Embodied Energy as a Metric for Assessing Foundation

Types
12 September 2009
Mr Danny Bonnett
Senior Engineer

Mr Joseph Hobbs
Engineer

Renewable Energy Systems Limited

Beaufort Court, Egg Farm Lane,
Kings Langley, Hertfordshire WD4 8LR
United Kingdom

Renewable Energy Systems Limited

Beaufort Court, Egg Farm Lane,
Kings Langley, Hertfordshire WD4 8LR
United Kingdom

Tel +44 1923 299200

Fax +44 1923 299299

jlh79@cam.ac.uk

danny.bonnett@res-ltd.com

Summary
This report studies the benefits of looking at embodied energy when assessing potential
foundation types for offshore wind farms. Initially it shows how the embodied energy may be
calculated and attempts to find and quantify the relationship between this and the depth of water
and installed cost. It then continues to suggest how the embodied energy may be used to
predict future price changes based on energy price assumptions. Finally it looks at floating
foundation concepts and makes an estimate of the depths at which floating foundations might
become economic, both in terms of money and energy.
It is concluded that embodied energy is a weak indicator of cost, which is likely to become a
better indicator of cost as relative energy prices increase. It should therefore be taken into
account when companies are selecting foundation types for future projects. It was also
concluded that embodied energy, and therefore cost, of bottom-fixed foundations, increases
with increasing depth, thus allowing us to look for the depth where these foundations become
too expensive for most developers. This also allowed us to conclude that, when using cost as a
metric, it would become economic to switch to the Arup floating foundation at depths of 30
45m, but this may change according to the exact design of floating foundation chosen, as there
are a number of concepts being developed. Using EE as a metric, the depth range of crossover
changes to 53 - 75m.

Introduction
The embodied energy (EE) in an offshore wind turbine foundation provides an indication of
sensitivity to changes in energy price. EE also provides a measure that can be used to
calculate the optimal foundation solution for a given location, particularly when long lead times
to installation mean that a simple cost comparison suffers from significant uncertainty. The cost
of foundations offshore can be in the region of 20-30% of the project budget, so being able to
predict costs and understanding the mechanisms causing cost variations will be extremely
useful to wind farm developers and financiers.
In addition, by determining the EE in different foundations we can estimate the change in costs
as energy prices vary. Energy price predictions for the UK are published by the Department of
Energy and Climate Change (DECC) in the form of Energy and Emissions Projections [1].

FINAL TO SUBMIT

13/09/2009

This paper will estimate the EE content of standard foundation types at varying water depths
and will compare this to the cost associated with these foundations. The main types of
foundation and the issues involved are outlined below.
Monopiles are currently the most common type of foundation for offshore wind farms. While the
amount of steel is large relative to the depth of water they are used in, there are no complex
fabrication requirements, and they are simple to install. The large EE of the steel piles, however,
does make them particularly vulnerable to increases in the energy price. Calculations of EE will
include any transition piece needed.
Steel jackets are currently used regularly for oil & gas installations, but are not common for
wind farms due to cost. Because of the smaller amount of steel and larger amount of labour
and other costs in a jacket foundation, it is likely the cost will vary less with varying fuel costs.
Calculations of EE will include any transition piece needed.
Concrete gravity foundations have relatively low EE, so should be less exposed to energy
price fluctuations. As concrete is a relatively cheap material, labour, tooling and installation
costs are more significant here.
floating
There
are
many
different
foundation concepts being developed
currently utilising different combinations of
steel
and
concrete
and
different
configurations. The cost and EE of floating
foundations are less dependent on water
depth than the equivalent values for
traditional foundations (mooring cables &
depth of anchor piles are the main depthsensitive components). This study will
concentrate predominantly on the Arup
floating foundation concept, which is a
reinforced concrete concept and which is
naturally stable and moored with approx 6-8
lines anchored to the seabed. There are
also limitations on depth with this concept,
but there is significant overlap in the
applicable depths with jackets as well as
other concepts.
The energy price scenarios published by
DECC suggest the prices of oil, gas and coal
are more likely to rise than fall in the future.
This suggests that the energy cost will
become a larger part of the overall cost of
construction thus strengthening any EE/cost
relationship found in our research.
Figure 1 Arup Floating Foundation Concept

The water depth at which floating

foundations have a similar EE to
conventional bottom-fixed foundations will be
determined.

As only one floating concept is being studied, it is likely that this crossover point will reduce in
depth as floating concepts are further refined. The wind farms studied have been chosen to
represent a wide range of foundation types but crucially, where key data on foundation
types/materials, weights, cost and water depth was available.
At the time of writing, there is only one floating WTG installed worldwide. This concept, the spartype foundation, has installation depth limitations, so is not suitable for comparison with bottomfixed foundations. For the purpose of this study, as comparability between types/concepts is a
requirement, the floating foundation studied is the concept supplied by Arup Energy.

FINAL TO SUBMIT

13/09/2009

Methodology
This section explains where the figures on which this paper is based came from or how they
were calculated.
Embodied Energy (EE)
This has been determined as the sum of two components: the materials (including fabrication)
and the installation. Values attributed to each have been obtained from reference [3], see Data
Sources below.
The EE resulting from materials use has been determined as a simple product of the quantities
involved, and the EE per tonne of material. The masses have been calculated from construction
drawings or reported masses where available, or estimated.
For materials such as steel, values for virgin and recycled materials have been used to
calculate the overall specific EE, according to the proportion of recycled content in the steel
used by suppliers.
The energy required for installation has been calculated from the fuel consumption of the
vessels used. The installation cycle has been considered and the number of vessel days for
each activity (transit, on-site, etc.) determined. Fuel consumption of these vessels during
installation has been estimated, multiplied by the calorific content of the fuel (assuming the fuel
is marine diesel oil) plus the energy required to extract, refine and distribute it.
In the case of aggregates and ballast, it is possible to use the values of EE as tabulated in [3].
However, the majority of the EE is due to transport, so when these materials are dredged
locally, more accurate results can be achieved by looking at the use and consumption of the
dredger. Depending on the particular project studied, the approach to aggregates and ballast
has been varied as appropriate.
Data Sources
Determining specific EE per tonne will predominantly use data from the Inventory of Carbon and
Energy [2]. It is considered that this source is reasonably accurate as it is a survey of many
different attempts to determine EE. It shows not only a mean, but also data points from each
source and standard deviations, so any erroneous figures can be excluded.
Determining the energy required for production, transport and refining of oil fuels will use data
published in Well-to-Wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and power trains in the
European context WELL-TO-TANK Report [3].
Much of the data on wind farms was drawn from publically available papers, press releases and
information sheets [4].
Cost
Where possible, costs have been determined from contract costs. Where this information has
not been available to us we have sourced our own estimates.
Cost data typically falls into two areas: manufacturing and supply of the foundations, and
installation offshore. Estimates of the supply cost are outsourced to civil estimators and other
specialists. Costs for the installation are budget costs calculated from the vessel hire costs per
day and include an allowance for standing time.
Where contract costs are used, they have been corrected to todays values (July 2009) using
the Retail Price Index [5]. There is a risk that older projects will have costs under-estimated as

FINAL TO SUBMIT

13/09/2009

construction cost inflation has recently been higher than RPI, however this effect is not
significant for the projects under consideration. Costs have also been converted to GBP using
the exchange rate at the time of signing if necessary.
BERR Cost Projections
The energy mix supplied to UK industry as recorded has been used, along with the fuel and
energy prices (at July 2009), to calculate average energy costs (/GJ) for different sectors of
industry Steel, cement, general industry and transportation. These have then been applied to
the EE due to these activities, to obtain an energy cost for each foundation. The average
energy cost for the foundations exceeds 80% of the total cost.
By inflating this cost, in direct proportion to the varying energy costs, we can estimate the
change in cost of installing these foundations. We can also see how different foundations may
make a project more or less vulnerable to sudden increases in cost of energy. Those with large
proportions of cost linked to energy price will be most vulnerable. This could be useful when
estimating and attempting to mitigate risks involved with building wind farms, as a sudden, large
increase in project cost could potentially make a project non-viable.
It has been assumed that transport relies solely on petroleum, as the number of alternatively
fuelled vehicles is negligible.
Floating Concepts
The cost and EE will be calculated as detailed above. Figure 4 shows EE as a function of depth
for conventional foundations. The value of EE for the Arup foundation is shown on the plot, to
determine the depth value of the intersect point between the depth vs EE trend line, and the
floating concept EE values. The two values for floating foundations correspond to a 3.6MW and
a 5MW turbine.
This represents the changeover depth at which the EE of a floating foundation becomes less
that an equivalent conventional foundation. This should also provide a good indicator of the
point where a floating foundation becomes financially economic.

Data
Where used, the following foundation type codes apply:
G: gravity base; M: monopile; J: jacket; F: floating.
Type
Project 1
Project 2
Project 3
Project 4
Project 5
Project 6
Project 7
Project 8
Project 9
Project 10
Project 11
Project 12

G
G
G
G
M
M
M
M
M
J
F
F

Depth
m
30
10
25
8
6.13
7.96
8.06
10.2
11
45
>20m
>30m

Cost/MW
m (2009)
230,000
196,000
378,000
380,000
302,000
302,000
302,000
302,000
309,000
600,000
460,000
376,000

Cost/MW
m (2020)
298,000
542,000
620,000
400,000
510,000
523.000
514,000
949,000
473,000
1443,000
584,000
668,000

EE/MW
GJ
3049
6046
5504
3584
3062
3230
3109
3290
6331
6384
6863
5574

Turbine Size
MW
5
2.3
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
2
5
3.6
5

Table 1 - Wind farm data by project

FINAL TO SUBMIT

13/09/2009

Cost vs Embodied Energy (2009 Actual)

700000
600000
2

R = 0.1754

Cost (/MW)

500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

6000

7000

8000

EE (GJ/MW)
G

Figure 2 Embodied Energy vs Cost (2009)

Cost vs Embodied Energy (2020 Estimate)

700000
600000
2

R = 0.3541

Cost (/MW)

500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

EE (GJ/MW)
G

Figure 3 Embodied Energy vs Cost (2020 Estimate)

FINAL TO SUBMIT

13/09/2009

EE vs Depth
10000

Embodied energy (GJ/MW)

9000
3.6MW Floating Foundation

8000
7000
6000

5MW Floating Foundation

5000

R = 0.1753
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Depth (m)
G

Figure 4 Embodied Energy vs Depth

Cost vs Depth (2009 Actual)

700000
600000
R2 = 0.2863

Cost (/MW)

500000

3.6MW Floating Foundation

400000
5MW Floating Foundation
300000
200000
100000
0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Depth (m)
G

Figure 5 Cost vs Depth (2009)

FINAL TO SUBMIT

13/09/2009

Cost vs Depth (2020 Estimate)

700000
600000

Cost (/MW)

500000

3.6MW Floating Foundation

400000
2

5MW Floating Foundation

R = 0.3325

300000
200000
100000
0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Depth (m)
G

Figure 6 Cost vs Depth (2020 Estimate)

Limitations
Limited availability of data - In many cases, it has been difficult to get accurate or complete data
from companies about their foundations. Often data was classed as confidential. It is therefore
possible that factors affecting the EE have not been taken into account where this information
has not been made available to us and uncertainty also applies to costs where we have had to
make estimates.
Number of data points - Due to the low number of foundations studied, especially with regard to
jacket types, it is not always possible to draw solid conclusions from the data. It is hoped to
continue this study and further build the evidence base.
Geology and Environment - Our analysis takes no account of geology or other site specific
factors such as wave climate. The majority of the monopiles studied were simply driven if
monopiles require drilling, the cost and energy required increases significantly. This could be a
significant factor worthy of being addressed in more future analyses.
Energy Price Predictions - Fossil fuel and energy price predictions are subject to significant
uncertainty. The calculations presented here looking into the future are to demonstrate the
general trends that are likely to emerge. The future price assumptions have been based on the
DECC central predictions.

Discussion
Figure 2 - The initial comparison of cost and EE shows a very weak relationship between cost
2
2
and EE, with an R value of 0.18. R represents the strength of correlation, 0 being no
correlation and 1 being perfect. Looking at particular types of foundation, however, reveals very
little relation. The cost of monopiles appears to be independent of energy cost despite energy
being a very large component part. It is, however likely that this is due to the less efficient
installation process used for project 8, significantly increasing energy used through consumption
of relatively cheap petroleum, therefore impacting little on the overall cost.

FINAL TO SUBMIT

13/09/2009

The points for gravity bases show a large spread. This may be because all 3 projects studied
were installed in different European countries with varying fuel and other commodity prices.
We are not able to draw conclusions from the single point representing jacket foundations, or
the pair representing floating foundations which would initially appear to be linear, but are based
on the same concept for different sized turbines.
It is worth noting, however, that the cost of a jacket foundation is significantly higher than
alternative foundations with similar embodied energies (600,000/MW compared to
300,000/MW). This is likely to be due to the high amount of workmanship required in their
fabrication, and may also be partly attributable to the project studied being relatively small scale
and in deeper water. The jacket is more comparable when plotted against depth, as in Figure 4.
Larger numbers could make use of automated welding and other labour reduction processes,
which would reduce costs.
Figure 3 This also shows cost vs EE, but with costs inflated after applying fuel price
projections to the year 2020. The figures are not definitive but show likely trends. The overall
grouping (excluding floating foundations) has become tighter with a corresponding increase in
2
R to 0.35, representing a strengthening correlation. This suggests that in the future, EE is likely
to have a more significant impact on cost.
This trend is especially strong for both monopiles and gravity bases. This is probably due to the
fairly large embodied energies of these foundations, due to the large amounts of steel in the
monopiles and the large number of vessels required for the installation of the gravity bases. The
cost of jacket foundations also falls more into line with the EE, as the cost of steel increases and
the labour cost becomes less significant in relation.
What is also apparent is that the cost rises more slowly with rising EE for gravity bases
compared to monopiles. This is due to the higher proportion of the EE attributed to oil (for
installation vessels), rather than the relatively expensive energy mix supplied to industry.
Overall, from Figures 2 & 3, we can conclude that EE is a weak indicator of cost, which is likely
to become a more accurate indicator of cost as energy prices increase. This is quantified by an
2
R value of 0.18, rising to 0.35. Cost also depends on the fuel mix used some (coal, ~3/GJ)
being significantly cheaper than others (electricity, ~24/GJ). Therefore the EE, and the cost of
fuels, should be considered when selecting foundations for future projects.
Figure 4 This shows how the EE relates to mean water depth at the location of the foundation.
This shows a weak correlation overall, with a lack of data points at large values for depth. It
does, however, show a relatively strong correlation for monopiles, suggesting that the EE is
closely related to depth. It should be noted that the absolute values here are expected to vary
with geology (not explored here), even though the general trend is expected to hold. The
relationship for gravity bases, however, appears to show a negative correlation, which may be
due to differing loading, depths, and more or less optimised designs.
Looking at the overall trend, this shows a significant cost for the foundation, even at 0m depth,
due to the height of the foundation and transition piece above the water level, and the depth of
pile buried in the seabed. A more appropriate measure might be the distance between the hub
height or top of the transition piece and effective level of fixity in the seabed. This would better
reflect the amount of structure required, and this distance can often be in the region of 150m or
more if measuring to the hub, so attempting to represent it with water depths of the order of 10m
is at best inaccurate, and possibly misleading.
Unfortunately, there is insufficient data available to realistically give any estimate of how this
may look. We can, however, conclude that the EE is related to depth, especially strongly for
foundations such as monopiles, but that the overall trend is heavily obscured by the use of
2
different foundations types. The overall value for R here is only 0.16, but this rises to 0.51 when
monopiles are considered alone.

FINAL TO SUBMIT

13/09/2009

Figure 5 - It would be expected from the relationships between cost and EE, and EE and depth,
that cost and depth are also related. Figure 5 shows the overall trend, again by type of
foundation. This shows the cost increasing with depth in what appears to be an exponential
manner. While the cost of monopiles (per MW) appears to be fairly constant, the cost of gravity
bases rises slightly with depth. When considering all data points together, the overall trend
shows the costs increasing more rapidly between around 30-45m depth, compared to a
moderate increase from 10-30m depth (~250,000/MW compared to 50100,000/MW
respectively). This suggests that bottom-fixed foundations would become prohibitively
expensive (> 600,000/MW) in water much more than 45m deep, but this was at the limits of
the data we gathered.
Figure 6 - The graph with costs estimated for 2020 initially seems to show a reversal of this
trend, however, the trends for individual types of foundation remain, and the overall trend
appears to change only because of the non optimal use of steel in monopile foundations. The
cost of jacket foundations, while appearing to be cheaper than alternative foundations, is still
prohibitively expensive in deep water.
The general increasing cost/MW with depth will lead to developers seeking alternative
foundation types as depths go above 30-40m. The floating concept presented here was
developed by Arup and is based on a floating, reinforced concrete caisson, ballasted to give
stability. Other floating concepts are based on steel structures, ballasted with water, concrete
or aggregates, or a combination of these. These are likely to see larger increases in cost, as
seen in the cost increases for the predominantly steel monopiles. The two data points we have
represent foundations for 3.6MW and 5MW turbines, with the 5MW foundation expected to
benefit from economies of scale (both are estimates). The cost and EE for the foundations
seems to reasonably follow the general cost vs EE trend for both actual 2009 values and 2020
estimated values (Figures 2 & 3).
Figures 4, 5 & 6 These show the embodied energies and costs of the 2 floating foundations
giving a range of depth values where it will become competitive based on EE (marked by red
dashed lines). It follows that this is likely to be a financially viable foundation according to the
relationship between EE and cost. The depth range at which the Arup floating foundation
concepts are likely to be economic is approximately 30 45 m, reducing to 25 40 m by around
2020. It becomes energy efficient to install a floating foundation at around 53 75 m depth. It
can be inferred from Figures 4 - 6 that the EE and cost reduces for floating foundations as
turbine size increases. It should also be noted that as concrete is generally a lower EE product,
this also gives the floating foundation concepts studied a financial advantage. This indicates
that as turbine sizes get larger, and as the energy costs rise, the water depth of the crossover
point gets shallower.
It should be noted here that there are a number of practical limitations on floating foundations.
As an example, the Hywind pilot project, recently installed off the coast of Norway, extends
100m below the surface [6], so cannot be installed in water shallower than around 130m. It
should also be noted that the EE and cost of steel floating foundations may vary considerably,
thus altering these depths.

Conclusions
2

1. EE presently provides a weak indication of cost (R = 0.18), which is likely to become

2
stronger as energy prices increase (R = 0.35 in 2020, predicted).
2. According to conclusion 1, the EE of a project should be taken into account when
selecting foundation types for project, especially those to be built in the medium- to
long-term.
2
3. EE is weakly related to depth overall (R = 0.16) but this is because it is obscured by
multiple foundation types, ground conditions and environments. The relationship for
2
single foundation types may be much stronger (e.g. monopiles, R = 0.51)

FINAL TO SUBMIT

13/09/2009

4. The relationship between cost and depth was weakly positive, becoming negative after
applying energy price rises. The negative relationship was attributed to the large EE of
monopiles for shallow water contributing largely to cost increases of these foundations.
The prices of foundations for water depths of 45m upwards are likely to remain above
600,000/MW installed capacity, which is considered to be prohibitively high.
5. The depths at which the Arup floating foundation concepts are likely to be economic are
greater than 30 45m depth, reducing to 25 40 m by around 2020. They do not
become the energy-efficient foundation until around 53 75 m depth, however, due to
the low EE of concrete Due to the economies of scale, larger (5MW upwards) turbines
are likely to be at the lower end of this range, while the upper end of this range
corresponds to the smaller turbines likely to be installed offshore (3 3.6MW). There
may also be practical limitation to the depth of water, such as maintaining reasonable
clearance.

Acknowledgements
Many thanks to the following key contributors: Centrica Renewable Energy Limited; ARUP;
NPower Renewables; Peter Miller of Watson Steel; Randal Ffrench of Sir Robert McAlpine; Nick
Bristow of Renewable Energy Systems, MPA.

REFERENCES
[1]

[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]

DECC. Energy & Emissions Projections;

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/projections/projections.aspx;
10/07/2009
Hammond & Jones. Inventory of Carbon & Energy ver 1.6a; University of Bath
Edwards et al. Well-to-Wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrains in the
European context WELL-TO-TANK Report ver 2C; Institute for Environment &
Sustainability
North Hoyle offshore wind farm: design and build, Carter; Proceedings of the ICE
Energy 160, 21-29
Office for National Statistics. RP02 Retail Prices Index;
Statoil Hydro. Hywind by StatoilHydro;
http://www.statoilhydro.com/en/TechnologyInnovation/NewEnergy/RenewablePowerPro
duction/Onshore/Pages/Karmoy.aspx; 12/08/2009

FINAL TO SUBMIT

10

13/09/2009