euronion
commented
2 years ago It might also be worth differentiating between "offshore" and "offshore near shore" turbines, c.f. pg. 240f:
(real "offshore")
For wake losses there are not assumed reductions due to neighbouring wind farms. This will be relevant if more large projects are constructed in near vicinity, like seen in German Bugt and some locations in UK, like Irish sea. Experience from these sites indicates that up to 5 pct. losses could be added, but very much dependent on distances and sizes.
("nearshore")
The wake losses are here assumed fixed at 2.5 pct, as Nearshore projects are expected typically just to be established in a single-row layout with fewer losses than what can be expected in a generic square layout. The distance is considered to be at 4 RD (Rotor Diameters).
- Maybe higher technical potential per wind farm (~12.5 MW/km²) for nearshore due to single column placement?
- Shore distance and water depth
- Max turbine power increases for offshore and nearshore dramatically (we currently use 5 MW)
- Adjust hub height
- Mentioned WTG examples for offshore: "Siemens Gamesa 8.4 MW", "MHI Vestas 8.3 MW" (deployed) and "Vestas 15MW", "Siemens 15 MW" (to be soon deployed)
Update turbine / hub height assumptions of offshore wind
Update turbine types and hub heights for offshore wind. Cost assumptions are taken from DEA March 2022 release, one could check out their assumptions for turbines and heights.
Please give a clear and concise description and provide context why the feature would be useful. Also, we'd appreciate any implementation ideas and references you already have.