[MonteQuest]

The IEA, in its latest Oil Market Report, forecasts global oil demand growth for 2019 at 1.4%, .1% higher than 2018.

The Key Global Energy Trend Isn’t GND, It’s LNG
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/natural-gas-global-energy-trend-clean-growing/

Global LNG Demand Set for Another Sharp Increase in 2019, Says Shell
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/117527-global-lng-demand-set-for-another-sharp-increase-in-2019-says-shell

[kublikhan]

No, it is not. What we are talking about is how much of the primary energy pie has renewables captured? Every year since 2004, people have posted on many forums that renewables are soon to overtake fossil fuels and capture a huge market share of our overall energy pie, yet they never do. In fact, the last time I weighed-in on this back in 2016, I think it was, you posted all manner of growth projections, cost reductions, etc--just like you are doing now. Many of them came true, but they hardly changed a thing. Solar PV, wind and geothermal comprised 1.4% of our energy back in 2016. 1.6% in 2017, and now 1.7% in 2018. They only met 25% of new demand in 2018. You can post all manner of growth projections, cost reductions, etc, but as long as the demand for new energy exceeds the new installed capacity of renewables, it doesn't matter one wit. As long as the hole in the bucket is larger than what you can pour into it, it will never be filled.

Solar PV and wind apply only to the electricity pie. There are other renewables that apply to the total energy pie yet you ignore them. Then complain that solar PV & wind are a tiny slice of the total energy pie. I would suggest if you are so dead set against the other forms of renewables that you concentrate on the electricity pie. There you can see renewables growing their share of the pie year after year. Even since 2016 when you were last here they have grown their share of the pie:

Code: Select all

Global electricity generation(TWh)                   
Year   Renew   Nukes   Coal    FFs      Total    Renewable Share
2016   5,881   2,612   9,451   16,269   24,930   23.60%
2017   6,221   2,636   9,723   16,528   25,551   24.30%
2018   ?????   ?????   ?????   ??????   ??????   26.50%

Energy Infrastructure Progress Report

So, I ask again, what''s your prediction for the REN21 Renewables 2019 Global Status Report? Wind, solar, and geothermal will rise from 1.7% of the energy pie to what percentage? Do you see renewables growing their installed capacity 300% in 2019 to even meet new energy demand? The report comes out later this year.

The report comes out this year(2019). However the data is from last year(2018). And we already know renewable deployments slowed in 2018 from other sources. However we also know that renewable deployments increased in 2019, which won't appear until 2019 data is reported by Ren21(ie: 2020 Global Status Report).

[kublikhan]

I updated the electricity numbers for 2018 from IEA data:

Code: Select all

Global electricity generation(TWh)                   
Year   Renew   Nukes   Coal    FFs      Total    Renewable Share
2016   5,881   2,612   9,451   16,269   24,930   23.60%
2017   6,221   2,636   9,723   16,528   25,551   24.30%
2018   6,839   2,724   10,116  17,110   26,672   25.64%

Renewables share of the electricity pie seems to be growing around 1% per year.

Also, according to the IEA's data for all energy, other renewables(ie, excluding hydro and biomass) came in at 2% of the total energy pie:
Global energy demand and electricity generation by source

I wasn't sure if they were rounding that 2% up so I did the math myself(289 / 14301) * 100 = 2.02%

[kublikhan]

That 1.7% number in Ren 2018 was based on data for the year 2016(ren21 is 2 years behind for this particular statistic)

Estimated Renewable Share of Total Final Energy Consumption, 2016
1.7% Wind/solar/biomass/geothermal/ocean power

global renewable status report 2018

IEA has more recent info:

year percent of global energy from modern renewables(excluding hydro)
2013 1.3%
2014 1.4%
2015 1.6%
2016 1.7%
2017 1.8%
2018 2.0%

2013-2016 is from ren21. 2017 & 2018 are from IEA

Looks to me like there was an increase in renewable total energy growth in 2018(0.2%), compared to 2017(0.1%) despite the fact the capacity deployments were down that year. Although it's possible ren21 and the IEA might end up with slightly different values.

[Tanada]

Had They Bet On Nuclear, Not Renewables, Germany & California Would Already Have 100% Clean Power

Had California and Germany invested $680 billion into new nuclear power plants instead of renewables like solar and wind farms, the two would already be generating 100% or more of their electricity from clean (low-emissions) energy sources, according to a new analysis by Environmental Progress.

The analysis comes the day before California plays host to a “Global Climate Action Summit,” which makes no mention of nuclear, despite it being the largest source of clean energy in the U.S. and Europe.

Here are the two main findings from EP's analysis:

Had Germany spent $580 billion on nuclear instead of renewables, and the fossil plant upgrades and grid expansions they require, it would have had enough energy to both replace all fossil fuels and biomass in its electricity sector and replace all of the petroleum it uses for cars and light trucks.

Had California spent an estimated $100 billion on nuclear instead of on wind and solar, it would have had enough energy to replace all fossil fuels in its in-state electricity mix.

The finding that Germany could have entirely decarbonized its transportation sector with nuclear is a significant one. That’s because decarbonizing transportation is considered a major challenge by most climate policy experts.

Electricity consumed by electric cars will grow 300-fold between 2016 and 2040, analysts predict. That electricity must come from clean energy sources, not fossil fuels, for the transition to electric cars to mitigate climate change.

As a result of their renewables-only policies, California and Germany are climate laggards compared to nuclear-heavy places like France, whose electricity is 12 times less carbon intensive than Germany’s, and 4 times less carbon intensive than California’s.

Thanks to its deployment of nuclear power, the Canadian province of Ontario’s electricity is nearly 90% cleaner than California’s, according to a recent analysis by Scott Luft, an energy analyst who tracks decarbonization and the power sector.

California’s power sector emissions are over twice as high today as they would have been had the state kept open and built planned nuclear plants.

California’s political establishment pushed hard to close San Onofre nuclear plant in 2013 — triggering an on-going federal criminal investigation — and later to close Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, which generates 15% of all in-state clean electricity, by 2025.

The political leadership of California and Germany have encouraged other nations to follow their example, and the results have been — consistently, following the new EP analysis — counter to the ostensible goal of climate protection.

Over the last 20 years the share of electricity from clean energy globally has declined because the increase in electricity coming from solar and wind wasn’t enough to offset the decline of nuclear.

Carbon emissions rose 3.2% in California between 2011 and 2015, even as they declined 3.7% in the average over the remaining 49 states.

Ontario’s electricity is nearly 90% cleaner than California’s.

Scott Luft

In 2016, emissions from electricity produced within California decreased by 19%, but 2/3 of that decline came from increased production from the state’s hydro-electric dams, due to it being a rainier year, and thus had nothing to do with the state’s energy policies, while just 1/3 of the decline came from increased solar and wind.

In the 1960s and 1970s, California’s electric utilities had planned to build a string of new reactors and new plants that were ultimately killed by anti-nuclear leaders and groups, including Governor Jerry Brown, the Sierra Club, and Natural Resources Defense Fund (NRDC).

Other nuclear plants were forced to close prematurely, including Rancho Seco and San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, while Diablo Canyon is being forced to close by California's Renewable Portfolio Standard, which excludes nuclear.

It remains to be seen if recently-passed SB100, which allows 40% of electricity to be produced from any non-emitting energy source alongside the remaining 60% exclusively from renewables, will motivate the state to save its last nuclear plant.

Had those plants been constructed and stayed open, 73% of power produced in California would be from clean (very low-carbon) energy sources as opposed to just 34%. Of that clean power, 48% would have been from nuclear rather than 9%.

In 2016, renewables received 94 times more in U.S. federal subsidies than nuclear and 46 times more than fossil fuels per unit of energy generated. Meanwhile, a growing number of analysts are admitting that an electricity grid that relies on nuclear power has no need for solar and wind. More troubling, adding solar and wind to a nuclear-heavy grid would require burning more fossil fuels, usually natural gas, as back-up power

As it’s become increasingly clear that Germany would not meet its climate targets, it is coming under criticism from leading renewable energy advocates, who may fear that Germany’s poor record on climate change discredits renewable energy as a solution for climate change.

“If I were a citizen of Germany, I would be concerned about Germany being left behind,” said Al Gore, who is a major renewable energy investor in addition to being a climate policy advocate, last June. “The leadership provided in years past created a reality that now no longer exists.”

“If the world is serious about climate change, we should be keeping existing, safe nuclear power stations open, not shutting them prematurely,” noted Bloomberg New Energy Finance’s Michael Liebreich.

But the new EP analysis underscores that the problem is not just closing plants but also choosing to build solar and wind farms instead of new nuclear power stations.

California's nuclear abandonments locked in fossil fuels.

LINK

[KaiserJeep]

Godzilla wins again.

[GHung]

Had They Bet On Nuclear, Not Renewables, Germany & California Would Already Have 100% Clean Power

.......blah, blah, blah .......

LINK

Again, absolutely ignores the debacle (big mess) that those, especially in the US and Europe, are in trying to build new nuclear, despite massive government guaranteed loans and all that. Freakin' propaganda. Meanwhile, alternatives keep moving forward globally, apparently reaching economic parity with fossil fuels, even in areas that don't provide huge incentives.

[Tanada]

Had They Bet On Nuclear, Not Renewables, Germany & California Would Already Have 100% Clean Power

.......blah, blah, blah .......

LINK

Again, absolutely ignores the debacle (big mess) that those, especially in the US and Europe, are in trying to build new nuclear, despite massive government guaranteed loans and all that. Freakin' propaganda. Meanwhile, alternatives keep moving forward globally, apparently reaching economic parity with fossil fuels, even in areas that don't provide huge incentives.

Fortunately for the human species the governments of Asia and Eastern Europe are not nearly as foolish about this particular topic as Western Europe and North America.

Speaking of propaganda, cyclic random renewable power is still the most expensive way we have to generate power. Particularly if you extract the massive "investment" of government subsidies.

[Outcast_Searcher]

I updated the electricity numbers for 2018 from IEA data:

Code: Select all

Global electricity generation(TWh)                   
Year   Renew   Nukes   Coal    FFs      Total    Renewable Share
2016   5,881   2,612   9,451   16,269   24,930   23.60%
2017   6,221   2,636   9,723   16,528   25,551   24.30%
2018   6,839   2,724   10,116  17,110   26,672   25.64%

Renewables share of the electricity pie seems to be growing around 1% per year.

Also, according to the IEA's data for all energy, other renewables(ie, excluding hydro and biomass) came in at 2% of the total energy pie:
Global energy demand and electricity generation by source
I wasn't sure if they were rounding that 2% up so I did the math myself(289 / 14301) * 100 = 2.02%

So we're STILL burning more coal in the US each year, despite all the hoopla about coal being bad, and we're going to stop burning so much of that due to it being "dangerously dirty", etc.

Because, seriously, in the US, after all the noise about coal, I would have at least expected the electricity being generated from coal to be decreasing by now. (And I would have expected the number for all FF's to be higher, but due to natural gas supposedly being used so much more.)

[Newfie]

Outcast,

That’s why it’s so important to change folks attitudes and understandings. They see a wind turbine and think “Oh look how we are saving the planet.”

Without coupling renewable with conservation there will be no net emmission improvement, it’s just more cheap calories.

[Tanada]

Outcast,

That’s why it’s so important to change folks attitudes and understandings. They see a wind turbine and think “Oh look how we are saving the planet.”

Without coupling renewable with conservation there will be no net emmission improvement, it’s just more cheap calories.

But it ISN'T cheap calories!

In another thread you mentioned how money spent on fighting in the Middle East since WW II concluded is one primary cause of 911, or at least that is what I thought you said. In part that is true, but there is another extremely large factor you kind of glossed over. Until the 1920's when Iraq, Iran and Kuwait were all selling petroleum on the world market later followed by Saudi Arabia and others the next decade the region was poor and unattractive. Oil resources brought huge wealth flows into the region, but as part of that they also brought huge numbers of Europeans and Americans and even Soviets who had radically different ideas about how people in the middle east should exist culturally.

Mix cultural difference with the competition for wealth and you get instant conflict. Then add in governments willing to use their influence to have the governments in the middle east engage in wars one against another for international advantage (the Iran-Iraq war comes to mind). Naturally the people whose lives are being mangled and changed by western money and culture are going to resent the daylights out of those factors.

Then whether you believe Israel is a rightful nation of the Holy Land or not you had western powers, struck with guilt over the slaughter of Jewish civilians in 1942-45 by Germany, force the new nation into existence in 1948. That only adds to the rage and intense loathing of the region where common people see that the international western community treat them purely as pawns in the 'great game' rather than as self determining people with goals and beliefs that are as valid as anyone else's.

Now we come to the topic of this thread. In terms of spending for or on the middle east all of the westernized nations, including Japan and South Korea, send huge sums of money there for the resources they can buy on the international market. In 1988 the largest single consumer of Petroleum Products on this planet was the government of the USA mostly for military vehicle use. The second largest and close behind was the USSR government for the exact same reason.

We have known since the 1930's viable and more or less efficient ways to manufacture liquid fuel substitutes in the form of synthetic fuel made from lignite coal (primarily). It is moderately more expensive in terms of unit cost to manufacture liquid fuel substitutes if you do a simple side by side cost ignoring externalizations. However any sound analysis would preform a whole system survey showing that if the USA had adopted on a mass scale the conversion of abundant lignite into synthetic fuel for the military we could have eliminated most if not all spending on the middle east.

Instead we hid the huge financial and social costs of importing oil from the middle east, which altered the cost benefit equation way out of reality, and we have sunk enormous funds into the Middle East as a result. Here are a couple of other factors to consider, if the USA were not importing petroleum from the middle east at all from say 1975 onward the world demand would drop significantly, just as we saw from 2008. That would leave room for other nations who wanted to import middle eastern oil to both purchase and take responsibility for defending those oil fields allowing the USA to effectively withdraw from the Persian Gulf.

That would have created a big cushion in the USA federal budget from 1975-1989. While in all likelihood the politicians would have done what they always do and wasted it it could have been used as you desire to subsidize intermittent 'renewable' wind and solar. Or it could have been used to build a few more large scale hydro-electricity dams. Or it could have been used in researching passive safe nuclear power plants in 1975 well before Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. Most likely it would have been wasted on vote buying for congressional members of both houses, but if we dream we should let ourselves DREAM, right?

[kublikhan]

So we're STILL burning more coal in the US each year, despite all the hoopla about coal being bad, and we're going to stop burning so much of that due to it being "dangerously dirty", etc.

Because, seriously, in the US, after all the noise about coal, I would have at least expected the electricity being generated from coal to be decreasing by now. (And I would have expected the number for all FF's to be higher, but due to natural gas supposedly being used so much more.)

As it says in my quote, those are global numbers. In the US, coal is decreasing.

EIA expects total U.S. coal consumption in 2018 to fall to 691 million short tons (MMst), a 4% decline from 2017 and the lowest level since 1979. U.S. coal consumption has been falling since its peak in 2007, and EIA forecasts that 2018 coal consumption will be 437 MMst (44%) lower than 2007 levels, mainly driven by declines in coal use in the electric power sector.

In 2007, coal-fired capacity in the United States totaled 313 gigawatts (GW) across 1,470 generators. By the end of 2017, 529 of those generators, with a total capacity of 55 GW, had retired. So far in 2018, 11 GW of coal-fired generating capacity has retired through September, and another 3 GW are expected to retire in the final three months of the year,

Electric Power Monthly

[kublikhan]

Here's the numbers for the US for 2009 and 2018. Fossil fuel total generation in the US has shrunk this past decade. The increase in natural gas generation was not enough to make up for the shortfall in coal and oil generation(Keep in mind this is only looking at the increased natural gas used for electricity. Natural gas use also increased for heating, petrochemicals, etc.). Total generation increased. The shortfall was made up by increased generation from renewables. Nuclear generation was relatively flat. Renewables' share of the electricity mix has increased considerably this past decade in the US. But it is still lower than global numbers. However if you add in nuclear, the US share of Non fossil fuel power is larger than the global average.

Code: Select all

US electricity generation(TWh)                   
Year   Renew   Nukes   Coal     FFs      Total    Renew Share Non FFs share
2009     417     799   1,756    2,726    3,950    10.56%      30.78%
2018     713     807   1,146    2,651    4,178    17.07%      36.38%

EIA - Electricity Data

Code: Select all

Global electricity generation(TWh)                   
Year   Renew   Nukes   Coal    FFs      Total    Renew Share  Non FFs share
2016   5,881   2,612   9,451   16,269   24,930   23.60%       34.07%
2018   6,839   2,724   10,116  17,110   26,672   25.64%       35.85%

[kublikhan]

Here's the US numbers for all energy use for 2007 and 2018:

Code: Select all

US total energy use(in Quads)
Year Gas Coal Oil FFs Renew* Nuke  Total
2007 24  23   40  87  7      8     102
2018 31  13   37  81  12     8     101
*renewables includes hydro and biomass

US energy use 2007
US energy use 2018

[Newfie]

Tanada,

Read your above post to my Wife. We agree that was an excellent and informative analysis. Thank you.

[jawagord]

The inevitable demise of large scale green power is starting in Germany as the subsidies are phased out. It will be a painful retrenchment. Wind and solar are niche products, generally not suitable for powering modern society.

Nationwide, the number of new construction projects has plummeted, 743 wind turbines went to the grid last year, a good 1000 less than in the previous year. In 2018, eight plants were installed throughout Bavaria. The wind power boom is over for now, the manufacturers are suffering. Enercon and Nordex are cutting hundreds of jobs. Senvion, known as “Repower Systems” until 2014, has filed for bankruptcy. The industry is afraid that a descent is imminent, as the German solar industry has already suffered. …

The state has redistributed gigantic sums of money. The operators receive more than 25 billion euros a year via the EEG for renewable electricity. Without the money in the future, the operation of wind turbines or solar parks will be hard on many owners. As is so often the case with subsidies, they create an artificial upswing, a straw fire that burns quickly and leaves only ashes. …

https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2019/05 ... scheitern/

[kublikhan]

It's not just Germany, renewable subsidies are falling in many parts of the world. However renewables are still often outbidding other technologies even without the subsidies. Of course during the transition your are going to see a surge of consolidations and/or bankruptcies as the subsidy trough is removed and players are forced to operate under market conditions.

Under pressure to reduce power bills – German consumers pay a “renewable surcharge” totaling 25 billion euros per year – and in recognition of falling technology costs, Germany recently switched from fixed tariffs to putting out wind and solar energy projects for competitive bidding. The move has upset citizen cooperatives, which find it hard to compete against big companies on the open market. But it’s been good news for consumers. Auctions late last year yielded solar and wind prices below 5 euro cents per kilowatt hour, rivaling the cost of fossil fuel-generated power. Prices for new offshore wind have been hailed as “zero-subsidy” renewable power.

Germany’s changeover is part of a widespread global shift in how solar and wind energy is being generated, one with the potential to accelerate the energy transition by increasing competition, reducing costs, and scaling up deployment. But it is also shaking up the renewable energy industry, generally to the advantage of larger players.

Countries from the UK, to Mexico, to Germany and Morocco are partially or wholly switching from feed-in tariffs to market-based competitive bidding. Sixty-seven countries had renewable tender policies by early 2017, up from 9 in 2009, according to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). The International Energy Agency estimates almost half of the renewable energy capacity expected to be added from 2017-22 will be driven by auctions. For many, this shift signals a maturing of the sector. “As the sector evolves, the question for governments about what support level to provide is answered by: Let the market tell you.”

What the market has found in the past year is record-low renewable prices, a result of falling technology costs (especially solar), growing market penetration, and the emergence of medium-to-large industry players. Solar PV prices dropped to as low as 3 cents per kilowatt hour in auctions in Abu Dhabi, Chile, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia, for instance. Fossil fuel power currently ranges from 5 to 17 cents. While “it’s dangerous to think these low prices can be replicated everywhere,” says Hawila, they nevertheless show that globally renewable power is approaching grid parity with oil, coal, and nuclear power.

That’s critical to reducing the world’s carbon emissions: Cheap, unsubsidized renewable power gives countries a solid economic reason to switch from fossil fuel energy. Auctions play a role in this revolution by “enabling industry to build on technology that has become cost efficient, establish larger scale, and further lower prices.”

Yet the market-based system has its drawbacks, resulting in a bumpy transition in many countries. Aggressive competition can result in unrealistically low bids that don’t materialize into actual projects — something that will only be known a few years from now. And the drive to lower prices is winnowing out the small players that were instrumental in nurturing the early phase of renewables. Community energy groups find it hard to compete in the new renewable market, which is not a problem for countries like China or India that have hardly any such cooperatives, but is a major issue in Germany. Renewable energy developers are also consolidating as global players rise and smaller local ones go bust in countries like Japan. “Competition is good for deployment, but it can end up squeezing the sector.”

The squeeze is evident in India, where a shift to auctions has roiled the wind industry in the past year, resulting in one of the lowest levels of new capacity in recent times. The slowdown is attributed to confusion over interstate transmission charges and the fact that low prices from the first auction — almost half the previous tariffs — led to several states trying to backtrack on existing projects commissioned under the older, more expensive feed-in tariffs. The lull has had ripple effects down the supply chain, with many domestic manufacturers going out of business. Meanwhile, developers have begun merging as competition intensifies.

As Subsidies Wane, Market Forces Drive the Growth of Renewables

[kublikhan]

In the US the amount of federal subsidies received by renewables in transport and electricity has halved from USD 15.26 billion (EUR 12.6bn) in fiscal 2013 to USD 6.68 billion in fiscal 2016.

US subsidies for renewables fall 56% in 3 yrs

On June 1, 2018, China, the world’s largest solar market, announced changes to its subsidies for solar power, causing estimates of its future solar construction to be slashed. China will terminate approvals for new subsidized utility-scale photovoltaic power stations in 2018. The country will also reduce its feed-in tariff. Projects connected to the grid after June 1 will not receive feed-in tariffs.

Other Countries Cut Renewable Subsidies
Some countries such as Spain began cutting their renewable subsidies as early as 2010. Other countries that have reduced their subsidies or mandates include Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. Germany cut feed-in tariff subsidies by 75 percent for new rooftop solar installations.

China Joins Other Countries in Reducing Subsidies for Solar Power

From 2011 to 2017 global investment in renewable energy was almost flat as countries cut their renewable subsidies. Countries are investing less because renewable projects are heavily dependent upon subsidies that are being cut as countries face rising electricity prices and large subsidy bills. Residential electricity prices are twice the U.S. price in Spain and three times the U.S. price in Denmark and Germany—countries that subsidized renewable investment early on.

While China spent $133 billion on renewable energy technologies in 2017, the country has yet to determine a mechanism to collect the subsidies that has caused the price increases in Spain, Germany, and Denmark. Chinese state-owned developers and investors are building renewables assuming the government will find a way to pay the subsidies owed them.

In 2010 and 2011, Europe’s investment in renewable energy was more than $100 billion, tapering to $57.4 billion in 2017—down 50 percent from the record years of 2010 and 2011. These investments were spurred by feed-in tariffs and other subsidies.

Global Investment in Renewable Energy Stalled Due to Subsidy Cuts

Of course, cuts in subsidies and investments does not equal cuts in deployments. Renewable deployments have risen over the years despite the subsidy cuts:

Global renewable energy capacity(MW)

Code: Select all

year capacity    increase
2009 1,113,226   -
2010 1,224,050   110,824
2011 1,329,202   105,152
2012 1,441,393   112,191
2013 1,563,122   121,729
2014 1,693,254   130,132
2015 1,848,157   154,903
2016 2,007,996   159,839
2017 2,179,448   171,452
2018 2,350,755   171,307

Renewable Capacity Statistics 2019

[Newfie]

Thought you guys might like this.

The Voltaire will be specifically designed to transport, lift and install offshore wind turbines, transition pieces and foundations. Key features include a main crane of over 3,000 tonnes, an operating depth of approximately 80 meters, a payload of about 14,000 tonnes and accommodation for 100 persons. The vessel has four legs to lift itself above the sea level for stable working conditions and is equipped with a DP2 system.

Compared to Jan De Nul’s two other jack-up vessels, the Vole au vent and the Taillevent, the Voltaire has almost double the deck space, making it capable of loading the next generation of wind turbines and foundations

https://gcaptain.com/jan-de-nul-orders- ... on-vessel/

[Newfie]

More on the offshore installation challenges.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features ... gger-boats

Offshore Wind Will Need Bigger Boats
Components for wind turbines sit dockside at the Beatrice Offshore Windfarm. Each completed turbine will stand 164.7 meters high, excluding the “jacket” that is attached to piles in the seabed.
Photographer: Matthew Lloyd/Bloomberg

The few ships designed to do this are almost exclusively in Europe, and some are booked up until next year. Owners can charge anything from $112,000 to $180,000 a day for their services. That compares with the below $25,000 rate for one very large crude carrier class supertanker.

To squeeze more energy out of the wind, manufacturers like MHI Vestas are building bigger machines with longer blades and more powerful nacelles. The next generation of turbines will need even bigger boats.

Monumental Turbines
The biggest offshore wind turbines are as tall as skyscrapers

Sources: U.S. Department of Energy, Vestas, GE, Bloomberg research
One of them is Jan De Nul’s Voltaire, named after the French writer, that starts service in 2022. With a length of 169 meters (554 feet), it has deck space bigger than the soccer pitch at London’s Wembley Stadium. Built in China, the ship will be able to carry 3,000 tons of equipment to a height of 165 meters. That’s twice the load of Jan de Nul’s Vole Au Vent ship built six years ago and more than enough to hoist the largest turbines currently available.

“We recognize the global trend toward larger wind turbines for increased green energy demand,” said Philippe Hutse, offshore director at Jan De Nul. “The Voltaire will have all the required specifications to meet the upcoming challenges.”

Deme Group’s new vessel will be ready for installations next year. At over 215 meters long, its crane will be able to lift 5,000 tons to a height of more than 170 meters.

Offshore Wind Will Need Bigger Boats
Deme Group’s Apollo, left, is 87.5 meters long and 42 meters wide. That’s more than twice the size of some large passenger ferries that take commuters from New Jersey to Manhattan.
Photographer: Matthew Lloyd/Bloomberg
Nevertheless, a shortage of ships could come as early as 2022 since the European market is expanding at an “unprecedented pace,” according to Clarksons Platou AS, a broker that has arranged offshore wind charters for a decade. The squeeze will only get tighter as boats leave the region for growing markets in Asia and the U.S.


ADVERTISEMENTSCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
“Some of the current vessels can be upgraded to serve the new turbines to a certain extent,” said Jens Egenberg, an analyst at Clarksons Platou in Oslo. “But this is not nearly enough to meet the demand for installing the larger turbines.”

But the wind industry has survived challenges in the past. Decades ago, with turbines still in their infancy, there weren’t enough specialist cranes to erect them. And about 10 years ago, costs were rising fast and offshore wind farms got delayed because there weren’t enough installation vessels. Offshore wind was deemed “a niche” by the then head of Vestas Wind Systems A/S, Ditlev Engel.

Offshore Wind Will Need Bigger Boats
Turbine components waiting to be shipped out for installation in the Nigg Energy Park.
Photographer: Matthew Lloyd/Bloomberg
Generator sizes have multiplied over the decades, from the half-megawatt units used in the first offshore wind farm built in 1991 off the Danish coast to the 12-megawatt giants currently planned by General Electric Co. Vestas Chairman Bert Nordberg said last month that a single generator could be as big as 20 megawatts in the future.

The first prototype of GE’s biggest model will be installed on land for testing at the Port of Rotterdam in the Netherlands, John Lavelle, chief executive officer of the company’s offshore wind unit, said in an interview. He’s already started offering the turbine in Europe and the U.S. for deliveries from 2021.


That gamble on future turbine size is precisely what’s occupying the thoughts of shipping executives. Anyone building a new installation vessel will be looking at a life of at least 20 years, said Even Larsen, chief executive officer at Fred Olsen Ocean AS in Oslo.

His company has three such jack-up ships—so called because of their long support legs that can be lowered to the seafloor—and may invest in more. His dilemma is how big to make the next ships. Build too small and you won’t get the job. Build too big and the economics won’t stack up. Larsen said vessel owners are waiting to see what the others are doing.

“It has been a challenge to define the required characteristics of a potential new build due to the rapid development in the turbine size,” Larsen said. “It’s important to hit the target with a new vessel design.”

As many as 18 nations will have offshore turbines by 2027, compared with seven in 2017, according to industry consultant Wood Mackenzie Ltd. Wind provided less than 1 percent of the world’s power in 2006, but BNEF estimates that will rise to 24 percent by 2040.

Tail Winds
The global offshore wind turbine market will grow sevenfold by 2030

Source: Bloomberg NEF
Asia includes India, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Europe includes Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Sweden.
And while numbers like those would be great for the environment, as well as turbine makers and utilities, they show the challenges facing the installation market. In a sign of what’s to come, ship operator Seajacks Ltd.’s Seajacks Zaratan, built specifically for the harsh conditions of the North Sea, is leaving the main European market to install turbines in the Taiwan Strait this year.

About 10 of the current installation vessels were built five to seven years ago and almost all of them have gone through some upgrades, according to Soren Lassen, senior offshore wind analyst at Wood Mackenzie’s power and renewables division. As a result, he expects to see more vessels from the oil and gas industry being adapted for offshore wind, especially to install foundations.

Offshore Wind Will Need Bigger Boats
A port authority boat approaches rigs sitting at anchorage in the Port of Cromarty Firth.
Photographer: Matthew Lloyd/Bloomberg
The cost to hire a ship is also as much as 30 percent lower than it was earlier this decade because of an oversupply. That’s putting even more pressure on getting it right and the need for a higher utilization rate to make a profit.

“The pressure on rates has been quite dramatic,” said Larsen at Fred Olsen. “At these rates, it’s difficult to secure a good business case for a new build.”

While there are enough ships to serve the industry for now, BNEF analyst Tom Harries in London sees a crunch in about four to five years.

“You’ll very quickly run out of boats that will be big enough to lift the next generation of turbines,” he said. “The vessel owners have underestimated the size and now everyone is waiting to see who will move first