Science for the Green Economy

Transcription

1 Science for the Green Economy Offshore Wind Standards, Certification & Litigation

2 Professor Feargal Brennan Offshore Wind Foundations

3 Presentation Overview The Context The Stakeholders The Science, Engineering & Technology The Commercial & Legislative Landscape Why Offshore Wind Structures are Different The Virtues and Perils of Standardisation The Choice?

4 The Context

5 Global Atmospheric CO 2 Concentrations Source: Scripps Institution of Oceanography, October 2015

6 IPCC Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report

7 IPCC Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report

8 UK Electricity Generation Source: DECC, Energy Trends, October 2015

9 COP21 CMP11 UN CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE

10 The Stakeholders

11 Stakeholders

12 The Science, Engineering & Technology

13 The rapidly increasing size of wind installations as they move offshore

14 Design Considerations for Offshore Support Structures Primary Purpose i.e. Ultimate Capacity Maintainability Transportation Installation CAPEX & OPEX Environmental Impact Environmental Life-Cycle

15 European Water Depths

16 USA Water Depths Image Courtesy of Google Earth

17 Offshore Wind Support Structures Support structure Fixed Foundation Fixed Foundation Fixed Foundation Monopile, gravity-based Tri-pod Jacket Floating Water depth (m) > (?) Industrial development Large commercial wind farms already exist (Denmark, UK, the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, etc.) Demonstration wind farms (Beatrice, Alpha Ventus) Prototype (full-scale: Hywind, WindFloat; smallscale: BlueH, Sway, etc.) International Standards IEC , GL, DNV, BV and ABS; an extension of design code for onshore wind turbines Refer to offshore codes for support structures Under development

18 Floating wind turbine foundations Floater: spar, semi-submersible and barge Mooring system: catenary mooring and tension leg

19 Floating wind turbine foundations HYWIND (Courtesy Statoil)

20 Floating wind turbine foundations (Courtesy WindFloat)

21 Offshore Wind Floating Demonstrators (Courtesy Fukushima Forward)

22 Offshore Wind Novel Concepts The Aerogenerator X concept (Courtesy Wind Power Ltd and Grimshaw)

23 The Commercial & Legislative Landscape

24 Wind Power in the UK October 2015 Installed Capacity Number of Turbines Approx Number of Homes Powered Onshore 8.3 GW 5,094 4,278,589 Offshore 5 GW 1,452 3,775,226 Total 13.3 GW 5,327 8,053,815 Data from Renewable UK, October 2015

25 UK Offshore Wind World Leading Position The total offshore generating capacity in UK waters is approx.15 TWh annually, equivalent to the electricity consumption of around 3.8 million homes; In addition to the 5GW already installed, a further 11.9GW is either in construction or has planning approval, and a further 5.2GW is in the planning system; Industry projections are for a total of 6GW of capacity installed by 2016 and around 10GW installed by 2020, by which point offshore wind will supply between 8 and 10 per cent of the UK s electricity annually. Data from Renewable UK, October 2015

26 Renewable Electricity at 22% of UK Total Official UK Government statistics showed in the final quarter of 2014 Renewable Electricity providing 22% of total UK supply with wind making up 12% Renewable UK Press Release, March 2015

27 Behind this pioneering success US contractor Fluor has lost the major arbitration case against the owners of the Greater Gabbard offshore wind farm SSE and RWE and will take a pre-tax hit of $400m

28 Why Offshore Wind Structures are Different

29 Structural Integrity The dominant failure mechanisms of offshore structures are associated with corrosion and fatigue cracking i.e. progressive failure and dependent upon: Material s resistance to cracking; The extent of defects; Local applied and residual stresses; Environment.

30 Cost vs Reliability

31 Stress Range (MPa) The Stress-Life Approach C1 DnV - DNV C1 Air Air C1 DnV - DNV C1 Free Free Corrosion corrosion Number of of cycles Years 1.00E E E E E+08 50

32 Jacket vs. Monopile Structures High Degree of Structural Redundancy Very Damage Tolerant Relatively Expensive Little Structural Redundancy Not Very Damage Tolerant Relatively Inexpensive

33 Progressive Damage Models: LEFM

34 Quality analysis Chemically etched weld macro 3-Dimensional geometry scanning

35 Quality analysis MPI (Magnetic Particle Inspection) Crack surface analysis

36 Can we afford the Standard Stress-Life Approach?

37 The Virtues and Perils of Standardisation

38 Expense of the Oil & Gas Legacy Manned (High Risk) installations Fabrication and inappropriate design standards that are largely 30 years old A very different cost imperative

39 The standardisation innovation dichotomy Advantages of standardisation Volume Services; Expanded and therefore more competitive supply base; Ease of regulatory and certification approvals. Dangers of standardisation Can block the introduction of new technologies; Can restrict the supply base to only those who can meet standards; Can make incremental improvement difficult and radical innovation impossible.

40 Approaches to standardisation Simple to implement Low development costs Easy to regulate and legislate for Good protection against known risks Limits innovation Multiple project failures might occur Requires a high degree of competency Innovative and efficient solutions Better understanding of responsibilities Heavily dependent on technical competence More difficult to verify conformity

41 Developing Smart Standards

42 The Choice?

43 Standardisation approaches: The choice Prescriptive regulations that explicitly describe: methods, characteristics, materials, fabrication, installation and maintenance procedures; Goal (or Performance)-based standards that specify minimum characteristics to protect health & safety and against adverse environmental impacts; Goal-based standards as above but supplemented with functional high-level performance specifications.

44 Professor Paul Leinster Talking to the right people about the right things

45 Offshore wind Designated as nationally significant infrastructure projects This results in streamlined decision making process Planning Inspectorate carries out certain functions on behalf of the Secretary of State Underpinned by a National Policy Statement

46 National policy statements Government s objectives for a particular sector establishes the need overarching statement on energy statement on renewable energy Subject to public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny before being designated Framework within which Planning Inspectorate make decisions Supported by a Strategic Environmental Assessment Provides reasons for the stated policy Presumption in favour of development Describes circumstances where it is particularly important to address the adverse impacts of development

47 Development consent process Pre-application Application: acceptance (or not) within 28 days is it the required standard? has consultation been adequate? Pre-examination: 2 to 3 months sets out timetable for examination Examination: 6 months Decision recommendation to Secretary of State within 3 months Secretary of State then has a further 3 months to issue decision Post decision 6 weeks when legal challenges can be made in the High Court

48 Rochdale envelope Allows evolution of design within clearly defined parameters Flexibility not to be abused Environmental assessment to take account of likely significant effects within the full range of parameters, including potentially cautious worst case If necessary mitigation to consider a range of possibilities

49 Pre-application period is crucial Engage with Planning Inspectorate pre-application prospectus infrastructure planning leads Actively engage, consult and work with: local communities, local councils, Crown Estate, Marine Management Organisation, Natural England, JNCC, Environment Agency Environmental impact assessment scoping preliminary environmental information draft environmental statement Submit development consent order drafts for comment include all elements include associated development

50 Managing the process Actively manage the process Submit updated drafts at key stages Agree a phased approach if appropriate Consult and engage proactively and fully talk to the right people about the right things NPS, SEA, EIA, permits, planning, overall twin track where possible work in partnership Ensure communications and project scope are clear and readily understandable by the general public Fund agencies to carry out pre-application work Quality not quantity that is important Ensure as much as possible is agreed before formal submission of an application

51 Offshore wind projects Most planning, safety and environmental risks are in the early development phases Considerable expenditure on developments which may never be built Renewables UK statements: Round 3 projects will take up to 5 years to be approved Development period to full operation around 10 years Government agencies have been cut back and lack the resources and the skilled workforce required to speed up approvals (I believe this can be managed)

52 The Danish approach Specific marine areas identified by government Sites designated for a set capacity of wind energy Government s energy agency completes the development surveys and impact assessments Then tenders for offshore wind projects of a specific size at each location with specific construction deadlines The Dutch are now adopting this approach

53 David Nitek The need for contractual clarity lessons learned from an offshore wind dispute

54 MT Hojgaard v E.ON: a recent dispute arising out of an error in an international standard

55 MT Højgaard -V- E.ON Offshore wind turbines in Solway Firth (Robin Rigg East and West) Monopile driven into seabed Transition piece fits on top of the monopile Tower fits onto the transition piece Monopile and transition piece are bonded together with grout

56 MT Højgaard -V- E.ON

57 MT Højgaard -V- E.ON In 2004, International Standard J101 was published by DNV Section B sets out a number of parametric equations, including States the interface shear strength due to friction But there is an error in the equation: δ does not properly define the relationship between the height of surface irregularities and the pile radius The effect of this error is that the equation overestimates the strength of the grouted bond to withstand the axial (downward) load of the tower

58 MT Højgaard -V- E.ON Contract imposed a variety of obligations on the Contractor

59 MT Højgaard -V- E.ON Contractor designed in accordance with J101, and the DNV issued Foundation Design Conformity Statements February 2009 Works completed September 2009 grouted connection on a windfarm elsewhere started to fail. DNV identified error in J101 April 2010 grouted connection started to fail on the Robin Rigg turbines. Remedial works undertaken, with the parties then disputing who bore the cost of those works

60 MT Højgaard -V- E.ON Trial judge found in favour of the Employer the Contractor had warranted that the foundation would last for 20 years Appeal to the Court of Appeal The court is confronted in this case with contractual documents of multiple authorship, which contain much loose wording Contracts can oblige a contractor to comply with particular standards and achieve a particular result. "Such a contract, if worded with sufficient clarity, may impose a double obligation upon the contractor. He must as a minimum comply with the relevant... standards. He must also take further steps as are necessary to ensure he achieves the specified result Did the contract in this case impose such a double obligation, with the Contractor giving an overarching warranty that the foundation would last for 20 years?

61 MT Højgaard -V- E.ON An apparent warranty in the Technical Requirements that the foundations would last for 20 years However, this was inconsistent with the standard of care provisions in the conditions of contract, which required compliance with standards and good practice It was also inconsistent with the rest of the Technical Requirements, which refer to a 20 year design life. If a structure has a design life of 20 years, that does not mean that inevitably it will function for 20 years, although it probably will. A design life is different from a guaranteed operational life

62 MT Højgaard -V- E.ON If the Employer wanted a warranty that the foundation would in fact last for 20 years, it should have included one in clause 8.1 of the general conditions, not tucked it away in the TRs In sum, (2) was "too slender a thread upon which to hang a finding that [the Contractor] gave a warranty of 20 years life for the foundations" The fitness for purpose warranty was not free-standing because it was qualified by the words "in accordance with the Specification using Good Industry Practice", which was defined by reference to standards If an Employer wants to mandate an outcome for example a minimum life he needs to do so very clearly

63 Science for the Green Economy Offshore Wind Standards, Certification & Litigation Q & A Julie Vaughan The contents of this publication, current at the date of publication set out in this document, are for reference purposes only. They do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Specific legal advice about your specific circumstances should always be sought separately before taking any action based on this publication. Herbert Smith Freehills LLP and its affiliated and subsidiary businesses and firms and Herbert Smith Freehills, an Australian Partnership, are separate member firms of the international legal practice known as Herbert Smith Freehills. Herbert Smith Freehills LLP 2015

64 Science for the Green Economy Thank you for attending Next Event Wednesday 13 and Thursday 14 January 2016 A National Debate in Technology and Governance for the Green Economy Location: Cranfield University