February 2015

Month day, year

Foundations for larger & deeper offshore wind

Which foundation type is cost effective for larger turbines and increasingly complex projects?

A commercial study comparing price for various offshore wind foundation technologies

www.quartzco.com
www.mecintelligence.com
COPENHAGEN
INDIA
Ryesgade
112,
Udyog3A
Vihar Phase 4
2200 Copenhagen
122015
Gurgaon N
Denmark India
Haryana,
T: +45 33 17 00 00
T: +91124 480 2700

STOCKHOLM
DENMARK
Birger Jarlsgatan
7
Nordre
Fasanvej 113,
2
111 45
Stockholm
2000
Frederiksberg
Sweden
Copenhagen,
Denmark
T: +46 (0)8 614 19 00
T: +45 3543 3277

OSLO
Wergelandsveien 21
0167 Oslo
Norway
T: +47 22 59 36 00

SUMMARY

New foundation designs could be cost effective as compared to conventional designs and also
reduce vessel demand for construction

New foundation
designs could be
10 percent to 30
percent cheaper
as compared to
conventional
designs

Foundation cost are primary driven by Material and installation costs with 65-85 % share of the total cost and have been
considered in this study
New foundation designs have lower costs as turbines become larger and installed in deeper sea
For 6 MW, new foundations are ~4-20% lower in material cost when compared to monopiles & jackets while for turbine sizes 8
MW and larger, new designs reduce the cost by ~21-24%
Installation cost does not vary much in comparison to material costs, but can be a bottleneck in timely execution of the OW
farm. New foundation designs can reduce the installation cost by ~50% as compared to the conventional designs
Mono-suction bucket is cost effective for 4-6 MW turbine size at lower to medium depths, while CraneFree Gravity is most
suitable for even larger turbines at medium to larger depths
Cost reduction potential of 5-15% is observed for foundations at select 5 farms in Europe. However, developers need to manage
risk and other associated premium costs with appropriate contracting

II
New foundation
designs could
lead to major
oversupply in the
vessels market

2 Source: MEC+ analysis

Currently there are 43 installation vessels suitable for offshore wind construction in EU; daily rate ranges between EUR 70k to
290k
The current vessel days are just enough to meet the demand from conventional foundations
In <800 tonne lifting category, new foundations eliminate the need for higher capacity vessel to meet the increase
In, 800-1200 tonne lifting category, new foundation adoption increases the vessel oversupply by 141% percent by 2020
In >1200 tonne lifting category, new foundations increase the vessel oversupply by 32% percent by 2020

INTRODUCTION

Innovation is being driven to reduce the high cost of energy from offshore wind planned in EU

Large investment is planned in OW

..resulting in cumulative capacity of 27 GW

expected to start construction by 2020

Around 5600 turbines are expected to be

installed by 2020

Expected annual capacity to start construction by

2020
..the offshore wind energy industry
needs to attract between 90 bn. and
123 bn. by 2020 to meet its
deployment targets, increasing its
installed capacity from 6 GW in mid2013 to 40 GW.

No. Of Foundations

OW annual capacity in GW*

XX

Contracted capacity in the year

7,9

1.493

1.245
5,9

EWEA, 2013

1.050

5,5

954
4,8

..supply chain is innovating to reduce

costs and deliver a competitive product
for UK and international
markets.costs can be reduced to
around 100/ MWh for a project
financed in 2020. main areas of cost
reduction are larger turbines, supply
chain competition, better design and
economies of scale,risk reduction
and lower costs of capital..

654
2,9

286

1,3

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

1.8

10

6.3

5.6

2.5

2.8

UK Trade & Investment, 2014

4-6 MW

* Based on the construction start year of the farms

3 Source: Windpower database, News articles, MEC+ analysis

Dominating Turbine Sizes

6-8 MW

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

INTRODUCTION

New foundation designs claim to reduce the cost of foundation and also of the entire offshore
windfarm

Foundations are a large

investment on a farm level

Costs are divided into three

major components

New designs are being offered in the market which

lower the cost

1
LOW MATERIAL COSTS

100
Planning &
Miscellaneous

100%

Lesser quantity of materials

9%

Use of Cheaper Material

Grid
Connection
Foundation

100%

11%

16%

Material
Cost

2
INSTALLATION COSTS

50-60%

Less installation time

No use of expensive installation vessels
3

OTHER ADVANTAGES
Noise mitigation regulations compliance

Wind
Turbine

64%

Cost breakup of
OW Installation

Installation
Cost

15-25%

Others

15-20%

Reusable designs

Cost Breakup of
OW Foundation

* Others include risks, insurances, noise mitigation, sea fastening, onshore logistics etc.

4 Source: IRENA 2012, MEC+ Analysis

Easier decommissioning

INTRODUCTION

Three new designs have been considered to compare their cost effectiveness against the
conventional monopiles and jackets
Commercial Designs
Monopile
Structural Design

Fabrication

Installation

Prominent Projects

Jacket
Steel lattice frame
with piles

Column of steel

New Designs
CraneFree Gravity
(CFG)

Mono Suction Bucket

(MSB)

Concrete base
with steel column

Steel bucket with

column on top

Suction Bucket Jacket

(SBJ)
Steel lattice with
bucket in bottom

Easier to fabricate
Cutting and Rolling of
steel

Difficult to fabricate
Requires extensive
welding at joints

Requires fabrication
yard to be setup at port
for mass production

Intricate design but

relatively easier to
fabricate due to
symmetrical design

Complex design,
difficult to fabricate
Requires intensive
welding at joints

Installation through
OW construction
vessels with significant
lifting capabilities
Requires drilling/pilling,
grouting, scour
protection

Installation through
OW construction
vessels with significant
lifting capabilities
Requires drilling/piling,
grouting, scour
protection

Installation through
Tugboats and position
assisting OW vessels
Requires sand
ballasting, scour
protection

Installation through
Tugboats, OW
construction vessels;
through specialized
suction pump

Requires OW
construction vessels
with significant lifting
capabilities
Installation through
suction action of three
suction pumps working
in tandem

Prototype at:
Fecamp, FR

Prototype at:
Dogger Bank, UK
Frederikshavn, DK

Prototype at:
Borkum Riffgrund 1

London Array, UK
Horn Rev I, DK
Nordsee One, DE
Egmond aan Zee, NL

Ormonde, UK
Alpha Ventus, DE
Thronton Bank, BE
Beatrice, UK

The three new innovative designs considered for the analysis, benchmark their two main advantages:
Material cost effectiveness
Alternative installation techniques and cost savings

5 Source: Windpower.net, Company websites, News articles, MEC+ analysis

INTRODUCTION

Material and installation costs are the largest cost constituents with 65-85 % share of the total cost
and have been considered in this study
Indicative cost breakup of a typical OW foundation

In Scope
Depend on design

Out of Scope
Depend on market factors, driven by
local needs

100%

50-60%

15-25%
5%
15-20%
Total

Material Cost
Material used to
manufacture the
foundation, e.g.
Different types of
steel
Concrete
Others

Installation Cost
Installation at
offshore site using
Installation
vessels
Drilling/pilling/
suction pumps,
Sand ballasting,
Grouting, Scour
protection
Others

Other costs
Includes costs that are
due to design advantages
but are not game
changer* in light of
comparisons
Noise mitigation
Decommissioning

Market Costs
Noise mitigation
Onshore logistics
Sea-fastening
Risk premiums
Insurances
Profit margins

Note: Cost shares vary in a broad range due to varying foundation design, risks and insurances based on local industries experience, and contracting models
* Game changers refers to large cost shares which have potential to change the COST based analysis
Source: MEC+ analysis

MATERIAL COST ANALYSIS

Relative
quantity used
Low

Material cost depends upon the quantities and unit prices of variable types of materials
used in the foundations

High
Material Cost
Materials

Utilisation in design

Unit Rate
(EUR per tonne)

7.800

Secondary Steel

Monopile

Jacket

CraneFree
Gravity (CFG)

Mono Suction
Bucket (MSB)

Suction Bucket
Jacket (SBJ)

Boatlanding, Jtubes, platforms

etc.

Boat
landing, Jtubes, platforms
etc.

Boat
landing, Jtubes, platforms
etc.

Boat
landing, Jtubes, platforms
etc.

Boat
landing, Jtubes, platforms
etc.

Bottom bucket,
middle interconnecting lid

Jacket body,
3 suction
buckets

Higher Grade
Primary Steel

Primary Steel

Concrete

Miscellaneous

3.200-4.500

1.600

Monopile,
Transition
piece

Jacket body,
Transition
piece

4 pre-piles

Top
cylindrical
structure, bottom
skirt

Top
shaft

Bottom
cement
gravity structure

Sand
ballasting
material: 62.500
EUR/foundation

170

7 Source: Scholar articles and thesis from various research institutions, Industry expert inputs, foundation manufacturers, MEC+ analysis

MATERIAL COST ANALYSIS

The quantity of material used in foundation is driven mainly by the depth of the seabed and turbine
size
Various factors affect the weight
of the foundation and in turn the
material cost

Monopile (6 MW)

Weight comparison of the foundation types

Tonne

Jacket (6 MW)
CFG
MSB

5.000

SBJ
Monopile (8 MW)

Depth of the seabed

Jacket (8 MW)

2.500

10

20

30

40

50

60

Material cost has been

analyzed as a variation of the
depth of the seabed and
turbine size

3.000

Turbine Size
0

10

Others
Physical condition e.g.
Seabed, Weather
No. Of Foundations

20

30

40

50

Physical soil conditions have very little effect

on the weight of the foundation
No. Of foundations contribute only as the
economy of scale factor and are highly
variable according to the contracting model

60

Factors like physical conditions

of the site have been
considered too, though
affecting the cost marginally

MATERIAL COST ANALYSIS

For 6 MW, new foundations have ~4-20% lower material cost when compared to monopiles &
jackets
..While the cost reflects a different trend due to variable mix of
material component

By weight, the new designs are similar to monopiles and jackets (up
to 30 m)
Steel quantity* for different foundation designs for 6 MW
Tonnes
Monopile

Tonnes

Jacket

Total material cost for different foundation designs for 6 MW

Euro millions per foundation

MSB

SBJ

EUR mil.

3.000

Monopile

Jacket

CFG

MSB

SBJ

2.000
Introduction of
XL/XXL monopiles

-20%

3
1.000
-4%

10

20

30

40

50

60

10

20

30

40

50

Depth (in m)
Note: CFG uses steel in upper cone, cylindrical tower and reinforced bars for concrete cone. The steel quantity graph excludes the reinforced bars. Steel tonnage for CFG not
available for >4MW turbine sizes;
* Monopiles steel tonnage includes monopile, TP and secondary structures; Jacket includes lattice structure, TP, pre-piles, secondary structure; MSB includes bucket/skirt,
lid, shaft, secondary structure; SBJ includes 3 buckets, lattice structure, secondary structure
9 Source: MEC+ analysis

60

MATERIAL COST ANALYSIS

For turbine sizes 8 MW and larger, new designs reduce the cost by ~21-24%

which is reflected in material cost as new designs could be cost

effective

Even with larger turbine to support, new designs have steadier

weight trends, while monopile weight increases exponentially..
Steel quantity* for different foundation designs for 8 MW
Tonnes
Monopile

Jacket

Total material cost for different foundation design for 8 MW

Euro millions per foundation

MSB

SBJ

Tonnes

EUR mil.

3.000

Monopile

Jacket

CFG

MSB

SBJ

6
Introduction of
XL/XXL monopiles

2.000
-24%

-21%

1.000

10

20

30

40

50

10

60

20

30

40

50

Depth (in m)
Note: CFG uses steel in upper cone, cylindrical tower and reinforced bars for concrete cone. The steel quantity graph excludes the reinforced bars. Steel tonnage for CFG not
available for >4MW turbine sizes;
* Monopiles steel tonnage includes monopile, TP and secondary structures; Jacket includes lattice structure, TP, pre-piles, secondary structure; MSB includes bucket/skirt,
lid, shaft, secondary structure; SBJ includes 3 buckets, lattice structure, secondary structure
10 Source: MEC+ analysis

60

INSTALLATION COST ANALYSIS

Installation cost depends on the various processes, unique to each foundation design,
affecting its installation duration and cost

Low
High

Brief description on installation concept and number of days required

Installation Process
Upending/
Lowering

Pilling

Drilling

Required

Stability Ensuring Process

Suction

Scour
Protection

Total Days

2-3

4-6

Grouting

Sand
Ballasting

Duration

1-2*

Cost

* Days are estimated based on assumption that there are no delays like supply chain delays, unavailability of vessels/boats

11 Source: Seatower, Universal foundations, Dong Energy, DTU, MEC+ analysis

1-2*

2-3*

New foundation
designs can be
installed in 1-3 daysdecreasing the total
time for installation of
foundations

The OW farm can

therefore be installed
in shorter
construction
schedules saving cost
and faster generation
of revenues

INSTALLATION COST ANALYSIS

Installation cost do not vary much as compared to the material cost, but can be a bottleneck in timely
execution of the OW farm

Installation cost has been estimated

based on the variation across
following factors

Installation Concepts Feeder concept- transit through

barges or floating pulled by
tugboats and/or installation via
installation vessel
Installation vessels for end to end
installation

Turbine size & depth of the seabed

determining the foundation weight,
crane capacity, and therefore vessel
day-rate
No. of days of foundation
installation
Seabed type determining the need
for pilling or drilling
Distance from the shore
determining transit time

Installation cost range compared to material costs

for a single foundation for variable configurations*
Euro millions
per foundation

Installation* cost range

Typical** Material Cost for 6 MW

4,5

Installation cost is a minor factor

approx. 5- 25 % of the material
cost for a typical** farm
configurations

4,0
3,5

Therefore, its minor variation

does not affect the cost trend
obtained from material cost

3,0
2,5

However, farm construction

duration and installation cost are
significantly affected by the
vessel availability in market
necessitating easier installation
concept

2,0
1,5
1,0
0,5
0,0
Monopile Jacket

CFG

MSB

SBJ

* Configuration used for determining cost: Turbine size= 6 & 8 MW, Depth= 0 to 60 m, Distance= 0 to 90 km, Seabed= soft for pilling & rocky for drilling, Wind farm size = 50-100
** Configuration for calculating typical cost: Turbine size= 6 MW, Depth= 30 m, Distance= 0 -30 km Seabed= soft, Wind farm size = 50-100
12 Source: MEC+ analysis

INSTALLATION COST ANALYSIS

New foundation designs can reduce the installation cost by ~50% as compared to the conventional
designs
Indicative installation cost in for different foundation types*
Euro millions per Foundation

0,56
Average for
conventional designs

0,42

New foundations have drastically lower

installation cost mainly due to the
cumulative effect of

EUR mil
0,19
(50%)

0,33
0,31

Average for new

designs

Less number of installation days

0,27

Less expensive vessels

corresponding to lower lifting
capacity required or not needed at
all

Jacket

Monopile

MSB

CFG

* All calculations done for base case configuration (Turbine size = 6MW, Depth = 30 m, Distance = 0-30 km, Sea Type = North Sea, Wind farm size = 50-100, Seabed = Soft)

13 Source: MEC+ analysis

SBJ

COST ANALYSIS

Cumulative cost of material and installation indicates that new foundations could be a more cost
effective solution than traditional designs for higher turbine sizes and greater depths

For a 6 MW turbine, CFG and MSB would offer cost advantage than the conventional Monopile and Jacket foundations at depths > 30m

CFG, a gravity based design could potentially be the most economical foundation design at all depths for turbine sizes > 6MW

Total cost for different foundation types*

Euro Millions / foundation
Monopile
EUR mil.

Jacket

CFG

MSB

SBJ

EUR mil.

6 MW

8 MW

10

20

30

40

50

60

10

20

30

Depth (in m)

Note: *All calculations done for base case configuration (Distance = 0-30 km, Sea Type = North Sea, Wind farm size = 50-100, Seabed = Soft)

14 Source: MEC+ analysis

40

50

60

COST EFFECTIVE FOUNDATION

Cost Reduction* Potential

Mono-suction bucket is cost effective for 4-6 MW turbine size at lower to

medium depths, while CraneFree Gravity is most suitable for even larger
turbines at medium to larger depths

05-10%
10-15%
15-20%
20-25%
>25

Most cost effective offshore wind foundations across different project configurations

Figure in the grid depicts the lowest cost foundation (within 10% error margin)
Depth
20 m

30 m

40 m

50 m

60 m

6 MW
8 MW
10 MW

Turbine size

4 MW

10 m

15

Note: 1. Cost includes mainly material cost, seabed preparation costs, installation costs. However, cost doesnt include EPC margins, profits, insurance costs, manpower expenses,
transportation costs incurred from manufacturing location to the port
2. CFG is not applicable for depth <15 m, as the structure would be too light to be stable at lower depths
3. All calculations done for base case configuration (Distance = 0-30 KM, Sea Type = North Sea, Wind farm size = 50 - 100, Seabed = Soft)
* The cost reduction potential has been estimated based on the comparison of the lowest cost design to the monopile cost for depths <30 m and with jacket cost for
depths >30 m

EUROPE - KEY PROJECTS AND FOUNDATION COSTS

Cost reduction potential of 5-15% is observed for foundations at select 5 farms in

Europe

Material
Seabed Prep

Transport and Installation

Total cost per foundation (EUR Millions)

Different foundations will be attractive for different farm configurations. Cost simulation results for some upcoming OW farms in Europe are presented below
Inch Cape, United Kingdom

Baltic Blue C, Estonia*

Turbine size: 5 MW
Average depth: 47,5
m (40 55 m)

Turbine size: 7 MW
Seabed: Rocky
Average depth: 30 m No. of turbines: 60
(24 - 36 m)
Distance: 6,7 KM

Seabed: Soft
No. of turbines: 213
Distance: 22 KM

M
J
CFG
MSB
SBJ

4,7
4,3
3,6
4,2
5,7

M
J
CFG
MSB
SBJ

4,6
4,0
3,4
0,0
0,0

Wikinger, Germany
Turbine size: 6 MW
Average depth: 35m
(25 - 45 m)

Seabed: Soft
No. of turbines: 70
Distance: 35 KM

M
J

3,4
3,6

CFG

3,3

MSB
SBJ

2,8
4,7

Saint-Nazaire, France

Oost Friesland, Netherlands

Turbine size: 6 MW
Average depth: 17,5
m

Turbine size: 4 MW
Average depth: 20 m

Seabed: Medium
No. of turbines: 80
Distance: 12 KM

M
J

3,0
3,2

CFG

3,1

MSB
SBJ

Seabed: Soft
No. of turbines: 90-150
Distance: 23 KM

M
J

2,7
2,8

CFG

2,6
4,3

MSB
SBJ

Note: This mapping is based on the results of the cost simulation model built by MEC+, Transportation cost is computed from the nearest manufacturer
*Since practical application of the suction bucket concepts in rocky seabed are highly unlikely, the cost comparisons are therefore not shown
16 Source: MEC+ analysis, The Wind Power database

2,9

2,3
3,8

RISK ANALYSIS

Developers need to manage risk and other associated premium costs with appropriate
contracting

Contracting
Structure
Multi contract

EPCM

Package EPC

Project EPC

Brief Description

Value proposition
to developer

Project owner signs

many contracts
within each
segment, while
managing the
project

No risk premium
attached and has
full project control

Construction
management is
out sourced

Limited EPC
capabilities
needed, which
takes time and are
costly to develop

Construction
contracts are given
out in packages of
turbines,
foundations, etc

Sub package risks

are with the
supplier and
limited risk
premium and
project control

One contract for

the entire project

Limited EPC
capabilities
needed, which
takes time and are
costly to develop

Benefits to the developer

Risk*

Cost

* The definition of risks is limited to systematic project risks inherent in the business and excludes unexpected weather, geotechnical & political risks
** Suitability is based on the key need to manage risk at project level for the developer or contractor
17 Source: MEC+ analysis

Low
High

Suitable
foundation**

SUMMARY

New foundation designs could be cost effective as compared to conventional designs and also
reduce vessel demand for construction

New foundation
designs could be
10 percent to 30
percent cheaper
as compared to
conventional
designs

Foundation cost are primary driven by Material and installation costs with 65-85 % share of the total cost and have
been considered in this study
New foundation designs have lower costs as turbines become larger and installed in deeper sea
For 6 MW, new foundations are ~4-20% lower in material cost when compared to monopiles & jackets while for turbine
sizes 8 MW and larger, new designs reduce the cost by ~21-24%
Installation cost does not vary much in comparison to material costs, but can be a bottleneck in timely execution of the
OW farm. New foundation designs can reduce the installation cost by ~50% as compared to the conventional designs
Mono-suction bucket is cost effective for 4-6 MW turbine size at lower to medium depths, while CraneFree Gravity is
most suitable for even larger turbines at medium to larger depths
Cost reduction potential of 5-15% is observed for foundations at select 5 farms in Europe. However, developers need to
manage risk and other associated premium costs with appropriate contracting

II
New foundation
designs could
lead to major
oversupply in the
vessels market

18 Source: MEC+ analysis

Currently there are 43 installation vessels suitable for offshore wind construction in EU; daily rate ranges between EUR 70k to
290k
The current vessel days are just enough to meet the demand from conventional foundations
In <800 tonne lifting category, new foundations eliminate the need for higher capacity vessel to meet the increase
In, 800-1200 tonne lifting category, new foundation adoption increases the vessel oversupply by 141% percent by 2020
In >1200 tonne lifting category, new foundations increase the vessel oversupply by 32% percent by 2020

VESSEL DEMAND-SUPPLY

Currently there are 43 installation vessels suitable for offshore wind construction in EU; daily rate
ranges between EUR 70k to 290k
Supply of OW vessels in Europe
# of vessels by lifting categories
Jack Ups(Vessels+Barges)

Day rates of OW vessels in EU

Indicative day rates in EUR mil.

Cranes(Sheerleg+Monohull)

Day rate range

HLV(HLVs+WIVs)

EUR
millions
14

0,30

12

0,25

10
0,20

8
0,15

6
0,10

4
0,05

0,00
0-400

400-800

800-1200

1200-1600

1600-2000

>2000

Lifting capacity in tonnes

19 Source: Ballast Nedam, IT Power UK, Windpower Offshore, News articles and research papers, MEC+ analysis

0-400

400-800

800-1200

1200-1600

Lifting capacity in tonnes

1600-2000

>2000

VESSEL DEMAND-SUPPLY

The planned OW pipeline is prone unavailability risk of appropriate installation vessel, if conventional
foundations are considered to scale with expected demand thereby impacting costs
Scenario I: Vessel supply demand based on installation of only conventional designs
In Vessel Days
0 - 800 tonne

Crane lifting
capacity

Demand

800 - 1200 tonne

Supply

>1200 tonne

10.000

7.670
6.494
5.609
4.569

5.000

4.060

3.703

3.212

3.029

2.779

2.089

2.006

1.595

0
2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Can be met with higher capacity

cranes at higher cost

136

2015

2016

2015

Minor Shortfall

3.534

2.920

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Shortfall

721

2017

2018

2019

2020

Minor Shortfall

Can be met with higher capacity

cranes at high cost

Cannot be met with the existing fleet

Most likely to cause project delays

Prone to project delays

Alternate: use multple support vessels

to ensure timely execution

Note: The complete process will take about 5 days on average for installation of conventional foundations with 2.5 days in turbine installation. The standard turbine weights has
been considered in estimating the demand for turbine installation. Demand from OW O&M has not been considered.
Note 2: Demand for vessels is estimated on the construction/installation start year of the OW farms. Lifting cranes vessels are expected to operate for 10-11 months a year
20 Source: Windpower, Wind energy update, NREL, Offshore Wind Energy Cost Modelling By Mark J Kaiser, Brian F Snyde, MEC+ analysis

VESSEL DEMAND-SUPPLY

In <800 tonne lifting category, though the demand is less than supply except slight increase in 2019,
new foundations eliminate the need for higher capacity vessel to meet the increase
New foundation
designs considered

Demand-supply analysis for 0-800 T lifting capacity vessels

In Vessel Days

Excessive
Supply

Supply
Shortage

Scenario 1:
Conventional designs are installed in the planned OW farms till 2020

Scenario 2:
Most cost effective foundation is considered; including the innovative
foundations; post 2017*

3.000

3.000

2.000

2.000
1.176

1.000

1.000

-1.000

-1.000

-2.000

-2.000

-1.925

-2.037
-2.462
-3.000

-2.791

-3.000

-3.465

-3.465

-3.471

-4.000

-4.000
-4.405

-4.223

-4.405

-4.488
-5.000

-5.000
2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Note: The complete process will take about 5 days on average for installation of conventional foundations with 2.5 days in turbine installation. The standard turbine weights has
been considered in estimating the demand for turbine installation. Demand from OW O&M has not been considered. Average days for installation of new foundation
designs is 2. CFG does not require a lifting vessel
Note 2: Demand for vessels is estimated on the construction/installation start year of the OW farms. Lifting cranes vessels are expected to operate for 10-11
months a year
21 Source: MEC+ analysis

2020

VESSEL DEMAND-SUPPLY

In, 800-1200 tonne lifting category, vessel demand declines significantly post 2016 due to the
introduction of new foundations, reducing risk of cost overruns by using higher capacity vessels
New foundation
designs considered

Demand-supply analysis for 800-1200 T lifting capacity vessels

In Vessel Days
Scenario 1:
Conventional designs are installed in the planned OW farms till 2020

Supply
Shortage

3.000

Scenario 2:
Most cost effective foundation is considered; including the innovative
foundations; post 2017*
3.000

2.397
2.000

2.000

848

1.000

848

1.000

-433

Excessive
Supply

-1.000

-1.000
-1.617

-2.000

-2.000

-3.000

-1.945

-2.151

-3.000

-3.212

-3.212

-2.940

-3.212

-4.000

-3.212

-4.000

-5.000

-5.000
2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Note: The complete process will take about 5 days on average for installation of conventional foundations with 2.5 days in turbine installation. The standard turbine weights has
been considered in estimating the demand for turbine installation. Demand from OW O&M has not been considered. Average days for installation of new foundation
designs is 2. CFG does not require a lifting vessel
Note 2: Demand for vessels is estimated on the construction/installation start year of the OW farms. Lifting cranes vessels are expected to operate for 10-11
months a year
22 Source: MEC+ analysis

2020

VESSEL DEMAND-SUPPLY

In >1200 tonne lifting category, marginal high demand in 2017 could be reduced by new foundation
designs and no supply risk would be envisaged, preventing the minor delay risk expected
New foundation
designs considered

Demand-supply analysis for > 1200 T lifting capacity vessels

In Vessel Days

Supply
Shortage

Scenario 1:
Conventional designs are installed in the planned OW farms till 2020
3.000

3.000

2.000

2.000

1.000

Excessive
Supply

Scenario 2:
Most cost effective foundation is considered; including the innovative
foundations; post 2017*

1.000

614

-1.000

-1.000

-2.000

-2.000
-2.199

-3.000

-2.920

-2.784

-2.920

-2.920

-4.000

-3.000

-2.920

-2.784

-2.838

-2.920

-2.920

-2.920

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

-4.000

-5.000

-5.000
2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Note: The complete process will take about 5 days on average for installation of conventional foundations with 2.5 days in turbine installation. The standard turbine weights has
been considered in estimating the demand for turbine installation. Demand from OW O&M has not been considered. Average days for installation of new foundation
designs is 2. CFG does not require a lifting vessel
Note 2: Demand for vessels is estimated on the construction/installation start year of the OW farms. Lifting cranes vessels are expected to operate for 10-11
months a year
23 Source: MEC+ analysis

APPENDIX

Abbreviations used

OW

Offshore Wind

EPC

Engineering, Procurement and Construction

ton (= 1000 kg)

TP

Transition piece

EUR

Euro

MP

Monopiles

Jackets

CFG

CraneFree Gravity

MSB

Mono Suction Bucket

SBJ

Suction Bucket Jacket

metre

KM

Kilometre

NM

Nautical mile

GW/MW

Giga / Mega Watt

All numbers are in European number format

24

APPENDIX

References and Disclaimer

This report has been prepared by MEC Intelligence using a wide range of resources and databases. MEC Intelligences internal databases on OW farms and OW
installation vessels have been the base for the analysis. Extensive secondary research through continues wind industry monitoring through news and press
releases, primary research with OW EPC contractors, foundation designers, vessel operators and independent OW experts in the industry have all contributed to
the depth of the analysis conducted.
For any further queries, please contact:
Jacob Jensen
(jj@mecintelligence.com)

Sidharth Jain
(sidharth@mecintelligence.com)

MEC Intelligence Denmark

Nordre Fasanvej 113, 2
2000 Frederiksberg
Copenhagen, Denmark
www.mecintelligence.com

MEC Intelligence India

112, Udyog Vihar Phase 4
122015 Gurgaon
Haryana, India
www.mecintelligence.com

Disclaimer
The information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable. MEC Intelligence disclaims all warranties as to the accuracy,
completeness or adequacy of such information. MEC Intelligence shall have no liability for errors, omissions or inadequacies in the information contained herein or
for the interpretation thereof. Therefore MEC is not liable for any indirect, incidental, consequential damage or loss of revenues or profits in any case.

25

MEC EXPERIENCE QUALITY ASSURANCE ON CRITICAL DECISIONS

MEC+ experience and resources are a valuable asset for insights in offshore wind strategy decisions

MEC+ provides insights by combining its granular data, cost and forecasting models, and primary information along with deep experience and understanding
of players and concepts. Client assurance is guaranteed in the results with high-touch transparent processes.

MEC+ has done more than 60 analyses in the offshore wind industry covering demand, supply, business models for contracting strategies, WTG, foundations,
cables, vessels, installation concepts, and O&M

Relevant experience & Concepts

Farm Level Data (Operation) and Proven

cost and forecasting models

We have worked extensively on and

developing concepts
within Cost of
Energy, Pipeline, Procurement, ,
construction management and O&M.
Our reputation and trust has been
built on our knowledge and very
structured and transparent process.

We have an extensive library of in-house and

high-quality third-party offshore wind data
which we update regularly 1) wind farms,
2) turbine technology 3)foundation & electrical
systems technology 4) historic costs and
benchmarks 5) cost and forecasting models

MEC+ approach
leverages the rich
resources that the
firm has access to

Expert contacts
Our work has led to a strong network of
relations with industry experts who have
deep offshore experience.

26

MEC WIND REPORTS

MEC Intelligence || Offshore Wind Reports

The team at MEC Intelligence has published industry leading reports on the maritime, energy and clean-tech industries.
In addition, multiple insights have been published to provide perspectives on the market.

27