Provision of wind information for site tenders for offshore wind farms according to WindSeeG in the German North and Baltic Seas

Abstract

<p>The construction of offshore wind farms in Germany's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is an important component for the successful implementation of the energy transition. In 2021 the Federal Network Agency started to launch yearly tenders for sites in the North Sea and Baltic Sea which are conducted in cooperation with the Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency (BSH) according to the Wind Energy Act (WindSeeG). The German Meteorological Service (DWD) supports the BSH in compiling the required wind information. This information is made publicly available by the BSH to bidders via the PINTA portal (https://pinta.bsh.de) as part of the tendering procedures.</p><p>Detailed information on the wind conditions on the sites is crucial for the bidders' bid calculations. This information is compiled in collaboration by the BSH and the DWD with the participation of external contractors. In detail, these are in-situ measurements on the research platforms in the North Sea and Baltic Sea, FINO1, FINO2 and FINO3 (https://www.fino-offshore.de/de/index.html). Furthermore, this comprises one-year LiDAR measurements are carried out by external contractors on behalf of the BSH at the sites to be tendered, as well as data and evaluation results of the COSMO-REA6 and ERA5 reanalyses are provided by the DWD. These data sets are the basis for the preparation of summarised overall reports on the wind conditions on the sites.</p><p>The reanalysis and measurement data provided allow a detailed investigation of the seasonal variability as well as an in-depth assessment of the current as well as the historical wind field on each site. The focus of the measurements is on the heights relevant for future wind turbine types, i.e. in the range of 40 to 200 metres. The evaluation of the reanalyses is carried out for the grid points closest to the areas as well as the surrounding grid points and is validated using the existing measurement data. Previous evaluations show a very good correlation, which gives the reanalyses a high significance to determine the wind conditions on the sites. In addition, information on interannual variability is required. Long-term time series of geostrophic wind derived from air pressure data from coastal stations enable an assessment of multi-decadal variations.</p>

Capacity Density Considerations for Offshore Wind Plants in the United States

“…Thus, the annual offshore wind market report published by the U.S. Department of Energy has historically adopted a capacity density metric of 3 MW/km 2 , but this study conducted by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's found that the overall weighted-average capacity density for the 17 studied U.S. projects is 4.4 MW/km 2 . This average is consistent with data from European offshore wind projects, which range from 4.9 to 5.9 MW/km 2 (Borrmann et al 2018;Müller et al 2017;Hundleby and Freeman 2017). Based on these findings, the assumed capacity density used to assess the U.S. offshore wind pipeline in the Offshore Wind Market Report: 2023 Edition was raised to 4 MW/km² (Musial et al 2023).…”

“…As shown in Figure 10, the weighted average capacity densities for both companies are lower than the industry norm. The weighted average values of the rest of the developers fall in the range of 4 to 6 MW/km 2 , which is comparable to 90% of the European projects falling within a range of 4.9 to 5.9 MW/km 2 (Borrmann et al 2018;Müller et al 2017;Hundleby and Freeman 2017), and which helps validate the 4 MW/km 2 metric.…”

“…vii (Musial et al 2013;2016;2022). However, empirical data show capacity densities for operating European offshore wind projects range from 2 to 19 MW/km 2 with 90% of the projects expecting to range between 4.9 and 5.9 MW/km 2 (Borrmann et al 2018;Müller et al 2017;Hundleby and Freeman 2017). Our research reexamined the turbine spacing layouts of actual emerging projects in the United States to evaluate if 3 MW/km 2 might be overly cautious as a metric for offshore wind deployment estimation.…”