Offshore Electricity Infrastructure in Europe - European Wind Energy ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

FIGURE 4.33: cOMPARISON OF NET bENEFIT ANd bENEFIT-TO-cAPEX RATIO PER INTERcONNEcTOR cAblE FOR ThE dIREcT ANd SPlIT OFFShORE GRId dESIGN METhOdOlOGIES (€ bN) Net bene�t (€bn) 2,5 2,0 1,5 1,0 0,5 0,0 Base case Direct Design Split Design The increase of the interconnector capacity with each step and for each methodology is shown in Figure 4.30. In step 1 and step 2 the additional capacity is larger for the Direct Design compared to the Split Design. This is because split wind farm connections were dimensioned with slightly lower capacity to be most beneficial. Furthermore only one beneficial hubto-hub connection was identified in the Split Design in step 2. In step 3 the optimal mesh is dimensioned slightly larger for the Split Design and therefore the interconnector capacity increase is larger as well. The additional grid interconnector capacity that is added to the existing European interconnector capacity to develop the OffshoreGrid overall designs is 27 GW (20 GW excluding the TYNDP interconnectors) for the Direct Design Scenario and 24 GW (16 GW when excluding the TYNDP interconnectors) for the Split Design Scenario. 37 For the infrastructure costs in Figure 4.30, the Split Design is more expensive for three cases. This is either because the distances are too short to cover for the additional equipment (GB-FR), or because a higher capacity is used (second SE-DK, Mesh). 38 For the reduction in yearly system costs in Figure 4.31, the Split Design reduces the system cost more than the Direct Design in four cases. This is either because no wind farm connection is split and the direct interconnector is still used with higher price differences because of the constraints in the previous cases (FI-EE, SE-LV), or because the capacity is higher ánd the price differences are higher (second SE-DK, Mesh). Note that this is a result of the chosen method to replace the direct interconnectors from the Direct Design. If an offshore grid would be independently built on split wind connections, the number of possibilities would be higher. OffshoreGrid – Final Report SE-DE FI-EE SE-PL SE-DK SE-LV GB-FR SE-DE GB-BE GB-FR Split Design Direct Design SE-PL SE-DK IE-FR IE-GB GB-BE NO-NL SE-DK Bene�t-to-CAPEX ratio Direct interconnections Split interconnections Hub-to-hub and Tee-in Mesh Omitted as not bene�cial Case-by-case: relative comparison Figure 4.31 and Figure 4.32 show a case-by-case comparison between the Direct and Split offshore grid design methodologies, for the reduction in total yearly system costs respectively for the CAPEX spend. They clearly show that the infrastructure costs are generally lower for the Split methodology. Accordingly, the reduction in system costs is also lower in the Split Design as lower additional interconnections capacity is installed (also compare Figure 4.30) 37 . It is obvious from Figure 4.31 that splitting wind farm connections (marked with red boxes) is indeed cheaper than building direct interconnectors. In the Split Design, 6 direct interconnectors are replaced compared to the Direct Design 38 . The average reduction of the CAPEX by choosing a split connection over a direct interconnector is more than 65% (ranging from 40%-84%). At the same time for these split wind NL-GB GB-DE Mesh Direct Design Bene�t CAPEX ratio Split Design Bene�t CAPEX Ratio 1,600% 1,400% 1,200% 1,000% 800% 600% 400% 200% 0% 71
esults farm connections, the reduction in system cost is only about 40% (ranging from 5-74%) smaller on average, compared to the direct interconnector (Figure 4.31). Figure 4.33 shows a comparison of the net benefit between the Direct Design and the Split Design 39 , and the benefit per invested euro (benefit-to-CAPEX ratio). For the six split wind farm connections, the benefit per invested euro is 1.7 times higher than for the mirrored direct interconnectors of the Direct Design. The net benefit per invested euro CAPEX is on average even 2.6 times higher for the Split Design, which means that each euro is spent 2.6 times more effectively. Case-by-case: comparison of absolute benefits Both methodologies build on step-wise modular grid expansion. In each step new interconnection capacity is added to the system and the infrastructure integrated in each design differs in size and costs. Therefore it is difficult to make an absolute comparison of the cost-efficiency. The graph in Figure 4.34 however gives some more insight in the efficiency of both design approaches. It shows the system cost reductions mapped against the step-wise infrastructure investments. FIGURE 4.35: cUMUlATIvE NET bENEFIT cOMPARISON [€ bN) Cumulative net bene�ts (€bn) 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 12,74 280% Direct design Split design Net bene�t over the lifetime FIGURE 4.34: AbSOlUTE cOMPARISON OF dIREcT ANd SPlIT OFFShORE GRId dESIGNS Annual system costs (€bn) Often for a similar investment cost, the system cost reduction in the Split Design is higher than in the Direct Design. As an example, for a CAPEX of €4 bn, the Split methodology leads to an extra 9% of system cost reduction (=€944 m across 25 years) compared to the Direct methodology. Basically only for the cumulative investment of about €1.5 bn the Direct Design is more effective. Bene�t-to-CAPEX ratio 350% 39 When comparing case-by-case, please note that the price difference development is changing differently for the Direct and Split Design as the infrastructures measures are not always the same. Thus, also the benefits of following projects are influenced. 72 OffshoreGrid – Final Report 101 100 99 98 0 297% 9,64 Bene�t capex ratio (over the life time) Direct design Split design 2 4 6 8 Capital cost (€bn) 300% 250% 200% 150% 100% 50% 0%
Page 1 and 2:
OffshoreGrid: Offshore Electricity
Page 3 and 4:
PRINcIPAl AUThORS: Jan De Decker, P
Page 5 and 6:
Table of contents FOREWORd 6 EXEcUT
Page 7 and 8:
FOREWORD The OffshoreGrid project i
Page 9 and 10:
Executive Summary I. The OffshoreGr
Page 11 and 12:
Executive Summary and TYNDP interco
Page 13 and 14:
Executive Summary One of the keys t
Page 15 and 16:
Executive Summary Splitting wind fa
Page 17 and 18:
Executive Summary 16 OffshoreGrid -
Page 19 and 20:
introduction 1.1 Context and backgr
Page 21 and 22: introduction TAblE 1.1: STAkEhOldER
Page 23 and 24: Key Assumptions and Scenarios In th
Page 25 and 26: Key Assumptions and Scenarios FIGUR
Page 27 and 28: Key Assumptions and Scenarios Curre
Page 29 and 30: Methodology - Simulation inputs and
Page 31 and 32: Methodology - Simulation inputs and
Page 33 and 34: esults This chapter explains and su
Page 35 and 36: esults (figure to the right) in Nor
Page 37 and 38: esults 4.2.1 Hubs and individual co
Page 39 and 40: esults The Baltic Sea is still a ra
Page 41 and 42: esults connections to shore where t
Page 43 and 44: esults 4.2.4 Conclusion and discuss
Page 45 and 46: esults and NordSee Ost Group into t
Page 47 and 48: esults 1986 (the Cross Channel link
Page 49 and 50: esults UK-Germany connection are re
Page 51 and 52: esults tee-in solution becomes pref
Page 53 and 54: esults • Large wind farms (capaci
Page 55 and 56: esults • Very large wind farm hub
Page 57 and 58: esults • A three-leg interconnect
Page 59 and 60: esults 4.5 Overall grid design 4.5.
Page 61 and 62: esults connectors that were benefic
Page 63 and 64: esults connections were tested in m
Page 65 and 66: esults existing HVDC converters at
Page 67 and 68: esults direct and integrated) ident
Page 69 and 70: esults configuration were rated dif
Page 71: esults FIGURE 4.31: cOMPARISON OF c
Page 75 and 76: esults Overall design comparison Fi
Page 77 and 78: esults • Costs and benefits of th
Page 79 and 80: esults • There are other connecti
Page 81 and 82: esults These merits also hold for t
Page 83 and 84: Towards an Offshore Grid - Further
Page 91 and 92: conclusions and recommendations The
Page 93 and 94: conclusions and recommendations •
Page 95 and 96: conclusions and recommendations •
Page 97 and 98: conclusions and recommendations 6.5
Page 99 and 100: conclusions and recommendations 98
Page 101 and 102: Acknowledgements and Funding The Of
Page 103 and 104: eferences [1] Weather Research and
Page 105 and 106: eferences [47] Observatoire Médite
Page 107 and 108: Annex A - Scenario details A.I Offs
Page 109 and 110: Annex A - Scenario details A.II Pri
Page 111 and 112: Annex A - Scenario details 2008 sce
Page 113 and 114: Annex A - Scenario details Due to t
Page 115 and 116: Annex B -technology Assumptions B.I
Page 117 and 118: Annex B -technology Assumptions tab
Page 119 and 120: Annex c - details on Methodology an
Page 121 and 122: Annex c - details on the Methodolog
Page 123 and 124:
Annex c - details on the Methodolog
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Annex d - details of results D.I Wi
Page 131 and 132:
Annex d - details of results FiGuRe
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Annex d - details of results infras
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Annex d - details of results table
Page 141 and 142:
Annex d - details of results table
Page 143 and 144:
Annexes coal and gas, there is a de
Page 145 and 146:
Annex e - regulatory Frameworks and
Page 147 and 148:
Annex F - transfer to the Mediterra
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
show all

Offshore Electricity Infrastructure in Europe - European Wind Energy ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?