Accepted Manuscript

Estimation of technical and economic potential of offshore wind along the coast of
India

Garlapati Nagababu, Surendra Singh Kachhwaha, Vimal Savsani

PII: S0360-5442(17)31207-0
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2017.07.032
Reference: EGY 11220

To appear in: Energy

Please cite this article as: Nagababu G, Kachhwaha SS, Savsani V, Estimation of technical
and economic potential of offshore wind along the coast of India, Energy (2017), 10.1016/
j.energy.2017.07.032.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Estimation of technical and economic potential of offshore wind along the

2 coast of India

3 Garlapati Nagababu*, Surendra Singh Kachhwaha, Vimal Savsani

PT
4 Department of Mechanical Engineering, School of Technology, Pandit Deendayal Petroleum

5 University, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India

RI
6

Abstract

SC
7

8 India is rapidly growing in the economy and population leading to a continuous increase in

U
9 electricity demand. The wind is a better energy source because of its negligible greenhouse gas
10 emissions, cost competitiveness, price stability, and energy security. This paper presents
AN
11 Geospatial Information System (GIS) based methodology to characterise the offshore wind
12 power potential in the western and the eastern coast of India with technical, economical, and
M

13 marine ecosystem consideration. Spatial distribution of levelized production cost (LPC) and cost-
14 supply curves was developed under different ocean conditions (human impact on marine
D

15 ecosystem). The influence of project lifetime, discount rate, and assumptions about investment
cost, annual energy production, and availability is presented using sensitivity analysis. Results
TE

16
17 show that total potential available along the shallow waters (50 m water depth) of Indian coast is
18 approximately equal to 12.8% and 42% respectively of the existing renewable power and wind
EP

19 power capacity. In terms of wind resources and economic costs, the shallow waters of Gujarat
20 and Tamil Nadu states are the best suitable regions for offshore wind power development.
C

21 Keywords: Offshore wind; India; GIS; Levelized production cost; cost-supply curve
AC

22

23 *Corresponding author e-mail address: garlapatinagu@gmail.com

24 Tel.: +919724013948
25

26

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Nomenclature

a Annuity factor
CA Availability coefficient of turbines
CE Electrical cost (€/MW)
Cf Foundation cost (€/MW)

PT
CI Total investment cost per unit marine area (€/km2)
COM Annual operation and maintenance cost per unit marine area (€/km2/y)

RI
COM Operation and maintenance cost (€/MW)
CWT Turbine cost (€/MW)

SC
d Water depth (m)
DA Array density of turbines (MW/km2)
Di Anthropogenic stressors

U
dl The shortest land distance to coast (km)
AN
dp The shortest distance from service port or harbour (km)
ds The shortest subsea distance to coast (km)
E Energy potential per unit marine area (MWh/km2/y)
M

Ed Wind energy potential (MWh/y)

Ei Marine ecosystem types
D

Ic Cumulative impact score

LW Wake loss rate
TE

n Useful life of the wind farm (years)

P Electric power generation (kW)
Mean wind power density (W/m2)
EP

P/A
PWT Rated capacity of each wind turbine (MW)
r Interest rate (%)
C

Vi Wind speed at observation i (m/s)

AC

V(zref) Wind speed at a measured height zref

Y Capacity of the individual wind turbine (MW)
z Required height (m)
zo Surface roughness length (mm)
zref Height at which reference wind speed (Vref) is measured (m)
ρ Air density (kg/m3)
27

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

28 1. Introduction

29 Renewable energy (RE) technologies have an ability to significantly reduce carbon emission in

30 the electricity and heat sectors, and contribution to global climate change [1]. India is among one

PT
31 of the developing countries with lowest per-capita (1010 kWh) power consumption across the

32 globe. Approximately 25% of the Indian populace does not have access to electricity [2].

RI
33 Contrary to this, China consumes nearly 4000 kWh per person, while the developed nations are

34 having an average per capita consumption of around 15000 kWh [2]. According to latest treaty

SC
35 agreements at the Conference of Parties (COP-21), Government of India (GoI) plans to diminish

intensity of carbon emissions, mitigating its effect by 33 to 35% below the year 2005 level of

U
36 AN
37 country’s GDP and to achieve installed cumulative electric power capacity about 40% from RE

38 by 2030 [3]. In order to make electricity more accessible to everyone and to achieve energy
M

39 security, India started taking robust steps for developing its renewable sources of energy. For this

40 purpose, GoI took initiative for offshore wind power development [4].
D

41 Significant challenges obstructing for offshore wind power development are offshore
TE

42 wind resource assessment, environmental impact assessment, identification of appropriate

EP

43 turbine foundation technology, installation, logistics, grid connectivity, operational stability,

44 transmission infrastructure, and security [5]. Moreover, along with analysing its technical
C

45 feasibility, it is also important to assess the costs to be incurred and commercial viability to be
AC

46 earned by developing the offshore wind power sector in developing country like India.

47 Researchers have conducted numerous studies across the globe, for assessment of the

48 offshore wind resource available in various countries like China, Brazil, US, Thailand, Portugal

49 and so on [6–10]. On the other hand, researchers have conducted limited studies for estimation

50 of offshore wind resource potential in Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of India. Nagababu et al.

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

51 [11] estimated the available offshore wind power potential by utilizing fourteen years ERA-

52 Interim reanalysis wind data, bathymetry, and human impact on marine ecosystem. They found

53 that the available potential was sufficed ten times of the present electricity demand of India.

54 Gadad & Deka [12] estimated the Karnataka state offshore wind potential using 5 MW wind

PT
55 turbine (WT). They found that 162,170 MW potential is available in the study area. These

RI
56 studies estimated the only total available potential of the country solely based on technical and

57 spatial constraints. In Indian EEZ, studies to estimate economic potential are still inconclusive.

SC
58 Considering the environment, offshore wind energy produces low carbon emissions as

U
59 compared to other energy sources. Information on local environmental impacts is necessary for
AN
60 large-scale marine project implementation [13,14]. It can further develop pressure from multiple

61 anthropogenic activities. Impacts on the ecosystem will subsequently influence their services.
M

62 Ecosystem services provide benefits to humankind in multiple ways from marine ecosystems

63 such as supporting, provisioning, regulating, and cultural activities. [15–17]. One of the
D

64 outcomes of monitoring program implemented at Offshore Wind Park Egmond aan Zee (OWEZ)
TE

65 was that wind farm turned as a new kind of habitat. Further, the area usage by the fish, benthos

66 some bird species and marine mammals were increased [18]. Lillgrund wind farm surveillance
EP

67 studies revealed that no significant effects on fish diversity and abundance after the
C

68 establishment of the wind farm [14].

AC

69 Development activities of the offshore wind farm (OWF) such as transportation,

70 construction, and operational noise will have an impact on marine ecosystems [19]. The

71 construction of wind parks severely affects existing seabed habitats because hard pillar on a soft

72 seabed is introduced. The seabed that is covered by the turbine foundation, scour protection,

73 substations and power cables is directly impacted. However, the footprint of the area that is

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

74 directly impacted is less than the entire area of the OWF, and the strategic placement of turbines

75 and other structures can minimize the effects to benthic habitats or species [11,19,20]. During the

76 operational phase, impacts are variable locally. The impacts can be either negative or positive

77 depending on prevailing management along with biological condition [14,18,21].

PT
78 The majority of studies investigated the effect of an OWF on benthic species and

RI
79 observed negative impacts such as decrease in population, species richness, biodiversity,

80 functioning, abundance and community structure [15]. However, there are also positive

SC
81 environmental effects due to OWFs development. The location of WTs provide the possibility

U
82 for habitat creation considered as compensation for habitat loss [22]. There are limited numbers
AN
83 of studies available in the open literature to observe the effect of cumulative human impacts on

84 marine ecosystem. Therefore, there a need to develop and follow reliable integrated approach to
M

85 collect the various forms of ecosystem data, before and after the installation of OWF and to

86 quantify environmental impact assessment.

D

87 Capacity factor (CF) is a significant performance parameter for evaluation of the

TE

88 economic feasibility of wind farm. For feasible economic OWFs, CF should be more than 0.25
EP

89 due to the higher construction and maintenance costs compared to onshore [23]. GIS

90 methodology was extensively used for economic assessment of offshore wind resource [24,25].
C

91 It can help to describe resources, area restrictions, and costs in the spatially explicit way,
AC

92 including the relationship among location, project size, and costs. In general, OWF costs can

93 break down into variable and fixed components. Variable components are dependent on location,

94 typically the water depth either the distance from nearest port or grid connection point/shore

95 whereas fixed components are independent of geography. Economics of wind energy is

96 considered by high capital costs and low operational costs. Policy implications, as well as the

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

97 selection of economically viable plant sites, can be derived based on the levelized production

98 cost (LPC). Offshore wind power is a relatively new technology compared to its onshore

99 counterpart. Offshore wind CAPEX is higher than onshore due to complex installation of towers,

100 foundations, and underwater cabling. Expensive crane vessels are required in offshore to perform

PT
101 repair, which are 5-10 times costlier than onshore wind farms [26]. In Europe, onshore wind is

RI
102 50% cheaper than offshore wind [10]. This gap might expect to be larger in India due to its

103 nascent stage of development. However, to reduce CAPEX these challenges can be converted

SC
104 into opportunities through indigenous development of relevant technologies. However, the past

105 studies on offshore energy show the promising results of reduction in cost in long-term stable

106 prospects.
U
AN
107 To the authors’ knowledge, the present study for estimation of techno-economic offshore
M

108 wind energy potential along the Indian coast has been done first time using a comprehensive

109 GIS-based approach. GIS environment considers various parameters like WT characteristics,
D

110 wind resources, economic costs, and human impact on marine ecosystem for evaluating offshore
TE

111 wind potential in India. Further, the spatial distribution map of LPC is developed. Cost-supply

112 curves of offshore wind energy under different marine conditions are discussed. The influence of
EP

113 different parameters on LPC is discussed using sensitivity analysis. The present study aims to
C

114 give perceptible information for stakeholders and policy-makers about the offshore wind
AC

115 potential along the Indian coast under present technical, economic, and marine ecosystem

116 perspective and its possible future contribution to energy security.

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

117 2. Data and study area

118 2.1. Study area

119 India has 7600 km long seashore for the development of marine energy. Water depth is a key

PT
120 factor for identifying a suitable foundation technology. It also significantly affects the economics

121 of OWF when establishing the offshore foundation [27]. Gravity foundation technology was

RI
122 used in first generation OWFs and was used up to 15 m water depth. Monopile foundation

SC
123 technology is used up to 30 m water depth. Jacket and tripod foundations are commercially used

124 for greater depths up to 50 m. More than 50 m water depth floating foundation technologies are

U
125 currently being developed [5,11]. Hence, in the present study, the area having bathymetry depth
AN
126 less than 50 m in Indian EEZ was considered.

127 2.2. Data source

M

128 In the present study, monthly average ERA-Interim reanalysis data [28] at a spatial resolution of
D

129 0.125° (~12.5 km) is retrieved for 14 years (2001 – 2014) from latest ECMWF (European Centre
TE

130 for Medium-Range Weather Forecasting) global atmospheric reanalysis is used for generating

131 power density map. The reanalysis data is obtained at the height of 10 m above sea level.
EP

132 Bathymetric data is taken from the General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans (GEBCO)

133 [29], and human impacts on marine ecosystem data are taken from the National Centre for
C

134 Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) [30]. The spatial resolution of these data’s is
AC

135 approximately 1 km.

136 3. Methods

137 GIS software is used to evaluate technical and economic offshore wind potential. The main aim

138 of the GIS-based model is to display the spatial distribution of offshore wind resource and its

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

139 potential, LPC and the suitable locations for OWF development. The methodology implemented

140 for estimating the LPC is represented schematically in Fig.1.

141 3.1. Estimation of technical potential

PT
142 Technical potential of offshore wind energy is estimated using wind power density (WPD), WT

143 specifications, and a park configuration, which results in a wind energy potential map. The study

RI
144 area is filled with OWF capacity of 200 MW. OWF consists of 40 turbines with a capacity of 5

SC
145 MW each has been considered. From the study of Nagababu et al. [11], G128 WT exhibited

146 better output in Indian exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Hence, in the present study, Gamesa

U
147 G128-5 MW WT (G128 WT) [31] is considered to estimate the energy potential. The layout of
AN
148 each OWF is one of the important factors responsible for optimizing wind farm technology. The

149 wind turbines are spaced apart so turbines do not suffer fatigue due to turbulence induced in
M

150 turbine wakes and capture the maximum amount of energy. For the present case, all turbines are
D

151 configured in the 8x5 array, with downwind, and crosswind spacing factors are 10 and 5 rotor

diameters [11,32] respectively. In between neighbouring OWF, 20 km buffer is considered in

TE

152

153 order to reduce wake effects [10,24]. Based on wind farm size, array spacing and wake buffer
EP

154 result in an array density of turbines (DA) equal to 0.29 MW/km2.

155 Wind power assessment has been carried out at a hub height of 80 m. Hence, the ERA-
C

156 Interim winds (at 10 m) were extrapolated to required height (at 80 m) for estimation of wind
AC

157 power potential. For this purpose, log-law has been used which is given by

V ( z) ln(z / z o )
= (1)
V ( z ref ) ln(z ref / z o )

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

158 where V(z) is the wind speed at a required measurement height z, V(zref) represents the wind

159 speed at measured height zref and zo denotes the roughness length which varies according to the

160 type of terrain over which the wind flows. A power curve is required in order to estimate a

161 representative energy density of typical OWTs. A typical G128 WT power curve is presented in

PT
162 Fig.2. A mathematical relationship developed for G128 WT power curve is given by Eq. (2). In

RI
163 a power system with a number of wind turbines interconnected, smoothing effects are of

164 great importance for evaluating their output fluctuation. The variability of the wind speed can

SC
165 cause significant fluctuations in the power generated by large grid connected wind farms.

166 Smoothing effects largely depend on local topography as well as the meteorological conditions

167
U
of a region. In case of offshore, the local topography/surface roughness of water depends on the
AN
168 wave field, distance to coast (fetch), etc. For simplicity, constant sea surface roughness (zo =0.2

mm) [12,33,34] which is recommended for ocean surface and neutrally stable atmosphere are
M

169

170 assumed.
D


TE



0 Vi < 2

P =  − 0.2154Vi + 60.52Vi − 223.3Vi + 277 2 ≤ Vi ≤ 10
3 2
EP

(2)
13.06Vi 3 − 553.1Vi 2 + 7896Vi − 32860 10 < Vi ≤ 13

5000 13 < Vi ≤ 16.5

C

1.199Vi − 83.86Vi + 1739Vi − 6223 16.5 < Vi ≤ 27

3 2
AC

171 Wind energy potential Ed (MWh/y) is estimated by multiplying electric power generation

172 with 8670 hours. Furthermore, wind turbine cannot operate in wind speeds above a certain limit

173 and it requires scheduled maintenance, unplanned shutdowns maintenance etc. which counts

174 against its availability coefficient. The availability coefficient (CA) and wake loss rate (Lw) are

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

175 assumed as 95% [12,32,35] and 10% [12,32] respectively in the present study. Energy potential

176 per unit marine area E (MWh/km2/y) within the study area is estimated based on Eq. (3) [10]:

DA × (1 − Lw ) × CA × Ed
E= (3)
Y

PT
177 where DA is the array density of turbines (MW/km2), LW is the wake loss rate, CA is the

RI
178 availability coefficient of turbines, and Y is the capacity of individual WT (MW).

SC
179 3.2. Estimation of economic potential

180 3.2.1. Estimation of levelized production cost

181
U
The levelized production cost is a useful economic metric for comparing the cost of different
AN
182 generation types, measured in terms of cost per unit energy output (€/MWh) [36]. LPC is the

183 minimum cost of one unit of electricity (MWh) produced by OWF averaged throughout the
M

184 useful life span which is estimated based on Eq. (4) [24].
D

C I C OM
LPC = + (4)
TE

aE E

185 where CI is the total investment cost per unit marine area (including cost of turbine, grid
EP

186 connection, turbine foundation and installation costs) in €/km2, COM is the annual operation and

187 maintenance cost per unit marine area in €/km2/y and a is the annuity factor as given by Eq. (5)
C

188 [24].
AC

1 − (1 + r ) − n
a= , (5)
r

189 Where n is wind farm life span in years and r is the interest rate. The following assumptions are

190 adopted in the base case calculations of LPC as under:

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

191 • Cost parameters include investment costs, operation, and maintenance costs. Further,

192 investments comprise of costs incurred for foundations, grid connections as well as

193 turbine costs and other costs.

194 • Twenty years of technical and economic lifetime (n) is assumed [10,24,25].

PT
195 • 12% annual discount rate (r) is adopted [37].

RI
196 For any energy source, the cost of generating electricity depends on several parameters including

SC
197 capital investment, fuel cost, O&M costs, financing cost, the overall efficiency, and operational

198 life of the plant. In the case of wind farms, the fuel cost is eliminated. Consequently, once the

U
199 wind farm is up and running, the energy cost is mostly fixed and is slightly affected by the
AN
200 recession.

201 3.2.2. Estimation of cost parameters

M

202 When working with LPC, it is important to realise that difficulty to obtain precise costs for
D

203 individual existing or planned wind farms due to commercial sensitivities. The cost function of
TE

204 several parameters like turbine cost, foundation cost, electrical grid connection cost, and O&M

205 cost has been derived from various sources available in open literature. Total investment cost
EP

206 equal to the summation of the capital cost of each item, calculated as suggested by Hong and

207 Möller [10], Dicorato et al. [38], and Möller et al. [24].
C
AC

CI = CWT + Cf + CE + Other costs (6)

208 a. Turbine cost

209 Turbine cost for rated capacities of WT in the range of 2 – 5 MW is obtained from Eq. (7) which

210 is derived based on existing projects as reported in [39].

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

C WT = 2 .95 × 10 6 × ln( PWT ) − 375200 (7)

211 where PWT is the rated capacity of each WT and CWT is the turbine cost in €. An increase of 10%

212 of the commercial WT cost is assumed for installation and transportation cost[38].

PT
213 b. Foundation cost

The present turbine foundation technology has some technical issues like unpractical for deep

RI
214

215 waters and high installation costs. Hence, only the area having bathymetry depth less than 50 m

SC
216 in Indian EEZ is considered in the current study. A cost function for foundation cost has been

217 derived from different sources [24,40,41] and expressed in terms of water depth as a linear

218
U
function. Foundation cost consists of manufacturing cost, estimated by Eq. (8) [24]
AN
Cf = −14557× d + 270667 (8)
M

219 where d is water depth, and Cf is foundation cost in €/MW. An increase of 50% of foundation

220 cost Cf is assumed for installation and transportation cost [5,38].

D

c. Electrical cost
TE

221

222 There are two main technologies to transmit power to the grid onshore i.e., alternating current
EP

223 (AC) and direct current (DC). Currently, high voltage AC (HVAC) cables are used to link

224 turbines to an offshore substation, with power clean up at each turbine. The AC topology is
C

225 dominant technology for offshore wind transmission as it is a cost effective solution for near
AC

226 shore generation [42]. Traditionally, HVAC has been the technology of choice due to its existing

227 large-scale developments and low development risks in comparison with a more recent

228 technology such as HVDC. Most of the wind farms are located within the 20-60 km from shore.

229 As development of offshore wind moves further offshore with longer cables, HVDC becomes a

230 viable alternative due to the lower energy losses. While HVDC transmission line costs less than

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

231 an AC line for the same transmission capacity, the terminal stations are more expensive because

232 they must perform the conversion from AC to DC and back again. For offshore wind farms, the

233 generated power may be transmitted by conventional AC technologies or HVDC technologies

234 depending on the distance to shore [25]. The present study area contains water depth less than 50

PT
235 m and maximum distance is 60 km from shore. Electrical costs are estimated using the shortest

RI
236 distance between OWF and access point of high voltage (HV) grid on land. In order to connect

237 the OWF and HV grid, it requires two types of cables that are land cables and subsea cables. In

SC
238 the present study, the shortest distance to the grid cell of each site from the coastline was

239 considered as subsea cable length, and shortest distance to the coastline from the HV grid was

240
U
considered as land cable length [5,10,38]. A cost function for the electrical cost has been derived
AN
241 from different sources [24,40,41] and expressed in terms of shortest subsea distance to coast and

shortest land distance to coast and is given by

M

242

( 0 .38 d s + 0 .4 d l + 76 . 6 ) × 10 6
CE =
D

(9)
200
TE

243 where CE is electrical cost in €/MW, ds is the shortest subsea distance to coast in km and dl is the

244 shortest land distance to coast in km.

EP

245 d. Operation and maintenance Cost

C

246 O&M costs are assumed highly depends on distance to harbour. Short distance from harbours of
AC

247 adequate tonnage capacity to OWF is essential during installation as well as operation and

248 maintenance. The cost function used is based on [41] and expressed in terms of distance to

249 harbour as:

COM = 0.29d p + 159d p + 50415

2
(10)

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

250 where COM is operation and maintenance cost in €/MW, dp is the shortest distance from service

251 port or harbour in km. The labour force in developing countries like India and China is cheaper

252 as compared to European countries. In the case of China, Hong and Möller [10] considered 40%

253 cheaper. Hence, the same value is assumed for Indian scenario.

PT
254 e. Other Costs

RI
255 As per the reports, around 90% of the total investment cost is shared by turbine cost, foundation

SC
256 cost, electrical cost, and their installation costs. Whereas the share of other costs is not more than

257 10% as discussed in reports [1,10,40,43]. Hence, in the present study, 10% of investment cost

U
258 was considered as other costs.
AN
259 3.2.3. Estimation of ocean conditions
M

260 OWF development requires a spatial data of current effects on marine ecosystem. A global

261 human impact on marine ecosystem map was developed by Halpern et al. [44] by considering
D

262 seventeen anthropogenic stressors (Di) and twenty marine ecosystem types (Ej). The outline for
TE

263 estimating cumulative impact score (I c ) was described in Halpern et al. [44]. Concisely, the

264 cumulative impact model requires spatial distribution map of marine ecosystems, the spatial
EP

265 distribution of human stressors intensity and ecosystem by stressor vulnerability scores that

essentially act as spatial weighting factors. The impact score (I c ) was calculated for each pixel
C

266
AC

267 as [44]

n
1 m
Ic = ∑ ∑ Di ∗ E j ∗ µij (11)
i =1 m j =1

268 where µij is the impact weight for anthropogenic driver i and the ecosystem j, and 1/m produces

269 an average impact score across ecosystem. They classified the whole region into six ocean

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

270 conditions based on cumulative impact score and presented in Table 1. Human impact on marine

271 ecosystem data has been processed over study area and presented in Fig. 3. Six classified ocean

272 conditions will helpful for identifying the regions that are highly impacted or pristine and also

273 for the spatial planning process, biodiversity conversation, and threat mitigation.

PT
274 3.2.4. GIS and spatial interpolation

RI
275 GIS software has been used to create a spatial model of associated LPC. Ordinary kriging with a

SC
276 spherical variogram is an interpolation method applied to wind speed data. Interpolating the

277 point data provides homogeneous data density over the study area enabling continuous spatial

U
278 analysis. A continuous spatial function for total investment and O&M cost can be calculated,
AN
279 similar to wind speed. For every grid point, sea depth and relevant distances to infrastructures

280 (coastline, ports, and substation) can be calculated in Arc GIS software.
M

281 4. Results and discussion

D

282 This section presents the results of the technical and economic potential of offshore wind for the
TE

283 two study areas classified as the eastern coast (EC) and western coast (WC) of India. First,

284 estimated available offshore wind technical potential based on methodology explained in the
EP

285 Subsection 3.1 and LPC calculations followed by estimation of the economic potential based on

286 methodology explained in the Subsection 3.2. Further, developed cost-supply curves drawn to
C

287 show the variation of costs with the effective potential. Finally, the impact of different
AC

288 parameters on LPC is discussed using sensitivity analysis.

289

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

290 4.1. Technical Potential

291 The extrapolated ERA-Interim wind speeds are used to develop the spatially interpolated map

292 with a spatial resolution of one square kilometre using the Kriging technique. WPD is

PT
293 independent of turbine characteristics. It is useful to estimate the accessible wind resource at a

294 specific location. Theoretical WPD over WC and EC of India, at 80 m height and 50 m water

RI
295 depth is shown in Fig. 4. According to Fig. 4(a), average WPD varies between 13 – 294 W/m2

296 over the WC of India. Similarly, over the EC of India (Fig. 4(b)), the WPD varies between

SC
297 63−393 W/m2. Good wind resources (WPD> 200 W/m2) are distributed predominately in the

southern part of EC (Tamil Nadu) and north region of the WC (Gujarat). On the other hand, the

U
298 AN
299 southern part of the WC and northern part of the EC are having relatively poor and average wind

300 resources.
M

301 The efficient turbine rotor can affect the actual wind power production. For calculating
D

302 wind energy potential, it is essential to combine wind speed with a specific type of OWT. Wind

energy potential (E) is estimated by using Eq. (3) and presented in Fig. 5, which describe the
TE

303

304 spatial distribution of annual wind energy potential per unit marine area in MWh for the WC and
EP

305 the EC of India respectively. The annual wind energy potential in the WC and the EC are in the

306 range of 54 – 823 MWh/km2 and 107 − 1117 MWh/km2 respectively. Average wind energy
C

307 potential map shows the trend similar to power density map. From Fig. 5, it can be observed that
AC

308 top region of the WC of India (Gujarat) and bottom region of the EC of India (Tamil Nadu) in

309 particular have considerable potential for wind power development. Table 2 shows the available

310 technical offshore wind energy potential in different water depth ranges. From Table 2, it can be

311 observed that 65% of technical potential is available over 0 – 30 m of shallow waters. Further,

312 60% of potential is observed in the WC of India. If 5 MW WTs installed in water depth up to 50

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

313 m along the Indian coast, then the annual energy yield from wind energy is to be 97 TWh or

314 11.07 GW. The Indian renewable energy sector is sharing 86 GW (including large hydro) out of

315 total power generation of 302 GW. Onshore wind energy has an installed capacity of 26.7 GW as

316 of April 2016 (Central Electricity Authority from the Government of India, 2016). It is nearly

PT
317 equal to 12.8% and 42% of the existing RE and wind power capacity in India.

RI
318 4.2. Economic Potential

SC
319 Fig.6 shows the spatial distribution of LPC over the WC and the EC of India. The feed-in tariff

320 (FIT) system successfully implemented to promote offshore wind energy with some variations in

U
321 European countries such as Denmark, Spain and Germany [40]. In India, the FIT system
AN
322 implemented for RE sources (solar photovoltaic, solar thermal and onshore wind) but there is no

323 specific policy exists with appropriate FIT related to offshore wind energy. The FIT per kWh for
M

324 RE sources in India varies from INR 3.51 (0.0468 €) to 17.91 (0.238 €) [45]. If the calculated
D

325 LPC of a grid cell is lower than the currently guaranteed FIT, it is economically viable for an

investor to install a WT. LPC of offshore wind is highly influenced by water depth and wind
TE

326

327 resources. Accessible offshore wind energy’s economic potential in various FIT standards in the
EP

328 study areas are presented in Table 3.

329 Minimum LPC calculated for the WC is 123 €/MWh. Further, minimum average LPC for
C

330 the EC of India ranges from 82 to 120 €/MWh. Regions locate in the 0 – 50 m waters of the
AC

331 southern part of Tamil Nadu is a least cost area (<120 €/MWh) for developing OWFs. In this

332 cost category, the available potential is 3.5 TWh, which is approximately 4% of the technical

333 potential of Indian EEZ for 50 m depth of water. The cost of energy between 120 to 200 €/MWh

334 are mostly found within 0 – 30 m waters of the southern part of Tamil Nadu and West Bengal,

335 and 0 – 50 m waters of Gujarat. The available energy in this cost range is 39 TWh, about 40%

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

336 of available energy using present foundation technology. Out of that, 64% of energy is available

337 in WC of India. About 20% of accessible energy, costs in between 200 to 240 €/MWh, which is

338 20 TWh. The cost of energy more than 280 €/MWh is considered as a most expensive energy,

339 located in the southern part of WC (Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala) and some parts in the

PT
340 EC (Andhra Pradesh, Odisha). The estimated potential in this cost category is 21 TWh (20% of

RI
341 available energy).

342 Estimated economical potential signifies the spatial potential that can be identified below

SC
343 FIT in the light of expected future cost of energy plus internal rate of return (IRR). Onshore wind

U
344 energy in India has attractive IRR (16.5 − 18% range) because of encouraging state government
AN
345 policies, including a favourable FIT [46]. IRR of 18% is assumed in the present calculations. The

346 economic potential for a 5 MW WT in the EC of India grows nearly 211% as FIT rises from 120
M

347 to 160 €/MWh. Further increase of FIT, the potential falls to 86%, 107%, 89% respectively for

348 FIT increase from 160 to 200 €/MWh, 200 to 240 €/MWh and 240 to 280 €/MWh. Along WC of
D

349 India economic potential for the selected WT grows nearly 225% as FIT rises from 160 to 200
TE

350 €/MWh. Further increase of FIT, economic potential falls to 76% and 48% respectively for FIT

351 increase from 200 to 240 €/MWh and 240 to 280 €/MWh. Offshore wind energy development
EP

352 would be prohibitive when FIT reaches to 280 €/MWh.

C

353 Cost-supply curves represent the costs variation with the utilized potential. Marginal
AC

354 production cost plays an important role in the economic theory that proves a competitive market

355 is efficient. The marginal production cost is defined as the cost of generating an additional unit

356 of energy, over and above the fixed costs associated with the initial investment and operation

357 [47]. Fig. 7 shows the marginal production cost of cumulative power production curve, to

358 compare the WC and EC of India. It can be concluded that EC has a lower marginal production

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

359 cost of wind energy than WC of India up to a break-even at 13 TWh/year is achieved. The

360 steeper trend suggests that cost variation is more sensitive in the EC while comparing with the

361 WC of India. The economic potential shows the rate of growth as FIT rises to 160 €/MWh and

362 200 €/MWh respectively in the EC and the WC. Further, the average value for the rate of growth

PT
363 of potential in the EC and the WC of India are 83% and 98% respectively.

RI
364 Indian coastline contains an abundant variety of ecosystems for example beach,

365 mangrove, coral reef, estuary, island, coastal wetland, etc. Erecting OWTs will affect the ocean

SC
366 condition. Marginal production costs of different ocean condition in the WC and the EC of India

U
367 are reflected in Fig. 8, which can help policy makers to have relative priorities for erecting
AN
368 OWTs. Fig. 8(a) shows that very low, very high, and high impact zones are more sensitive to

369 variations in cost for the WC region. Further, in the WC of India, the maximum available energy
M

370 which costs less than 280 €/MWh are mainly located within low impact region (17.07 TWh),

371 followed by medium high impact region (12.27 TWh). Moreover, the rate of growth of economic
D

372 potential increases as FIT increase up to 200 €/MWh in these ocean conditions, further increase
TE

373 of FIT slows down the rate of growth of potential in the WC of India. The average rate of growth

374 in all ocean conditions is different. FIT increases from 0 to 280 €/MWh, on an average the rate of
EP

375 growth in medium-high impact region by 210%. Further, in the high, medium, and low impact
C

376 regions have an average rate of growth of 141%, 127% and 61% respectively. However, the total
AC

377 potential available in low impact region is high compared to high and medium impact regions.

378 From Fig. 8(b), it can be observed that very low, very high, medium, and high zones are

379 more sensitive to cost variations in the EC of India. Further, in the EC, the maximum available

380 energy which costs less than 280 €/MWh are mainly located within low impact region (11.54

381 TWh), followed by medium-high impact region (7.36 TWh). Moreover, the rate of growth of

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

382 economic potential rises with FIT up to 160 €/MWh in all ocean conditions, further rise of FIT

383 slows down the rate of growth of potential in the EC. The rate of growth of potential in low

384 impact regions slow down as FIT increase up to 280 €/MWh. On an average, the growth rate as

385 FIT increases from 0 to 280 €/MWh in low impact region is 195%, followed by medium impact

PT
386 region with 101%. However, the total potential available in medium high impact region is 1.5

RI
387 times higher than medium impact region. The present study shows that offshore wind power

388 generation is highly sensitive to investment cost and wind energy potential. Sensitivity analyses,

SC
389 therefore, has been carried out and described in next section.

U
390 4.3. Sensitivity analysis
AN
391 Investment costs of OWF are more sensitive due to demand, higher commodity prices or

392 expectations to profit. The cost of offshore wind power generation increases with increase in
M

393 investment cost and decrease in wind energy potential. In order to understand the how effectively
D

394 individual parameter influences the LPC result, this section discusses the results of sensitivity

analysis. Table 4 shows the sensitivity ranges of cost parameter applied to test base case model.
TE

395

396 The variation of each parameter is shown in Fig. 9.

EP

397 For the offshore wind LPC across different water depth regions, the sensitivity analysis

398 has been performed along the WC of India and is depicted in the Fig. 9(a). The averaged LPC in
C

399 0 – 30 m and 30 – 50 m water depth regions over the study area are evaluated 308 and 334
AC

400 €/MWh respectively. The increase of availability, annual energy production (AEP), and lifetime

401 parameters showed a reduction in resulting LPC. Similarly, increase in investment cost and

402 interest rate showed an increase in LPC. The parameters such as investment cost, availability,

403 and annual energy production exhibited similar variations of LPC of about 14 and 16 €/MWh in

404 0 – 30 m and 30 – 50 m water depth ranges across the WC of India. LPC is more sensitive to

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

405 interest rate. The variation of 2% (increase or decrease) of interest rate ensuing a change of 35

406 and 39 €/MWh for 0 – 30 m and 30 – 50 m water depth ranges respectively. A lifetime of WT is

407 restricted to 15 years, adding 28 €/MWh and 30 €/MWh respectively for 0 – 30 m and 30 – 50 m

408 water depth to LPC. Similarly, the lifetime of WT extended to 25 years give the benefit of 14 and

PT
409 15 €/MWh in 0 – 30 m and 30 – 50 m water depth ranges respectively. Thus, shorter life span is

RI
410 more sensitive as compared to extended one for the same duration. AEP has a greater effect on

411 the LPC. In India, the high LPC value is in the 30 – 50 m water depth region when compared

SC
412 with that of 0 – 30 m water depth region, due to large percentage of locations being near the

413 coast with greater wind speeds.

U
AN
414 For the offshore wind LPC across different water depth regions, the sensitivity analysis

415 has been performed along the EC of India and is depicted in the Fig. 9(b). The averaged LPC in
M

416 0 – 30 m and 30 – 50 m water depth over the study area are evaluated 231 and 262 €/MWh

417 respectively. With increase or decrease of 2% interest rate ensuing in a change of 27 and 31
D

418 €/MWh for 0 – 30 m and 30 – 50 m water depth ranges respectively. A lifetime of WT restrict to
TE

419 15 years, adding 21 and 24 €/MWh to the LPC for 0 – 30 m and 30 – 50 m water depth ranges

respectively. A lifetime of WT extended to 25 years gave a smaller benefit of 10 and 12 €/MWh

EP

420

421 in 0 – 30 m and 30 – 50 m water depth ranges.

C

422 In the wind energy sector, the details of the cost are limited and to forecast the
AC

423 advancements related to future technologies is difficult. Some of the possible ways of cost

424 reduction may include foundation types being standardised and high-voltage direct current

425 (HVDC) development. HVDC can also reduce long distance transmission losses. Installation

426 cost can be further reduced by increasing power rating and size of turbine. Overall, the cost of

427 offshore wind energy technologies can be expected to reduce along with a learning curve as

21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

428 more units are installed and manufactured. An efficient and optimised use of the natural

429 resources of marine energy can help their development in sustainable manner [48]. The

430 advantages of combine wave and offshore wind energy are not only the cost reductions that

431 would ensue but also the synergies between these technologies. Present analysis and maps can be

PT
432 helpful for identification of best suitable regions for initiating OWF development in terms of

RI
433 technical, economic and environment considerations and policy implications along the coast of

434 India.

SC
435 5. Conclusions

U
436 A GIS-based model is used for assessment of offshore wind resource and their potentials, and
AN
437 costs. It can be helpful to estimates the energy potential, levelized production cost and the

438 availability of a selected area in a spatially continuous and grid cell by grid cell manner by using
M

439 the wind data, technology parameters and their costs. Further, the spatial distribution of wind
D

440 speed, WPD, energy production and LPC maps have been developed up to 50 m water depth

along the western and the eastern coast of India. The present analysis and maps can help for
TE

441

442 initiating OWF and policy reform. The following conclusions are drawn from the results:
EP

443 • WPD ranges for the western coast and eastern coast of India are 13 – 294 W/m2 and

444 63−393 W/m2 respectively. The southern part of the eastern coast of India (Tamil Nadu)
C

445 and the northern part of the western coast of the India (Gujarat) are identified as potential
AC

446 regions.

447 • The annual wind energy potential in the WC and the EC are in the range of 54 – 823

448 MWh/km2 and 107 − 1117 MWh/km2 respectively.

22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

449 • The estimated offshore wind energy’s technical potential is 38.7 TWh and 58.4 TWh in

450 the coasts of east and west India respectively. The total potential is nearly equal to 12.8%

451 and 42% respectively of the existing RE and wind power capacity in India.

452 • Approximately 40% of the technical potential of offshore wind up to water depth 50 m

PT
453 would be economically competitive with the existing RE sources under the FIT of 200

RI
454 €/MWh in the west and the east coast of India.

455 • The present study identifies the shallow waters of Gujarat and Tamil Nadu states as best

SC
456 suitable regions for offshore wind development in terms of wind resources and economic

457 costs.

458 •
U
Wind energy in the EC has the lower marginal cost of production than WC of India up to
AN
459 a break-even at 13 TWh/year.
M

460 • Very low, very high, and high impact zones are high sensitive to cost variations in the

461 western and the eastern coast regions.

D

462 • The average energy cost in water depth regions of 0 – 30 m and 30 – 50 m, over the east
TE

463 coast of India are 231 and 262 €/MWh and over the west coast of India are 308 and 334

464 €/MWh respectively.

EP

465 • Sensitivity analysis shows that the interest rate is an important and influential parameter

in calculating the LPC. Further, the lifetime of WT is relatively less influential to LPC.
C

466
AC

467 References

468 [1] Snyder B, Kaiser MJ. Ecological and economic cost-benefit analysis of offshore wind

469 energy. Renew Energy 2009;34:1567–78. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2008.11.015.

470 [2] Bhaskar U. India’s per capita electricity consumption touches 1010 kWh. Livemint 2015.

23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

471 [3] Government of India. India’s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution: working

472 towards climate justice 2015:1–27.

473 [4] Energy Next. India forms offshore wind energy panel. Energy Next 2012.

PT
474 http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%257CA290790302&v=2.1&u=usaskmain&it=

475 r&p=ITOF&sw=w&asid=fae40d7044f8ebe58dc12eca832f8077 (accessed September 26,

RI
476 2015).

SC
477 [5] Kim J-Y, Oh K-Y, Kang K-S, Lee J-S. Site selection of offshore wind farms around the

478 Korean Peninsula through economic evaluation. Renew Energy 2012;54:189–95.

479 doi:10.1016/j.renene.2012.08.026.
U
AN
480 [6] Salvação N, Bernardino M, Soares CG. Assessing the offshore wind energy potential
M

481 along the coasts of Portugal and Galicia 2014:995–1002.

D

482 [7] Waewsak J, Landry M, Gagnon Y. Offshore wind power potential of the Gulf of Thailand.
TE

483 Renew Energy 2015;81:609–26. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2015.03.069.

484 [8] Dvorak MJ, Archer CL, Jacobson MZ. California offshore wind energy potential. Renew
EP

485 Energy 2010;35:1244–54. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2009.11.022.

C

486 [9] Pimenta F, Kempton W, Garvine R. Combining meteorological stations and satellite data
AC

487 to evaluate the offshore wind power resource of Southeastern Brazil. Renew Energy

488 2008;33:2375–87. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2008.01.012.

489 [10] Hong L, Möller B. Offshore wind energy potential in China: Under technical, spatial and

490 economic constraints. Energy 2011;36:4482–91. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2011.03.071.

24
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

491 [11] Nagababu G, Kachhwaha SS, Naidu NK, Savsani V. Application of reanalysis data to

492 estimate offshore wind potential in EEZ of India based on marine ecosystem

493 considerations. Energy 2017;118:622–31. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2016.10.097.

PT
494 [12] Gadad S, Deka PC. Offshore wind power resource assessment using Oceansat-2

495 scatterometer data at a regional scale. Appl Energy 2016;176:157–70.

RI
496 doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.05.046.

SC
497 [13] Inger R, Attrill MJ, Bearhop S, Broderick AC, James Grecian W, Hodgson DJ, et al.

498 Marine renewable energy: Potential benefits to biodiversity? An urgent call for research. J

499
U
Appl Ecol 2009;46:1145–53. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01697.x.
AN
500 [14] Bergström L, Sundqvist F, Bergström U. Effects of an offshore wind farm on temporal
M

501 and spatial patterns in the demersal fish community. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 2013;485:199–

502 210. doi:10.3354/meps10344.

D
TE

503 [15] Papathanasopoulou E, Beaumont N, Hooper T, Nunes J, Queirós AM. Energy systems and

504 their impacts on marine ecosystem services. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;52:917–26.
EP

505 doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.150.

506 [16] Duraiappah AK, Naeem S, Agardy T, Ash NJ, Cooper HD, Díaz S, et al. Ecosystems and
C

507 human well-being: Synthesis. vol. 5. 2005. doi:10.1196/annals.1439.003.

AC

508 [17] Halpern BS, Frazier M, Potapenko J, Casey KS, Koenig K, Longo C, et al. Spatial and

509 temporal changes in cumulative human impacts on the world’s ocean. Nat Commun

510 2015;6:7615. doi:10.1038/ncomms8615.

25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

511 [18] Lindeboom HJ, Kouwenhoven HJ, Bergman MJN, Bouma S, Brasseur S, Daan R, et al.

512 Short-term ecological effects of an offshore wind farm in the Dutch coastal zone; a

513 compilation. Environ Res Lett 2011;6:35101. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/3/035101.

PT
514 [19] Bailey H, Brookes KL, Thompson PM. Assessing environmental impacts of offshore wind

515 farms: lessons learned and recommendations for the future. Aquat Biosyst 2014;10:8.

RI
516 doi:10.1186/2046-9063-10-8.

SC
517 [20] OSPAR Commission. Assessment of the environmental impact of offshore wind-farms.

518 OSPAR Comm Biodivers Ser 2008:14–5.

U
AN
519 [21] Gill AB, Thomsen F. Effects of offshore Wind Farms on Marine Mammals and Fish – The

520 European Experience n.d.:55.

M

521 [22] Wilson JC, Elliott M. The habitat-creation potential of offshore wind farms. Wind Energy
D

522 2009;12:203–12. doi:10.1002/we.324.

TE

523 [23] Yamaguchi A, Ishihara T. Assessment of offshore wind energy potential using mesoscale

524 model and geographic information system. Renew Energy 2014;69:506–15.

EP

525 doi:10.1016/j.renene.2014.02.024.
C

526 [24] Möller B, Hong L, Lonsing R, Hvelplund F. Evaluation of offshore wind resources by
AC

527 scale of development. Energy 2012;48:314–22. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2012.01.029.

528 [25] Cavazzi S, Dutton AG. An Offshore Wind Energy Geographic Information System

529 (OWE-GIS) for assessment of the UK’s offshore wind energy potential. Renew Energy

530 2016;87:212–28. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2015.09.021.

26
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

531 [26] Da Z, Xiliang Z, Jiankun H, Qimin C. Offshore wind energy development in China:

532 Current status and future perspective. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:4673–84.

533 doi:10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.084.

PT
534 [27] European Wind Energy Association. Deep water - The next step for offshore wind energy.

535 2013.

RI
536 [28] Dee DP, Uppala SM, Simmons AJ, Berrisford P, Poli P, Kobayashi S, et al. The ERA-

SC
537 Interim reanalysis: Configuration and performance of the data assimilation system. Q J R

538 Meteorol Soc 2011;137:553–97. doi:10.1002/qj.828.

U
AN
539 [29] Becker JJ, Sandwell DT, Smith WHF, Braud J, Binder B, Depner J, et al. Global

540 Bathymetry and Elevation Data at 30 Arc Seconds Resolution: SRTM30_PLUS. Mar
M

541 Geod 2009;32:355–71. doi:10.1080/01490410903297766.

D

542 [30] Halpern BS, Walbridge S, Selkoe KA, Kappel C V., Micheli F, D’Agrosa C, et al. A
TE

543 Global Map of Human Impact on. Science (80- ) 2008;319:948–53.

544 doi:10.1126/science.1149345.
EP

545 [31] Gamesa. Gamesa 5.0 MW. 2014.

C

546 [32] Sheridan B, Baker SD, Pearre NS, Firestone J, Kempton W. Calculating the offshore wind
AC

547 power resource: Robust assessment methods applied to the U.S. Atlantic Coast. Renew

548 Energy 2012;43:224–33. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2011.11.029.

549 [33] Bañuelos-Ruedas F, Camacho CÁ, Rios-Marcuello S. Methodologies Used in the

550 Extrapolation of Wind Speed Data at Different Heights and Its Impact in the Wind Energy

27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

551 Resource Assessment in a Region. In: Suvire GO, editor. Wind Farm - Tech. Regul.

552 Potential Estim. Siting Assess., InTech; 2011.

553 [34] Onea F, Rusu E. Wind energy assessments along the Black Sea basin. Meteorol Appl

PT
554 2014;21:316–29. doi:10.1002/met.1337.

RI
555 [35] Wu J, Wang J, Chi D. Wind energy potential assessment for the site of Inner Mongolia in

556 China. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;21:215–28. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2012.12.060.

SC
557 [36] Hdidouan D, Staffell I. The impact of climate change on the levelised cost of wind energy.

U
558 Renew Energy 2017;101:575–92. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2016.09.003.
AN
559 [37] Mani S, Dhingra T. Offshore wind energy policy for India-Key factors to be considered.

560 Energy Policy 2013;56:672–83. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.01.031.

M

561 [38] Dicorato M, Forte G, Pisani M, Trovato M. Guidelines for assessment of investment cost
D

562 for offshore wind generation. Renew Energy 2011;36:2043–51.

TE

563 doi:10.1016/j.renene.2011.01.003.
EP

564 [39] Offshore Design Engineering Limited O. Study of the costs of offshore wind generation:

565 A Report to the Renewables Advisory Board & DTI. 2007.

C

566 [40] Prässler T, Schaechtele J. Comparison of the financial attractiveness among prospective
AC

567 offshore wind parks in selected European countries. Energy Policy 2012;45:86–101.

568 doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.01.062.

569 [41] Jacquemin J, Butterworth D, Garret C, Baldock N, Henderson A. Inventory of location

570 specific wind energy cost. Garrad Hassan Partners … 2011:58.

28
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

571 [42] LCICG. Carbon Innovation Coordination Group Technology Innovation Needs

572 Assessment ( TINA ) Marine Energy Summary Report. Energy 2012.

573 [43] Blanco MI. The economics of wind energy. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:1372–82.

PT
574 doi:10.1016/j.rser.2008.09.004.

RI
575 [44] Halpern BS, Walbridge S, Selkoe KA, Kappel C V., Micheli F, D’Agrosa C, et al. A

576 global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 2008;319:948–52.

SC
577 doi:10.1126/science.1149345.

U
578 [45] Indian renewable energy and energy efficiency policy database I. IREEED Summary sheet
AN
579 2015.

580 [46] Gupta M, Chandrasekhar S, Sanyal S, Mathur R. A white paper on India solar and wind
M

581 energy by CRISIL & PHD Chamber: Innovative financing key to growth and credit issues.
D

582 2015.
TE

583 [47] Lai CS, Mcculloch MD. Levelized Cost of Energy for PV and Grid Scale Energy Storage

584 Systems. Manuscr Sumbitted Publ 2016:1–11.

EP

585 [48] Perez-Collazo C, Greaves D, Iglesias G. A review of combined wave and offshore wind
C

586 energy. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;42:141–53. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2014.09.032.

AC

587

29
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 1 Classification of ocean condition categories and the range of cumulative impact score associated with

each category

Ocean Condition Cumulative impact score (Ic)

Very high impact >15.52

High impact 12 - 15.52
Medium high impact 8.47 - 12

PT
Medium impact 4.95 - 8.47
Low impact 1.42 -4.95

RI
Very low impact < 1.42

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 2 Available technical potential (TWh) in different sea depths

Water depth (m)

Zone
0-30 m 30-50 m Total

Eastern Coast 28.4 10.3 38.7

PT
Western Coast 34.9 23.5 58.4

Total 63.3 33.7 97

RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 3 Economic potential of offshore wind (TWh) under different FIT standards

Zone 120 €/MWh 160 €/MWh 200 €/MWh 240 €/MWh 280 €/MWh >280 €/MWh

Eastern coast 3.5 7.4 6.4 6.9 6.2 7.6

Western coast 0 7.6 17.1 13.1 6.4 13.9

PT
Total 3.5 15.0 23.5 20.0 12.7 21.5

RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 4 Cost sensitivity ranges

Parameter Sensitivity range

Interest rate (%) ±2%

Lifetime of the wind farm (years) ±5

Availability (CA) ±5%

PT
Investment cost (CI) ±5%

Annual energy production (E) ±5%

RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Wind speed
Bathymetry up to
Wind farm capacity (10 m height) Substations
50 m

Wind speed log-law

(80 m height) Foundation cost Grid cost

PT
Array density of 5 MW
Wind energy Turbine
array turbines
potential
spacin (20 km buffer)
Turbine

RI
Investment cost cost,

Wind energy Wake

SC
potential per ocean effect &
area

U
O&M cost
AN
LPC
annutiy
factor
M

Fig. 1 Methodology developed for the present study

D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
6000

5000

4000
Power (kW)

3000

PT
2000

RI
1000

SC
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Wind Speed (m/s)

U
Gamesa G128-5.0 MW
AN
Fig. 2 Turbine power curve for Gamesa G 128-5.0 MW
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

(a) (b)
Fig.3 Classification of Indian EEZ based on cumulative human impact (various ocean conditions) on marine ecosystem (a) the western coast of India, and (b) the eastern
coast of India. The red colours show areas of potential impact of anthropogenic pressures; the higher the number the greater the impact. The map is constituted of seventeen
anthropogenic stressors on twenty marine ecosystem types.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

(a) (b)

Fig. 4 Spatial distribution of wind power density over study area in W/m2 (a) the western coast of India, and (b) the eastern coast of India. A high value illustrated by blue
colours, indicates that there is high wind speeds exists. A low value is illustrated by red colour, indicates the presence of low wind speed zones.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

(a) (b)
2
Fig. 5 Energy potential over study area in MWh/km /year (a) the western coast of India, and (b) the eastern coast of India.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

(a) (b)
Fig. 6 LPC distribution over study area (a) the western coast of India, and (b) the eastern coast of India. A high value illustrated by blue colours, indicates that there are low
wind speeds and high investment cost exists. A low value is illustrated by red colour, indicates the presence of high wind speeds with low investment cost zones.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
360
Marginal levelized production costs (€/MWh)
320
280
240
200
160

PT
120
80
40

RI
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

SC
Cumulative wind power production capacity (TWh)

Eastern coast of India Western coast of India

U
Fig. 7 Cost supply curves for eastern coast of India and western cost of India, base case assumptions.
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Western coast of India

360
Marginal levelized production costs (€/MWh)

320

280

PT
Very high
240
High
Medium high

RI
200
Medium
Low
160

SC
Very low

120

U
80
AN
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Cumulative wind power production capacity (TWh)
M

Eastern coast of India

360
D
Marginal levelized production costs (€/MWh)

320
TE

280

240 Very high

EP

High
200
Medium high
160 Medium
C

Low
120
Very low
AC

80

40
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Cumulative wind power production capacity (TWh)

Fig. 8 Marginal production costs of offshore wind under different ocean conditions (a) western coast of India,
(b) eastern coast of India.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

0 - 30 m 30-50 m

AEP AEP

PT
Investment cost Investment cost

RI
availability availability

SC
lifetime lifetime

U
AN
Interest rate Interest rate

250 280 310 340 370 400 250 280 310 340 370 400

M
Levelized production cost (€/MWh) Levelized production cost (€/MWh)

D
increase of parameter reduction of parameter increase of parameter reduction of parameter

TE
(a) Western coast of India
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

0 - 30 m 30 - 50 m

AEP AEP

PT
Investment cost Investment cost

RI
SC
availability availability

lifetime lifetime

U
AN
Interest rate Interest rate

M
200 230 260 290 200 230 260 290 320
Levelized production cost (€/MWh) Levelized production cost (€/MWh)

D
increase of parameter reduction of parameter increase of parameter reduction of parameter

TE (b) Eastern coast of India

EP
Fig. 9 Sensitivity analysis of the offshore wind LPC to variations in interest rate (± 2%), lifetime (± 5 years), availability (± 5%), investment costs (± 5%) and AEP (± 5%) in
C

different water depth regions over the study area of (a) western coast of India, (b) eastern coast of India. For base case scenario, interest rate, lifetime of wind turbine and
availability are 12%, 20 years and 95% respectively has been considered. The red colour bar show variation of LPC with reduction of parameter and green colour bar show
AC

the variation of LPC with increase of parameter

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Highlights
Technical, economical potential of Indian EEZ is estimated.
Spatial distribution of LPC developed.
Cost supply curves under different ocean conditions are developed.
Sensitivity analysis performed to show the influence of economic parameters

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC