Research
This paper reviews the sources with useful data about prices and Group, LLC. 2010.
costs that are needed to deduce the LCOE. It cannot be seen as a Larsen JHM, Soerensen HC, Christiansen E, Naef S, Volund P. Experiences from
Middelgrunden 40 MW offshore wind farm. Copenhagen Offshore Wind.; 2005.
thorough study of the main Cost Drivers for key offshore wind cost
26-28 October
components, nor it presents all the expressions required to obtain Loman G. Conceptual foundation study for Kriegers Flak offshore wind farm. European
the exact LCOE. Nevertheless, it provides the most important eco- Offshore Wind 2009. Vattenfall Vindkraft AB. 2009. Accessed May 2016.
nomical data to undertake the programming of optimum layout Nielsen P. Offshore wind energy projects feasibility study guidelines SEAWIND. Tech-
nical Report. Altener Project. 2003.
algorithms for OWFs. Nikolaos N. Deep water offshore wind technologies. Ph.D. thesis. University of
Obtained information shows a big variability in prices over the Strathclyde. 2004.
years, with a increasing trend which has been finally stagnated, ODE, Study of the costs of offshore wind generation. Technical Report URN number
07/779. Offshore Design Engineering (ODE) Limited, Renewables Advisory Board
mainly in the turbine acquisition and the vessel rental. (RAB) & DTI. 2007.
Starting from the available data, a regression curve has been ODIS, Offshore Development Inform. Statement. 2009. National Grid Appen-
obtained for certain components to show how the park capacity dices, accessed May 2009. www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/62196427-
C4E4-483E-A43E-85ED4E9C0F65/39230/ODISAppendicesFinal_0110.pdf.
affects the cost of certain components. This analysis has lead to Quandl Copper prices and steel billet prices. London Metal Exchange. https://www.
deducing that economies of scale are not present in some of the quandl.com/data/LME/. Accessed May 2016.
expenditures, like the turbine or the decommissioning. Just on the Renewable East. Scroby sands - supply chain analysis. Douglas-Westwood Limited and
ODE Limited. 2005. July.
contrary, higher park capacities increase the specific cost in some
Rosenauer, E. Investment costs of offshore wind turbines. Technical Report Report No.
of the components, like the grid connection. On the other hand, the CSS14-27. Center for Sustainable Energy, University of Michigan.
components that benefit from the economies of scale are: design and Skoko I, Jurcevic M, Bozic D. Logistics aspect of offshore support vessels on the West
Africa market. Traffic Transportation 2013;25:587–93.
project management, vessel mobilization/demobilizaton, offshore
Slengesol I, Pimenta de Miranda W, Birch N, Liebst J, van der Hem A. Offshore wind
substation, and export cables. experiences: a bottom-up review of 16 projects. Technical Report. Ocean Wind.
2010.
Smith A, Stehly T, Musial W. 2014–2015 offshore wind technologies market report.
Appendix A. Supplementary data Technical Report NREL/TP-5000-64283. NREL, National Renewable Energy Labo-
ratory. 2015.
TradingEconomics http://www.tradingeconomics.com/commodity/steel. Accessed
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http:// May 2016.
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2016.12.001. Vølund P. Concrete is the future for offshore foundations. Wind Eng 2005;29:531–9.