Comparison of Operation and Maintenance of Floating 14 MW Turbines and Twin 10 MW Turbines

Turbine ratings in the past decade have grown unexpectedly fast. In 2021, Siemens Gamesa and GE revealed their new 14 MW turbine models, and it is predicted that this is not yet the rating limit that turbines can reach. Increased turbine ratings can also be achieved by putting two turbines on a single foundation. This study analyzes how operation and maintenance (O&M) would differ if a floating wind farm had twin 10 MW turbines installed on each substructure, instead of a single 14 MW turbine. This study demonstrates how the strategic O&M simulation tool compass can be used to perform this comparison. Assumptions regarding the O&M of twin turbines were estimated with the major floating twin turbine developer Hexicon AB. This study analyzed four cases—a case with 35 twin 10 MW turbines, and three cases with 50 single 14 MW turbines—to understand the potential effect of increased consumable costs, spare part lead times, and maintenance durations. All cases had the same wind farm capacity of 700 MW. The results show that O&M for cases with single turbines is at least 4.5% more expensive than the case with twin turbines. The case with twin turbines also resulted in a higher availability than any other case. Additionally, results showed that operational expenditure (OPEX) for the cases with single turbines is at least 6.0% higher in scenarios with single turbines than in the twin turbine scenario. The biggest cost contributors to the difference between scenarios were craft costs, particularly cable laying vessels and tugs. Due to the higher number of cables required for the scenario with single turbines, there is more frequent mobilization of cable vessels for cable repairs

Analysing the effectiveness of different offshore maintenance base options for floating wind farms

With the growth of the floating wind industry, new operation and maintenance (O&M) research has emerged evaluating tow-to-port strategies , but limited work has been done on analysing other logistical strategies for offshore floating wind farms. In particular, what logistical solutions are the best for farms located far offshore that cannot be reached by crew transfer vessels (CTVs)? Previous studies have looked at the use of surface effect ships (SES) and CTVs during the operation and maintenance (O&M) of bottom-fixed wind farms, but only some of them included service operation vessels (SOVs). This study analyses two strategies that could be used for floating wind farms located far from shore using ORE Catapult's in-house O&M simulation tool. One strategy comprises of having a SOV performing most of the maintenance on the wind farm, and the other strategy uses an offshore maintenance base (OMB) instead, which would be located next to the offshore substation and would accommodate three CTVs. This paper provides an overview of the tool and the inputs used to run it, including failure rates of floating wind turbine subsea components and their replacement costs. In total six types of simulations were run with two strategies, two different weather limits for CTVs and two weather datasets ERA5 and ERA-20C. The results of this study show that the operational expenditure (OPEX) costs for the strategy with an OMB are 5%-8% (depending on the inputs) lower than with SOV, but if capital expenditure (CAPEX) costs are included in the analysis and the net present value (NPV) is taken into account then the fixed costs associated with building the offshore maintenance base have a significant impact on selecting a preferred strategy. It was found that for the case study presented in this paper the OMB would have to share the foundation with a substation in order to be cost competitive with the SOV strategy

Reliably Accounting for Negative Emissions of Waste-to-Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage

When equipped with Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), the Waste to Energy (WtE) sector can play a significant role in creating an overall system that removes excess greenhouse gases from the atmosphere while sustainably managing waste. Ultra-high CO2 capture rates can be achieved to eliminate all CO2 emissions from the combustion of the waste feedstock. As the biogenic carbon in most waste feedstocks originates in the atmosphere, the implementation of CCS on WtE plants can create a ‘negative emissions’ system; i.e., the removal and permanent storage of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Existing studies exploring the negative emissions potential of this technology are of limited scope, however, and do not account for the system-wide change in impacts or identify relevant cause-effect pathways. By not accounting for the impact of removing recyclable materials from the supply chain, for example, the comparative benefit of sending biogenic materials for recycling or to WtE with CCS is poorly understood. It is important to understand these benefits in the context of the whole economy. This paper reviews existing analyses of the carbon reduction of WtE with CCS and discusses the challenges of understanding its role in the transition to Net Zero in the context of the circular economy