Hywind: Two years in operation, what have we learnt and ... · •The models simulate the motions and the structural loads which we control with different regulators •We have tested

Classification: Internal 2011-10-26

Hywind: Two years in operation, what have we learnt and where are we going?

The Hywind O&M Team Morten Tufte Thorbjørn Ulriksen Klaus K. Haglerød Ørjan Haugen Anders Wikborg Tom James Emil Orderud Nenad Keseric Anne M. Hansen

Deep Sea Offshore Wind R&D Seminar 19th January 2012

2 Classification: Internal 2011-10-26

Content

Offshore Wind Operation

Hywind Demo

Project opportunities

3 - Classification: Internal 2011-09-06

Principles for a Low Risk Operating Model

Organisation Contractual obligation must reflect organisational capabilities for both OEM’s and Owner

Both parties must recognize each others capabilities

Technology Asset owner must take responsibility for technical integrity and increase internal knowhow

of the systems

Cooperation Force lean thinking, zero scrap and component reliability on the suppliers through new

standards both in production and operation

OEM’s

Work should be carried out in accordance with recognised standards with transparency at

all levels

Owner should have an active retrofit program

Maintenance is one of the largest controllable operating costs in capital intensive industries

Maintenance influence: Commercial risk; Production; Safety; Cost

Classification: Internal 2011-09-08Classification: Internal 2011-09-06

. . . will be used to develop a modern operating model for wind O&M

Critical Processes

Critical processes in control means good stability

Best Practice Work Processes

Controlling the value chain through best practice

work processes

Performance Management

Structured measures on all levels increase

performance

Organisational Development

Lean organisational structure based on principles

in integrated operations

Decision Structure

Effective meeting structure for better and

transparent decisions Spares

ROI

IT/ ERP Systems

Capital Programme

Asset Registers

Logistics

Fault Rectification

Reliability

Modifications

Inspections

Unscheduled M.

Scheduled M.

Production &

Dispatching

5 - Classification: Internal (Restricted Distribution) 2011-05-23

• In operation from September 2009

• Actual movements confirmed

simulation model

• Floater motions have no negative

impact on turbine performance

• Capacity factor 50% in 2011

• Access and inspection confirmed to

be satisfactory

• Technically verified

Hywind Demo - concept verified

Hywind Performance

• Reduction of downtime with 1870 hr

by better planning and quicker

response

• Only one unscheduled stop in

second operational year

• 50% production increase

• Average wind speed

• 2nd year was 9,1 m/s, 3%

below normal

• 1st year was 12% below

normal

• Overall availability 94,5 %

• Capacity factor at 47,3%

• 4390 full load hours for 2011

(average in Norway ~2100)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2010- 2011 2009-2010

Downtime [hr]

Other

Wind out ofspec.

Grid

Turbine

9,5

6,4

2010- 2011 2009-2010

Production [GWh] November - November

94,6 90,3

47,3

31,6

2010- 2011 2009-2010

Availability% Cap.Fact%

Classification: Internal 2012-01-04 6

Downtime November 2010 – November 2011

• Vibration alarm was eliminated in Mars

2010, through effective root cause

analysis

• Manuel stop is decided by owner and

can be minimised by preventive

maintenance

• The two other major losses left are

related to increased pitching at extreme

waive and wind conditions. Better

cooling system will be installed to

eliminate the loss.

Classification: Internal 2012-01-04 7

Production in heavy seas


• 24 hour trendperiode during

the «Dagmar» storm last

Christmas.

• Avg. wind speed: 16 m/s

• Max wind speed: 28 m/s

• Avg. significant wave height:

4,7 m

• Max significant wave height:

• 7,1 m

• Power production for the

periode: 96,7% of rated

power.

Wind distribution. 2011 compared to histcast


10 - 20/01/20122011-08-23 10 - 2011-08-23 10 - Classification: Internal 2011-03-04

FOCUS ON HEALTH AND SAFETY (HSE)

• Same HSE standard as on all Statoil installations

• Focus on:

− Work permit system

− Boat landing, access , egress and PPE

− Lifting equipment

• No serious accidents

• Mitigating actions:

− Hands-on follow-up of Statoil and Siemens equipment and procedure

− Safety Job Analyses

− Table top workshops - Defined situations of hazards and accidents (DSHA)

− Safety training of personnel on-board Hywind


Rescue from hub – use of milan and 2 metre rope


Rescue from nacelle – outside tower


Rescue outside


Other HSE activities at Hywind in June


Observations and ideas - rescue from nacelle

• Inside rescue – challenges related to confined spaces and many movements of

injured person

• Outside rescue – faster and easier due to less movements

• Attach Milan rescue kit to injured when possible

• Possible rescue time can be less than 1 hour for outside rescue

• Time from nacelle to boat based on speed with Milan Hub rescue is about 1:30min

• Frequent training and exercises will reduce the rescue time

• Helicopter rescue will reduce transport time to hospital but not necessarily rescue

time form nacelle

• Enable training on rescue tools, i.e. use of Milan rescue kit and fall arresters

• Develop training packages together with service provider

• Use Hywind for training purposes

Classif

ication

:

Intern

al

2011-

03-11

Conventional Wind Turbine Control System

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

time [s]

tow

er

pitch a

ngle

[deg]

• Example of stable (solid line) and unstable (dashed line) behaviour of Hywind

Demo with and without use of a stabilizing floater motion controller.

• Hywind Demo was shut down after 250 seconds with use of the unstable

conventional controller.

18 - 20/01/20122011-08-23 18 -

Verification of our structural load model

• The models simulate the motions and the structural loads which we control with different

regulators

• We have tested two regulators working differently towards the structural loads and which

have been used as important components in the cost and design optimization

440 450 460 470 480 490 500 510 520

-2.2

-2

-1.8

-1.6

-1.4

-1.2

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

Tower Pitch Angle

time [s]

pitc

h [d

eg]

Measured

Simulated

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900-5

-4.5

-4

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5Tower Pitch Angle

time [s]

tow

er

pitch a

ngle

[deg]

controller 1

controller 2

Classif

ication

:

Intern

al

2011-

03-11

Conclusions

• It is demonstrated that a stabilizing floater motion controller is required for

a floating wind turbine.

• Simulations and measurements are compared for wind speeds above

rated wind speed. Good agreement is obtained in small as well as

moderate sea states.

• Two different stabilizing controllers are compared by full scale testing. A

significant difference in the response at resonance is observed. This

difference is important to the fatigue life of the tower.

• The range of variation of typical wind turbine parameters like rotor speed,

blade pitch angle and active power production are similar to what is

observed for fixed foundation wind turbines.

Classif

ication:

Interna

l

2011-

06-03

20 -

Interfaces to Bringing Cost of Offshore Wind Down

PLAN DO Check

Plan BCOWD Activities

Codification RDS-PP

FMECA

RCM

Reliability Database

OPEX Calculation tool

Condition Monitoring Analyses

Access Criteria

Vessel Planning

Do BCOWD Activities

Remote Operation

Condition Based Maintenance

Vessel Operation

Access Criteria

New lift solution

Check BCOWD Activities

Reliability data analyses

Condition monitoring Analyses

Classif

ication:

Interna

l

2011-

06-03

21 -


22

Roadmap going forward

Large Parks, 500-1000MW

<10 years

Pilot Park, 3-6 turbines

<5 years

Concept

2001

Model test

2005

Full-scale

prototype

2009

• The technical concept is considered proven

• Establish pilot parks to demonstrate cost reductions, reduce risks and

increase market pull (<5 years)

• Large parks 500-1000MW is the end game objective (<10 years)

Industry engagement and support from governments is driving the

timelines

Hywind II Pilot Parks under evaluation

• Base Case 15 MW:

− Capacity factor 44%, wind speed 9,7 m/s

• Water depths:

− Transfer from 60 m

− Installation from 100 m

• Preferred location at Buchan Deep 20 -25 km outside Peterhead

• Production start-up earliest 2015

• Substantial cost improvements since demo


Buchan Deep

Scotland

• Base Case 12 MW:

− Capacity factor 39%, wind speed 9 m/s

• Water depths:

− Installation at 120 m

• Preferred location in Bay of Maine 20 -25 km outside Boothbay

• Production start earliest 2016

• Substantial cost improvements since demo

USA


Way forward

• Next step is to commercially prove the

concept at sites with good market, wind

and support conditions

• US Maine and Scotland most mature

cases

• Assessing other areas as technology

supplier or future park developer

Documents

Hywind: Two years in operation, what have we learnt and ... · •The models simulate the motions and the structural loads which we control with different regulators •We have tested