NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, operated by 

Offshore Wind 

Market Ove

Ian Baring‐Gou

National Renewable Energy 

May 15, 2013

NREL/PR‐7A20‐58974
All Offshore Wind Projects Are in Europe and Asia, w

Nations Leading Deployment

0

500

1,0001,5002,0002,5003,000

UK

Denmark

Netherlands

Belgium

Sweden

Germany

Finland

Ireland

Norway

Portugal

Total Installed Capacity (MW)

Portugal 

2 MW

Sweden 

164 MW

Norway 

2 MW

Germany 

120 MW

UK 2,679 

MW

Denmark 

874 MW

Netherlands 

247 MW

Ireland 

25 MW Belgium 195 MW

Globally 4,600 MW

Installed

European 

Installations Total 

~4,300 MW
Capital Costs Have Risen; Appear to B

 ‐

2,0004,0006,0008,000

10,000

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 

Estimated Capital Cost (2012$/kW)

Commisioning Date

Installed Construction Contracted Approved

E.U.

Note: Bu

Source: NREL Offshore Wind Database

London Array

Talisman (Beatrice)

Alpha Ventus

Horns Rev I

Horns Rev II
U.S., EU Projects Expected to Have Simil

Source: NREL Offshore Wind Database

 ‐

2,0004,0006,0008,000

10,000

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 

Estimated Capital Cost (2012$/kW)

Commisioning Date

Installed Construction Contracted Approved

E.U.U.S.
Asian Projects Projecting Lowe

Source: NREL Offshore Wind Database

 ‐

2,0004,0006,0008,000

10,000

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 

Estimated Capital Cost (2012$/kW)

Commisioning Date

Installed Construction Contracted Approved

E.U.U.S.Asia
Installed Capital Costs (ICC

Source: Tegen, S.; Hand, M.; Maples, B.; Lantz, E.; Sch

Cost of Wind Energy Review. 111 pp.; NREL Report No

• Balance-of-station 

(BOS) costs dominate ICCs for offshore wind projects

• There are three primary 

BOS contributors:

Support structureElectrical infrastructureAssembly, transport, and 

installation.

• Component 

contribution can vary significantly from one project to another
How Do We Reduce Costs?

Turbine Capacity Wind Plant Size 

Increasing Size Is Desirable at A

S

Photo from Ben Barden Photography/ Vattenfall

Increase

Photo from Middelgrunden Wind Turbine Cooperative, NREL 17856
Physical Siting Consideratio

• Water depth• Distance to shore• Geotechnical/geophysical soil condi• Wave climate: sheltered vs. open oc• Extreme climate conditions (e.g., tro

storms)

• Availability of grid connections/load • Supply chain• Competing-use issues • Environmental impacts
Technology Evolution to Deeper 
0

102030405060

0 20 40 60 80 

Depth (m)

Distance to Shore (km)

200210220

Depth (m)

Installed Offshore Wind Projects Are Typical

Shallow Water, Close to Shore

Near-shore Far-shore

(DC power export technology become

Bubble size represents project capacity

Installed Project
0

102030405060

0 20 40 60 80 

Depth (m)

Distance to Shore (km)

200210220

Depth (m)

A Few Projects under Construction Are Expanding 

Water Depths, Farther from Shor

Near-shore Far-shore

(DC power export technology become

Under Construction

Bubble size represents project capacity

Installed Project
0

102030405060

0 20 40 60 80 

Depth (m)

Distance to Shore (km)

200210220

Depth (m)

Near‐Term Pipeline Suggests this Trend Will Contin

Moving Beyond the 30‐m by 50‐km Design 

Near-shore Far-shore

(DC power export technology become

Under Construction

Contracted Project

AppPro

Bubble size represents project capacity

Installed Project
0

102030405060

0 20 40 60 80 

Depth (m)

Distance to Shore (km)

200210220

Depth (m)

Several Projects Are Demonstrating Floating Subs

Could Enable Development of Deep Wat

Floating Technology

Demonstration Projects

Near‐shore Far‐shore

(DC power export technology becomes 

UnderConstruction

ContractedProject

AppProj

Bubble size represents project capacity

InstalledProject

Cape

Wind
The Majority of Existing and Planned Global Offs

Developments are in Europe

~ 15,600 MW Approved

0

500

1,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,0004,5005,000

Poland

Germany

France

UK

Belgium

Finland

Estonia

Greece

Italy

Sweden

Denmark

Norway

Proposed Capacity (MW) Approved Sweden 265 MW Norway 31 MW

Germany 

3,723 

MW

Po

4

M

France 

2,303 

MW

Italy 384 

MW

UK 1,416 

MW

Belgium 

1,015 

MW

Denmark 

36 MW
• China: Issued 12th Five‐Year Development Plan for Ren

(2012) targeting 5 GW installed by 2015 and 30 GW instal

• Japan: As part of the Fukushima recovery efforts, the g

plans to phase out nuclear power by 2040, which previou

more than 30% of the country’s electricity. New feed‐in ta

announced in 2012, ~25 cents/kWh

• South Korea: 5‐MW offshore demonstration project 

operation, plus a government target of 2 GW in operation 

• Taiwan: Launched the Thousand Wind Turbines Promo

targeting 3 GW installed by 2030

Offshore Wind Drivers & Developmen
Total Global Offshore Wind

Project Pipeline Exceeds 200 GWs

(Total U.S. Generating Capacity ~1,000 GW

4.6 4.5 4.9

20.8

47.3

0

50

100150200

Installed Under

Construction

Contracted Approved Permitting P

Capacity (GW)

Project Status

Offshore Wind Project Pipeline
Average Offshore Wind Turbine Capacities, Rotor D

Heights Are Expected to Continue to Incr

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.2 2.8 3.1 3

0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.0

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 

Rated Capacity (MW)

Weighted Average Capacity Weighted Average Rotor Diameter Weighte
35%

16%

78%

17%

4%

1% 0%

Multi-Pile Foundations Will Gain Market Share as Large

Deployed and as Wind Farms Are Installed in Dee

Pr

Near-Te

~13

Installed Capacity

~4,550 MW

* Includes projects under construction and approved projects tha

• The popularity of the gravity base foundation has recently declined: 

• Current designs are generally uncompetitive in water depths greater than 15 m

• Key challenges include requirements for precise seabed preparation, expensive heavy lift 

vessels, and sensitivity of installation schedule to weather 

• Several companies are working on promising new designs that address these challenges

• Floating technology is becoming increasing mature, with plans for multi-turbi

demonstration projects announced in the U.S., Portugal, and Japan
R

Sinovel

7%

AREVA

11%

BARD

5%

Alstom

11%

Mingyang

4%

China Energine

2%

Goldwind

1%

XEMC Darwind

1% China Creat

Ener

1%

Siemens

59%

Vestas

32%

REpower

5%

Sinovel

2%

WinWind

1%

AREVA

1%

Installed Capacity 

~4,550 MW

* Includes projects under construction and approved projects that ha

Turbines from Siemens and Vestas represent a combined 91% of capacity installed to date. 

Some OEMs have developeprojected Siemens/Vestas sh

Pro

Near-Ter

~16,6

Others 1%

OEMs gaining share tend to 1) offer turbine models in the 5 Mwell positioned to take advantage of growth in the Chinese m

The Global Offshore Wind Turbine Market 

to Become Increasingly Fragment
Offshore Wind Resource Is Near Populatio

Map of Annual Average Wind at 80 m

Credit: Dr. H. J
Approximate Percentage of Gross Offshore Wind Resou

Area for Three Technology Stages(based on NREL estimates: 0‐5

from shore, 60% of resource excluded, AK and HI not included, Class 5 wind

above only)

Transition

22

Shallow Water 

17%

Deepwater (Floating)

61%

~4,000 GWs Total Technical Potential 

>60 m

0‐30 m

30‐

U.S. Offshore Resource
NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY LABORATORY

Coastal States Usually Have High Electric

Making Offshore Wind More Compet

05

1015202530

HI

NY

CT

MA

RI

NJ

AK

NH

ME

CA

MD

VT

DE

TX

FL

NV

PA

LA

AZ

MI

IL

WI

GA

MS

CO

OH

NM

AL

NC

OK

MN

SC

VA

AR

KS

TN

MT

Electricity Price ‐ All Sectors (¢/kWh)

Co

W

In

Of

U.S. Retail Average = 

Coastal vs. Inland State Electric Rates (2008)
NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY LABORATORY

New Jersey Call Area / 

Rhode Isl

Massachuse

Maryland Call Area / WEA

Virginia Call Area / WEA

Delaware Call Area / WEA

Three New Wind Energy Areas (WEAs) and Call Ar

There Are Now 6 WEAs Plus a Call Area in North 
Technology Challenges for United 

Freshwater Ice

and Ice

D

Trop

Deep Water

Standards are being updated to address U
NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY LABORATORY

In General, Primary Stakeholder Concern

Offshore Wind Power Are Site Spec

Marine animal populations:European studies suggest minimal impacts. U.S. studies are required to better und

and develop mitigation strategies. Pile driving during construction has highest impaVisual effects:Coastal residents near offshore wind farms may be concerned about visual impactsneeded to better understand coastal communities and their ability to accept changeProperty values:Studies conducted on land-based wind projects show minimal to no impact on real property values as a result of the presence of wind turbines; however, extensive stuconducted on the impact of offshore wind turbines on coastal communities.Noise:The most significant environmental impact is noise associated with pile driving duriMitigation strategies may be effective in reducing this temporal risk. Alternative techimplemented if appropriate to avoid some of the pile-driving activity.Tourism:Impacts on tourism may concern some communities dependent on beach vacationerevenues and tax base. The evidence is ambiguous, and actual effects appear to b

Marine safety:The possibility of a ship colliding with a turbine could pose a risk to the marine envior to human safety should the turbine collapse. No reported incidents have occurre
• Protected sites and species

• Benthic ecology

• Fish and shellfish/ fisheries

• Marine birds• Marine mammals• Seabed sediments• Marine and coastal

processes

• Seabed contamination

• Water quality

One of the largest environmental

impacts found is sea mammal

disturbance due to pile‐driving noise.

NREL 04698

Siting Must Account for Potential Environm
Marketing Summary

• European markets dominate so far. • Asian markets promise lower costs, but as of n

undemonstrated. 

• The U.S. offshore wind industry is ready to beg• Stable, coordinated policy is needed to offset h

and drive deployment. 

• A robust project pipeline is needed to encourag

technologies and infrastructure that will lower energy.

• Costs are high for first adopters and must be re

risk reduction, new technology, and increasing project, and national deployment). 
Contact Information

Ian Baring‐Gould

Technology Deployment Manage

NREL

Ian.Baring‐Gould@nrel.gov

Thank You!

http://www.nrel.gov/tech_deployment/wind.h