Content uploaded by Matthew J. Spaniol
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Matthew J. Spaniol on Dec 21, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
PERISCOPE is supported by the North Sea Region (NSR) EU grant J-No. 32-2-13-17
2
Dear reader,
This report provides an assessment on the prospects for offshore energy hubs. Four use cases have
been developed and evaluated by respondents in a survey instrument for their forecasted time hori-
zon to implementation and their business potential as opportunities for the maritime and offshore
industries.
This report is produced by the PERISCOPE Group at Aarhus University for the PERISCOPE network.
Photographs
unsplash.com; pixabay.com; pexels.com
Copyright
PERISCOPE ©2020
Enquiries
Matthew J. Spaniol
Aarhus University
Tel: +45 50126444
Denmark
Website
www.periscope-network.eu
PERISCOPE is supported by the North Sea Region (NSR) EU grant J-No. 32-2-13-17 ©Interreg VB North Sea
Region Programme.
PERISCOPE is co-financed by the Interreg VB North Sea Region Programme. The information contained in this report is for general information purposes only.
You accept to use the data at your own risk. All the information provided on this Service is provided "AS-IS" and with NO WARRANTIES. No express or implied
warranties of any type, including for example implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, are made with respect to the information,
or any use of the information, on this Service. The Periscope project ("the Service Provider"), assumes no responsibility nor liability for errors or omissions in
the contents on the Service, including any false, inaccurate, inappropriate or incomplete information presented in this initial report. In no event shall the Service
Provider be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or incidental damages or any damages whatsoever, whether in an action of contract, negligence
or other tort, arising out of or in connection with the use of the report. No warranties - no liability - use at own risk. In no way do the companies whose logos
appear in this report or any other publication by PERISCOPE constitute an endorsement of the reported findings on this or any publication by PERISCOPE.
PERISCOPE is supported by the North Sea Region (NSR) EU grant J-No. 32-2-13-17
3
PERISCOPE
PERISCOPE is an initiative of the Interreg VB North Sea Region Programme working to catalyse en-
trepreneurial discovery and promote trans-regional partnerships to unlock Blue Growth. We are
supporting the combined maritime and marine innovation ecosystem in the North Sea region to
accelerate innovation for sustainable business development in emerging blue markets.
The PERISCOPE network has identified more than 60 future business opportunities for the blue
economy, developed these into venture concepts, and built an engagement tool for each of these.
These studies include crowd-based forecasts about when these are expected to be realized. This
information supports planning activities with the intention to orchestrate action towards the reali-
zation of said opportunities, and, indirectly, to a transition to a more innovative and sustainable
character of the blue economy.
PERISCOPE PARTNERS
VISIT PERISCOPE
PERISCOPE is supported by the North Sea Region (NSR) EU grant J-No. 32-2-13-17
4
CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 5
2. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 6
3. STUDY A: TIDE-POWERED HYDROGEN VESSELS .................................................................... 8
3.1 RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................... 9
3.1.1 FORECAST TO IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................................................... 9
3.1.2 WHAT IS NEEDED TO MAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY HAPPEN? ............................................................................. 9
3.1.3 BUSINESS POTENTIAL ..................................................................................................................................... 13
3.1.4 ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................................ 13
3.2 REFERENCES TO STUDY A .............................................................................................................. 14
4. STUDY B: RECHARGING AT WIND FARMS ........................................................................... 15
4.1 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................ 16
4.1.1. FORECAST TO IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................................................. 16
4.1.2. WHAT IS NEEDED TO MAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY HAPPEN? .......................................................................... 16
4.1.3 BUSINESS POTENTIAL ..................................................................................................................................... 19
4.1.4 ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................................ 19
5. STUDY C: FULLY ELECTRIC FISH FARMS ............................................................................... 21
5.1 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................ 22
5.1.1. FORECAST TO IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................................................. 22
5.1.2 WHAT IS NEEDED TO MAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY HAPPEN? ........................................................................... 22
5.1.3. BUSINESS POTENTIAL .................................................................................................................................... 24
5.1.4 ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................................ 24
5.2 REFERENCES TO STUDY C .............................................................................................................. 25
6. STUDY D: RENEWABLE METHANOL VESSELS ...................................................................... 26
6.1 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................ 27
6.1.1 FORECAST TO IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................................................. 27
6.1.2 WHAT IS NEEDED TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN? ................................................................................................... 27
6.1.3 BUSINESS POTENTIAL ..................................................................................................................................... 30
6.1.4 ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................................ 30
6.2 REFERENCES TO STUDY D .............................................................................................................. 31
7. CROSS-CASE COMPARISON .................................................................................................... 31
8. BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY ................................................................................................... 32
9. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 35
10. RESPONDENTS ................................................................................................................... 36
PERISCOPE is supported by the North Sea Region (NSR) EU grant J-No. 32-2-13-17
5
1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The transition of the maritime and offshore industries toward a sustainable “Blue Growth” future is
driven by incentives to unlock new growth areas, develop and apply new technologies, and increase
productivity. The development and utilization of offshore energy hubs and maintenance provides
an opportunity to support the accomplishment of these goals. The rapid development in renewable
ocean energy generation provide the context for growth.
To support investment timing decisions for enterprises and research policy, an engagement tool
was developed around different configurations for the electrification of the seas. This report pre-
sents the outcome and analysis of 4 surveys taken by a total of 98 respondents. Responses indicate
that:
• Tide-powered hydrogen vessels are expected to become an accepted practice 15 years from
now (2035), and respondents rated the business potential at 3,58/5. In order to develop this
opportunity, respondents primarily point to economic factors (50%) followed by technolog-
ical factors (26%). Only 13% and 11% point to political and social factors respectively, while
none point to environmental factors in relation to this opportunity.
• Recharging at wind farms is expected to become an accepted practice 8 years from now
(2028), and respondents rated the business potential at 3,77/5. In order to develop this op-
portunity, respondents mostly mention economic factors (40%), followed by technological
(26%), social factors (17%), political (11%), and environmental factors (6%).
• Fully electric fish farms are expected to become an accepted practice 10 years from now
(2030), and respondents rated the business potential at 3,43/5. In order to develop this op-
portunity, respondents mostly mention technical factors (40%), followed by economic
(33%), political (17%), environmental (7%), and social factors (3%).
• Renewable methanol vessels are expected to become an accepted practice 10 years from
now (2030), and respondents rated the business potential at 3,52/5. In order to develop this
opportunity, respondents mostly mention economic factors (49%), followed by political and
technological (17% each), social factors (10%), and environmental factors (7%).
PERISCOPE is supported by the North Sea Region (NSR) EU grant J-No. 32-2-13-17
6
2.
INTRODUCTION
The North Sea Region is a crucial area for Europe’s Blue Economy with marine resources, techno-
logically advanced industries, major port areas, and vibrant offshore activities. Due to global drivers,
the wider maritime, marine and offshore economies are exposed to profound challenges with some
industries undergoing a significant growth and change, and others facing stagnation and decline. To
ensure the region’s stability and long-term prosperity, new ways are needed to increase productiv-
ity, and offshore energy hubs have been proposed. While initiatives, cases, and projects have begun
to emerge, questions of what’s next, how, and when further applications of offshore energy hubs
will develop remain.
To answer these questions, PERISCOPE identified potential next practices for offshore energy hubs
and put them to the crowd for assessment and validation. Survey instruments were developed for
various use cases that cover new activities to support the electrification of the seas. The use cases
ranged from introducing new renewable fuels such as methanol and hydrogen, developing multi-
use platforms such as charging at wind farms and incorporating electrification into existing indus-
tries such as fish farming, and the production of synthetic fuels. While none of these individually
can be considered an “offshore energy hub”, they contribute with descriptions of different capabil-
ities that could be implemented at said hubs.
The use cases were developed, described, posted online, and distributed to respondents identified
as having a qualified opinion. The first question that was asked concerned the question of time to
implementation: “On the sliding scale below, please estimate when it will become accepted practice
that [technology X] will be used to complete [task Y], i.e. commercially available” with the scale
spanning a maximum of 30 “years from now.” In this question, respondents were also offered an
option to answer “it will never happen” or if the use case in question is “already here.” The second
question: ”What is needed to make this happen?” offered respondents an open text box in which
they could write their answers. The third question asked respondents to rate the opportunity de-
scribed on a Likert scale out of 5. Finally, respondents were offered another open text box to write
any additional comments.
In what follows, each study will restate the prompt that was used in the survey, followed by an
analysis of the responses. The crowd-based forecast provides the median estimate of the “time to
accepted practice.” A Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental (PESTE) analysis or-
ganizes the responses into categories, the average rating on the business potential is presented,
and an analysis is made based on these. After all the studies are presented, general remarks are
made on the business opportunity for offshore energy hubs, and the report is concluded.
PERISCOPE is supported by the North Sea Region (NSR) EU grant J-No. 32-2-13-17
7
PERISCOPE is supported by the North Sea Region (NSR) EU grant J-No. 32-2-13-17
8
3.
STUDY A: TIDE-POWERED HYDROGEN VESSELS
With approximately 3000 ships sailing at any one time, the North Sea is one of the busiest shipping
areas in the world.[1] Many of the medium-sized vessels require approximately 1 MW for propul-
sion - for instance ferries, search and rescue vessels, and coastal and inland commercial vessels.
These are vessels that can be potentially powered by hydrogen gas.[2,3,4]
New floating tidal power plant designs will allow for their mass production at shipyards, further
reducing the costs of clean electricity production. Electricity from tidal is very predictable because
it relies on the gravitational pull from the moon, and because the waterways that make good sites
for tidal energy are not always easily connected to a mainland electricity grid, producing hydrogen
can serve as another way to store the energy.[5,6,7]
Hydrogen is stored in tanks that are about the size of a shipping container, and therefore can be
swapped on and off vessels. However, making an existing vessel capable of running on hydrogen
fuel cells requires alterations to the ship’s infrastructure, especially concerning the drivetrain.[2]
Furthermore, even if there is hydrogen stock available along the route, the availability of hydrogen
at ports is still limited.[2]
PERISCOPE is supported by the North Sea Region (NSR) EU grant J-No. 32-2-13-17
9
3.1 RESULTS
3.1.1 FORECAST TO IMPLEMENTATION
The survey data are analyzed to find the median estimation for the opportunity. Median, rather
than the mean (average), is used for this analysis to prevent skewness resulting from outliers. This
analysis is represented in Figure 1 below, which shows that the median, i.e. the value separating the
lower and upper half of the data samples, is 2035. According to the respondents, tide-powered hy-
drogen vessels will become an accepted practice in 15 years.
When asked for the time to accepted practice, the respondents had to option to choose “will never
happen”, three of the 32 respondents selected this option, amounting to a total of 9,3%.
Figure 1: Median estimate for tide-powered hydrogen vessels
3.1.2 WHAT IS NEEDED TO MAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY HAPPEN?
Respondents, in connection to their estimates, were asked to write what is needed to make this
opportunity happen. This question was open-ended.
The comments from the respondents are presented below and have been divided into 5 catego-
ries, representing a Political, Economic, Social, Technological, and Environmental (PESTE) analysis.
The text in the table are the responses. In some cases, spelling, grammatical corrections, and
changes to improve comment clarity have been made. Furthermore, some comments were split to
categorize them accordingly to their parts. These appear in no particular order.
POLITICAL
• Large amounts of political pressure are needed to incentivise companies to make the
change. This could be seen as a chicken and egg scenario where unless there are power
plants the ships won't be converted and unless the ships are converted the power
plants will not be built. This is why external factors such are needed as incentives.
• Political pressure, such as an emissions tax.
2020 2050
2035
2035: TIDE-POWERED
HYDROGEN VESSELS
ARE ACCEPTED
PRACTICE, I.E.
COMMERCIALLY
AVAILABL E
PERISCOPE is supported by the North Sea Region (NSR) EU grant J-No. 32-2-13-17
10
• Governments may have to help with subsidies. It will take time for the floating tidal
power plants to be up and running, and for there to be enough of them to make it suc-
cessful.
• Political will resulting in channelling investments and entrepreneurial action in the right
direction.
• Strict CO2 regulations, starting with CO2 emission costs increasing, and regarding the
shipping industry, a ban of specific contaminating technologies used today.
• Technology is becoming increasingly competitive, and regulations should enhance the
innovation change.
• Governments offering tariffs to companies that switch to hydrogen fuel cells, to offset
the cost of modifying the ship.
• Governmental policies to encourage the use of hydrogen are needed: for example tax-
free or low taxes on maritime transport running with hydrogen.
ECONOMIC
• Need to show the CAPEX/OPEX and operational confidence.
• This is indeed a good business opportunity although the limited applicability and high
investment cost so far.
• An initial investment in the offshore hydrogen power plants.
• A rise in the cost in traditional fuels for these vessels.
• A lot of hydrogen gas for not high price is needed.
• A lot of money is needed.
• Investors are needed.
• The cost of making it has to go down.
• Converting medium sized vessels to hydrogen sounds financially unviable, so I don't be-
lieve this will happen, replacing old vessels with hydrogen cell vessels may be an option
but I expect this to be a slow uptake.
• The basic technological systems are there and work at scale, but they are still not eco-
nomically viable. This use case is too limited in my opinion, both in respect to energy
carrier (NH3 is more likely for ships) and the type of vessel chosen (large oceangoing
ships will be converting to electro fuels within in the years until 2040 and they will not
want a long-term solution based on a carbon free energy cycle).
• The price of traditional marine fuels is far lower than the price of hydrogen. Thus, not
commercially attractive for the time being.
• Inexpensive, mass scale, and efficient hydrolysis is needed.
• Cost effective and smaller scale fuel cell and electrolyser stacks are needed.
• Cost-efficient ways of storing hydrogen
• If the gas was cheaper, it could be good.
• Due to the size of the market, the business opportunity for hydrogen is huge.
• A great deal of investment, and vessels will need to be "out of action” for a while.
• An economic floating tidal energy converter system which produces hydrogen in areas
with a viable tidal current. At the moment, this does not even exist for the Bay of
Fundy, where tidal currents are far more energetic.
PERISCOPE is supported by the North Sea Region (NSR) EU grant J-No. 32-2-13-17
11
• Tidal plants being a reality for starters, there needs to be proper investment in the area
which there isn't at the moment.
• There would have to be lots of expensive renovations to existing fleet or the actual re-
placement of fleets to be able to adopt this.
• Alterations in existing ships’ infrastructure is not an easy and affordable way. The new
produced ships should be compatible.
• Hydrogen needs to be made more readily available, at ports and not just at the floating
power plants.
• Ease and accessibility of the power plants would be vital to outweigh the ease and ac-
cessibility of diesel.
• Hydrogen gas has to be produced on mass scale to be cheaper.
• Hydrogen tank availability is needed.
• The availability at ports of hydrogen would need to increase for hydrogen only vessels
and it may be advantageous to have some floating power plants near to the ports to
increase availability.
• More stock availability for vessel is needed.
• Fuel cells to be implemented broadly.
• It sounds theoretically very good, but it would take a great deal of implementing and
would probably be only able to roll out on a small scale to begin with.
• A very large investment in infrastructure, onboard storage and fuel cell installations is
required in each case, making this solution a very difficult business case, compared to
e.g. battery powered vessels, or just engines powered with sustainably produced fuels.
• Accelerate the large scale production of hydrogen to become much available and af-
fordable.
SOCIAL
• Safety is a large concern with hydrogen production and storage which would improve
with investment over time.
• I think a shift is needed from an evolution-based algorithm economy (today’s capital-
ism) to an AI based partially planned economy with a decentralized currency.
• People's attitudes and minds would have to be changed to this way of thinking and I
think it would take a good few years to be accepted and used.
• Strong engineering safety standards are needed.
• Making sure everything concerning the hydrogen is safe.
• Safe ways to store and distribute the hydrogen need to be ensured.
• Safe ways of storing hydrogen
TECHNOLOGICAL
• Fuel cell technology on large scale in ships need some demonstration projects.
• Retrofitting capabilities need to be researched.
• Prepare the ships for the use of hydrogen,
• Alteration of ship infrastructure is needed.
PERISCOPE is supported by the North Sea Region (NSR) EU grant J-No. 32-2-13-17
12
• Final designs, production and development of the power plants.
• Better infrastructure is needed.
• Revamped ship designs are needed.
• Floating tidal power plant designs are needed.
• The opportunity may even require new ships to be built with the intention of with hy-
drogen only or a hybrid of hydrogen and traditional fuel.
• Hydrogen is rather difficult to store. Liquid fuels are much easier. I suspect that this
transition will happen as a result of liquid synthetic fuels becoming competitive with
petroleum-derived ones.
• Adjusting existing vessels to use it is needed.
• I believe this is already happening, but in small doses due to the alterations that need
to be made to carry out the transformation on the vessel.
• Previously worked at an Asian based automotive company that extensively researches
hydrogen and produces hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. The technology needs several leaps
in improvement in almost every area, and batteries are already ahead and continue to
move faster in improvement than hydrogen technology. I hope something does
change, that breakthroughs do happen, because cases like those stated are valid and
should be made zero emissions. But I don’t think hydrogen will be the technology that
gets us there.
• Research is needed.
• An improvement in the technology so fuel cells can be stored in ports and the ships can
be modified easier is needed.
• Technological advancement is needed.
ENVIRONMENTAL
• N/A
The distribution of comments among the 5 categories in the PESTE analysis is depicted in Figure 2
below. This shows that 13% of the comments can be considered political, 11% social, 26% techno-
logical and half of the comments (50%) are concerning economic factors. None of the comments
were attributed to environmental factors.
PERISCOPE is supported by the North Sea Region (NSR) EU grant J-No. 32-2-13-17
13
Figure 2: Respondents’ comments to tide-powered hydrogen vessels, categorized.
3.1.3 BUSINESS POTENTIAL
On the question of business potential of tide-powered hydrogen vessels, respondents, on av-
erage, rated it 3.58 out of 5.
3.1.4 ANALYSIS
This section reviews and provides commentary based on the responses. Respondents identified
economics factors as the most important factors to realize this opportunity. These were mixed but
many pointed on the extensive investments needed to make this a reality, “There have to be lots
of expensive renovations to existing fleet or the actual replacement of fleets to be able to adopt
this”. Besides the heavy investments needed to adapt the fleet, others pointed at economic viabil-
ity as “The basic technological systems are there and work at scale, but they are still not economi-
cally viable”. This economic viability of the opportunity was further emphasised by others who
comment that “The price of traditional marine fuels is far lower than the price of hydrogen. Thus,
not commercially attractive for the time being”. So the economic challenges include both the
heavy investments needed, but also the economic benefits of substituting current methods with
this opportunity being too low for the time being.
These economic challenges are further supported by the political factors where several comments
state a need for political involvement and say that if it should become economic viable “Govern-
ments may have to help with subsidies”. It is further added that it is not just about making it viable
to use the technology, but also a matter of facilitating the switch, and “Governments offering tar-
iffs to companies that switch to hydrogen fuel cells, to offset the cost of modifying the ship” could
speed up this process. Others point towards a need for “Strict CO2 regulations, starting with CO2
emission costs increasing, and regarding the shipping industry, a ban of specific contaminating
technologies used today”, which will also improve the relative benefits of this opportunity com-
pared to conventional practices. In general, “This could be seen as a chicken and egg scenario
Political
13 %
Economic
50 %
Social
11 %
Technological
26 %
Environmental
0 %
DISTRIBUTION OF COMMENTS FOR TIDE
POWERED HYDROGEN VESSELS
PERISCOPE is supported by the North Sea Region (NSR) EU grant J-No. 32-2-13-17
14
where unless there are power plants the ships won't be converted and unless the ships are con-
verted the power plants will not be built”, emphasising the need for external support.
A big part of the comments also pointed on technological factors and many believe that “Techno-
logical advancement is needed.” Some say that “Better infrastructure is needed” while other point
towards the facts that “Hydrogen is rather difficult to store. Liquid fuels are much easier”, reflect-
ing how there are still some practical issues involved in this opportunity even though it might in
many ways be technological possible.
Lastly, several social concerns are also raised, which relates directly to the technological factors as
several comments call for “Safe ways of storing hydrogen” and in general “People's attitudes and
minds would have to be changed to this way of thinking and I think it would take a good few years
to be accepted and used.”
3.2 REFERENCES TO STUDY A
[1] Aulinger, A. et al. (2016), The impact of shipping emissions on air pollution in the greater North
Sea region – Part 1: Current emissions and concentrations
[2] Mace, A. (2019),Here's Why Fuel Cells Will Power the World's Marine Vessels
[3] Dickie, M. (2018), Orkney’s ageing ferries look to ditch diesel for hydrogen
[4] C Marine AB (2016), C-Rescuer concept design launched at international hydrogen conference
[5] Giannini, G. (2019), Modelling and Feasibility Study on Using Tidal Power with an Energy Storage
Utility for Residential Needs
[6] Husseini, T. (2018), Riding the renewable wave: tidal energy advantages and disadvantages
[7] Woo, M.J. (2017), Tidal Energy: The New Sustainable Resource
More information:
EMEC (2017), Press release: World’s first tidal-powered hydrogen generated at EMEC
Marine Energy (2018), New €11M project combines tidal energy and hydrogen production
McKie, R. (2019), How Orkney leads the way for sustainable energy
Media Kit (2020), World First: Hydrogen Generated by Tidal Power
IRENA (2015), RENEWABLE ENERGY OPTIONS FOR SHIPPING
Grand View Research (2018), Wave and Tidal Energy Market Size Worth $3.9 Billion By 2025
European Parliament (2019), Greenhouse gas reduction targets for international maritime shipping
PERISCOPE is supported by the North Sea Region (NSR) EU grant J-No. 32-2-13-17
15
4.
STUDY B: RECHARGING AT WIND FARMS
Offshore wind farms are playing an important role as Europe transitions to renewable energy. The
European offshore wind market will reach an expected annual capacity of ≈14 GW by 2030, and
will require an expansion of the fleet of Service Operation Vessels (SOVs) to maintain them.[1]
SOVs function as workshops, spare part delivery services, and floating hotels for workers.[2,3] Cur-
rent SOVs are powered by diesel fuel, diminishing the benefits of renewable wind energy.[4]
Battery or fuel cell powered SOVs that can charge while docking at the wind farm will provide a
partial solution.[2,5,6] Here, the concept of “cold ironing,” in which a docked ship is plugged into
an onshore power source, could be adapted to electric vessels servicing wind farms. This adapta-
tion is forecasted to reduce fuel costs by 20%, and emissions by 30%.[1,3,7] Furthermore, wind
farm owners will benefit from selling electricity to the SOVs, and energy companies would benefit
from smoothing out the volatility of electricity production and storage created by wind speed vari-
ability.[8]
Ongoing challenges to offshore “cold ironing” include the cost of equipment, such as transformers
and modifications to energy storage systems, and the increased risks to human safety.[7]
PERISCOPE is supported by the North Sea Region (NSR) EU grant J-No. 32-2-13-17
16
4.1 RESULTS
4.1.1. FORECAST TO IMPLEMENTATION
According to the media answer by respondents, recharging at wind farms will become an accepted
practice in 8 years (see Figure 3).
When asked for the time to accepted practice, the respondents had the option to choose “will
never happen”, only one (1) out of the 24 respondents selected this option, amounting to approxi-
mately 4%, implying that for the overwhelming majority of respondents, it is more a case of when
recharging at wind farms will occur, rather than a question of if it will happen.
Figure 3: Media estimate for recharging at wind farms
4.1.2. WHAT IS NEEDED TO MAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY HAPPEN?
The comments from the respondents per this question are presented in the table below, orga-
nized across 5 categories, representing a Political, Economic, Social, Technological, and Environ-
mental (PESTE) analysis. The text in the table are the responses. In some cases, spelling, grammati-
cal corrections, and changes to improve comment clarity have been made. Further-more, some
comments were split to categorize them accordingly to their parts. These appear in no particular
order.
2
0
2
8
:
R
E
C
H
A
R
G
I
N
G
A
T
W
I
N
D
F
A
R
M
S
I
S
A
C
C
E
P
T
E
D
P
R
A
C
T
I
C
E
,
I
.
E
.
C
O
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
L
Y
A
V
A
I
L
A
B
L
E
2
0
3
5
2
0
2
0
2
0
5
0
PERISCOPE is supported by the North Sea Region (NSR) EU grant J-No. 32-2-13-17
17
POLITICAL
• I'm not sure the technology already exists to manage this, but definitely something that
should be made a priority for any new wind farms, maybe this also needs help with legis-
lation to begin implementing this, so it is available for SOVs in the future. I think the elec-
tricity they would receive from the wind farm should be subsidised by the government
to allow it to be even cheaper than original diesel costs.
• International standards for connectors and cables and uniform ship voltage and fre-
quency.
• Investment from governments is needed.
• Support from government and tier one companies is needed.
ECONOMIC
• Just investment it seems really - it sounds like a win-win option; cutting costs in the long
term.
• A reduction in cost compared to using diesel is needed.
• Resources, perhaps through sponsorship or funding.
• It sounds like this is all viable, it is just a matter of reducing the costs.
• Reduced cost of equipment.
• I think in the faraway future this is possible. An increased demand in wind energy tech-
nology will decrease the costs of course.
• Investment to offset the detriments of cost of equipment, such as transformers and
modifications to energy storage systems.
• To make this happen an incentive need to be in place so that the forecasted reduction in
fuel costs and emissions are not just perceived as morally good but also a financially
sound investment.
• The demand is a factor, if a wind turbine needs servicing once every six months for ex-
ample, the investment to get the functionality may never be regained before the equip-
ment wears out. This requires replacement especially when this technology may be go-
ing onto every offshore wind turbine. Perhaps a fewer number, say one in 4 offshore
wind turbines are fitted with the functionality to charge an SOV, that may then be more
financially viable.
• Proven cost effectiveness.
• Cost-effective ways of equipping wind farms and vessels with the capability to de-
liver/receive energy offshore.
• Whilst it sounds like a great improvement from what is currently in place, as a business
opportunity it will not be successful as it is too expensive.
• The initial costs may have to come down, which they generally do with an increased
market.
• Funding for the project.
PERISCOPE is supported by the North Sea Region (NSR) EU grant J-No. 32-2-13-17
18
SOCIAL
• A logistical way of charging the vessels which doesn't pose a threat to anyone's safety on
the boat.
• A good risk analysis is needed.
• The health and safety aspect of having personnel on board a charging ship needs to be
considered.
• Reduce the risks to human safety by using technology to make the repairs, etc.
• A greater time period to build solutions and health & safety procedures to deal with the
increased risks to human safety.
• Awareness is needed.
TECHNOLOGICAL
• The technology needs to be developed to put on the ships to allow them to dock at wind
farms to recharge. The power is already there just need to transfer it to the service vehi-
cles.
• Using H2 might be a realistic option but electric battery driven vessels are not. The re-
charging takes much too long, much better would be H2 or another synthetic fuel.
• Developed infrastructure.
• Adequate infrastructure.
• New build CTV designs with battery or fuel cells designed in.
• Retro fitting of batteries or fuel cells in existing CTVs.
• Adaption of existing monopiles / power export to accommodate plug-ins.
• Skua Marine and partners are developing a combined electrical and mooring connection
system for wave energy convertors. This would allow quick and safe connection and dis-
connection of the CTV to the monopile in marginal weather conditions. This would con-
tribute to the cost effectiveness, business case and safety standards required to make
this solution feasible.
• Improvements in the technology to ensure the safety of persons using the equipment.
ENVIRONMENTAL
• Cutting emissions at a time when it is high on everyone's agenda.
• The environmental aspect which is more important can make this happen.
The distribution of comments among the 5 categories in the PESTE analysis is depicted in Figure 4
below. This shows that only 6% of the comments can be attributed to environmental factors, 11%
political, 17% social, 26% technological and 40% are concerning economic factors, making this the
most attributed category.
PERISCOPE is supported by the North Sea Region (NSR) EU grant J-No. 32-2-13-17
19
Figure 4: Respondents’ comments to recharging wind farms, categorized
4.1.3 BUSINESS POTENTIAL
On the question of the business potential of recharging at wind farms, respondents, on average,
rated it 3.77/5.
4.1.4 ANALYSIS
The respondents to this survey opine that economic factors are the most important ones in the
way for this opportunity to become a reality. Respondents point to the decreasing costs of elec-
tricity production and the equipment needed for creating the electrical infrastructure as important
to establish the business case. Criticisms over the flexibility of the energy supply – that the “de-
mand is a factor, if a wind turbine needs servicing once every six months for example, the invest-
ment to get the functionality may never be regained before the equipment wears out.” Providing
the infrastructure with a mobility radius would make installations more accessible to SOVs.
In terms of the opportunity in question, reponses indicate that this may be a case of “just do it” by
installing the infrastructure to enable it. However, as one respondent put it, “international stand-
ards for connectors and cables and uniform ship voltage and frequency” are needed in order to
facilitate the uptake and wider dissemination of the practice. While one use case demonstration
would validate the technology, wider industrial dialogue is needed to bring this into common prac-
tice..
Yet some respondents suggested alternative solutions to “plugging-in” at windmill monopiles.
Swapping hydrogen tanks provides a potential advantage in the time it would take to complete
the recharging, as recharging takes “much too long.” This would require the installation of an elec-
trolyzer. Another alternative suggested was the co-location of a wave energy converter to be used
as a vessel battery charger.
Political
11 %
Economic
40 %
Social
17 %
Technological
26 %
Environmental
6 %
DISTRIBUTION OF COMMENTS FOR
RECHARGING AT WIND FARMS
PERISCOPE is supported by the North Sea Region (NSR) EU grant J-No. 32-2-13-17
20
Finally, the comments pertaining to environmental factors demonstrate the apparent urgency of
the electrification agenda. The opportunity window to create the political awareness and willing-
ness is open, but may not stay that way.
4.2 REFERENCES TO STUDY B
[1] DNV GL (2019), NEXUS takes action
[2] Roslyng Olesen, T. (2016), OFFSHORE SUPPLY INDUSTRY DYNAMICS
[3] Ulstein Wind Team (2017), Why should Service Operation Vessels be the standard at offshore
wind farms?
[4] Livingstone, P. (2019), Next-Generation Crew Transfer and Service Operation Vessels
[5] Haynes, J. (2019), Hybrid marine technology for wind farm service vessels
[6] LEANWIND (2017), Driving Cost Reductions in Offshore Wind
[7] Safety4Sea (2019), Cold Ironing: The role of ports in reducing shipping emissions
[8] Spector, J. (2019), Orsted Diversifies From Offshore Wind With 20MW UK Battery
PERISCOPE is supported by the North Sea Region (NSR) EU grant J-No. 32-2-13-17
21
5.
STUDY C: FULLY ELECTRIC FISH FARMS
The aquaculture industry currently produces approximately half of the fish for global consump-
tion, and this is expected to reach two-thirds by 2030.[1,2] Given the trends in fish farming, one
can anticipate bigger farm facilities that will be located further out to sea. This makes it increas-
ingly infeasible to connect them to onshore electric grids.[3,4]
A typical salmon farm uses about 342 kWh/day and emits 120,000 kg of CO2 per year.[3,4] Com-
mon practice sees offshore fish farms being powered by diesel generators, but recent installations
are starting to integrate hybrid power systems that incorporate renewable energy.[3]
Hybrid systems can reduce costs by 16% and emissions by 50%.[3] Fully electric fish farms, pow-
ered by wave energy, might not only produce sufficient energy to power their operations, but
even excess energy to power the electric vessels that make the voyage to maintain, stock, and ex-
tract fish from the farm.[4,5]
PERISCOPE is supported by the North Sea Region (NSR) EU grant J-No. 32-2-13-17
22
5.1 RESULTS
5.1.1. FORECAST TO IMPLEMENTATION
According to the media answer by respondents, fully electric fish farms will become an accepted
practice (i.e. commercially available) by 2030 (see Figure 5).
When asked for the time to accepted practice, the respondents had the option to choose “will
never happen”, three out of the 21 respondents selected this option, amounting to approximately
14%.
Figure 5: Median estimate for fully electric fish farms
5.1.2 WHAT IS NEEDED TO MAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY HAPPEN?
Respondents, in connection to their estimates, were asked to write what is needed to make this
opportunity happen. This question was open-ended.
The comments from the respondents are presented below and have been divided into 4 catego-
ries, representing a Political, Economic, Social, and Technological (PEST) analysis. The text in the
table are the responses. In some cases, spelling, grammatical improvements, and changes to im-
prove comment clarity have been made. Furthermore, some comments were split to categorize
them accordingly to their parts. These appear in no particular order.
POLITICAL
• It is not legal.
• Governing bodies need to implement new rules.
• Government regulation is needed.
• Industry regulation for sustainability is needed.
2020 2050
2030: FULLY ELECTRIC
FISH FARMS ARE
ACCEPTED PRACTICE,
I.E. COMMERCIALLY
AVAILABL E
2035
PERISCOPE is supported by the North Sea Region (NSR) EU grant J-No. 32-2-13-17
23
• Legislation for this type of fish farming is needed.
ECONOMIC
• Companies need to make changes and invest in the technology.
• Investment is needed.
• The cost and efficiency need to be better than current traditional methods of fish farm-
ing. As renewable technology becomes more accepted and cheaper and the infrastruc-
ture and knowledge is there, there won't be many barriers in the way of making this op-
portunity happen.
• Economics to be right for industry to invest.
• Sufficient long-term demand for product is needed.
• The rate determining steps here are the value of the product we are farming, the cost of
installation and the capacity of the cells to generate enough power. Provided the latter is
proven then it just comes down to a commercial decision based on the value of the
farmed product.
• I guess nothing is needed except money. Although, it would be beneficial if the farms are
powered by wave energy so it could produce enough energy to be able to maintain it-
self. So money, money, money is needed only.
• Bigger farm facilities and capital.
• Any offshore wave energy device will be highly uneconomical because of maintenance,
installation, mooring etc. I cannot envisage fish farms to be.
SOCIAL
• Collaboration between the energy companies and the aquaculture industry.
TECHNOLOGICAL
• Technology is needed.
• Using the waves and motion of the sea it must be viable to harness this and use it to
generate the power needed.
• Hybrid power systems are needed.
• They need to locate a bigger fish farm further out to sea. More planning/research is
needed in order for this to happen.
• Research into this type of fish farming is needed.
• Seems like the technology is there, so really it just needs the installation.
• Diesel generators need to be stored.
• The technology is ready I guess
• Hybrid systems are needed which could be powered by waves.
• More research and test in wave energy technology, and better public funding.
• Located in areas of high wave energy density.
• A tonne of research into fish stocks.
PERISCOPE is supported by the North Sea Region (NSR) EU grant J-No. 32-2-13-17
24
ENVIRONMENTAL
• It is not environmentally friendly.
• Worried about overfishing.
The distribution of comments among the 5 categories in the PESTE analysis is depicted in Figure 6
below. This shows that only 3% of the comments can be attributed to social factors, 7% to envi-
ronmental factors, 17% to political factors, 33% to economic factors, and 40% to technological fac-
tors, making the latter the most attributed category.
Figure 6: Respondents’ comments to fully electric fish farms
5.1.3. BUSINESS POTENTIAL
On the question of the business potential of fully electric fish farms, respondents rated it, on aver-
age, 3.43/5.
5.1.4 ANALYSIS
Technological issues occupied the imagination of most respondents. As wave energy was explicitly
identified as the energy source, responses indicate that these systems require investment and im-
plementation and adaptation to purpose in order to make it “viable.”
Responses pertaining to business economics were the second largest category after technology.
Many of the offshore fish farms can be considered simple cages. The electricity requirements can
Political
17 %
Economic
33 %
Social
3 %
Technological
40 %
Environmental
7 %
DISTRIBUTION OF COMMENTS FOR FULLY
ELECTRIC FISH FARMS
PERISCOPE is supported by the North Sea Region (NSR) EU grant J-No. 32-2-13-17
25
be quite small – for example for the operation of cameras conducting surveillance by taking inter-
mittent photos and transmitting these. In order to improve the business case, “bigger farm facili-
ties” may need to emerge “further out to sea”, along with tasks that require more energy, like au-
tomated feeding and cleaning systems.
Environmental concerns over fish farming’s future is found in the tension between the demand for
fish that leads one respondent to be “worried about overfishing” while another is concerned with
the reputation of fish farms as “not environmentally friendly.” While a renewable and sustainable
energy component may enhance the industry’s profile that is characterized in “current traditional
methods,” public concern over the health and lives of the fish will likely remain. With the ongoing
challenges to the survivability rate of the fish, one respondent expects a solution to come from the
fish themselves, calling for “a tonne of research into fish stocks.”
5.2 REFERENCES TO STUDY C
[1] Worldfishing & Aquaculture (2014), Fish farming is still the future
[2] GoodFishBadFish (2020), An Introduction to Open-Pen Sea Cage Aquaculture
[3] University of Stavanger (2017), How to make the fish farming industry more climate friendly
[4] Syse, H. L. (2016), Investigating Off-Grid Energy Solutions for the Salmon Farming Industry, Uni-
versity of Strathclyde and the University of Stavanger.
[5] Eba Gr. (2017), World's First Electric Aquaculture Support Vessel
PERISCOPE is supported by the North Sea Region (NSR) EU grant J-No. 32-2-13-17
26
6.
STUDY D: RENEWABLE METHANOL VESSELS
Ambitions for zero emission maritime operations by 2030 require new power sources. Renewable
methanol is produced from an electrolysis process, powered from a renewable energy source. The
process combines hydrogen with CO2 captured from the air or the emissions from an industry,
making it carbon neutral.[1]
Liquid methanol needs neither compression nor cooling, making it easy to handle and cheap to
transport. Infrastructure at many important ports has already been established, but it will need
retrofitting for refuelling ships.[1,2] Furthermore, although some gas carrying ships and ferries are
using non-renewable methanol for a fuel source, large ocean-going ships will need to be built or
converted for liquid methanol and the fuel will need to be sourced sustainably.[1]
The amount of renewable methanol needed to power large ocean going vessels would require a
scale of production of great magnitude. Electrical grid power is too expensive to produce metha-
nol.[3] Solutions could be to locate production alongside nuclear power plants or dedicated wind,
solar, or tidal energy farms.
PERISCOPE is supported by the North Sea Region (NSR) EU grant J-No. 32-2-13-17
27
6.1 RESULTS
6.1.1 FORECAST TO IMPLEMENTATION
According to the media answer by respondents, renewable methanol vessels will become an ac-
cepted practice in 10 years (see Figure 7).
When asked for the time to accepted practice, the respondents had to option to choose “will never
happen”, only one (1) of the 25 respondents selected this option, amounting to 4%, indicating that
it is, for the overwhelming majority of participants, more likely a question of when renewable meth-
anol vessels will become an accepted practice rather than a question of if it will happen.
Figure 7: Median estimate for renewable methanol vessels
6.1.2 WHAT IS NEEDED TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN?
The comments from the respondents per this question are presented in the table below, orga-
nized across 5 categories, representing a Political, Economic, Social, Technological, and Environ-
mental (PESTE) analysis. The text in the table are the responses. In some cases, spelling, grammati-
cal corrections, and changes to improve comment clarity have been made. Furthermore, some
comments were split to categorize them accordingly to their parts. These appear in no particular
order.
POLITICAL
• Primarily regulation of the use of bunker fuel, taxes on emissions.
• Governing bodies need to implement new rules.
• Legislation that enables the production of liquid methanol on a larger scale that would
bring the costs of the fuel down but also make it more widely available for ships/ports.
• Subsidised fuel for ships using this system would incentivise its use and that might even
help with retrofitting infrastructure for refuelling as its use become more popular.
2020 20502035
2030: RENEWABLE
METHANOL VESSELS
ARE ACCEPTED
PRACTICE, I.E.
COMMERCIALLY
AVAILABL E
PERISCOPE is supported by the North Sea Region (NSR) EU grant J-No. 32-2-13-17
28
• Support and subsidiaries from government to make these changes are needed.
• More open-minded leaders in politics.
• It needs to become a standard in the industry.
ECONOMIC
• Efficiency is still a bottleneck given that ocean vessels burn massive fuel to satisfy their
loads while Methanol is a light fuel making thus larger volume will be needed.
• Infrastructure would need to be put in place which will probably have a high upfront
cost, but that will pave the way for cheaper production and usage, and therefore more
people will adopt it.
• Companies need to make changes and invest in the technology.
• It needs to have both a lower cost and an easier process on how to make it.
• I think it is too costly - requires too large-scale production and retro fitting etc.
• This technology is innovative - it is taking a 'waste' product so to speak and utilising if for
benefit - unlike the other 'opportunities' that are not necessary except for cutting cost
under the guise of 'effectiveness'. This won't happen for a while because it is not as
profit driven.
• Further funding.
• As these are still quite contentious and very expensive to research / build.
• Renewables need to become cheaper, liquid methanol adds and extra step to an already
expensive fuel source.
• This seems that it would be very expensive to produce which would be a major barrier in
this going ahead. I think other renewable sources will be looked at ahead of this just
down to cost.
• Cheaper power around the world to produce methanol in large scale.
• It needs to become cheaper than heavy fuel oil for companies to be convinced to switch
over.
• Changing ships is expensive and I don't think shippers want to take risks in these times.
• It needs to be cheaper than the alternative and available at enough ports to be reliable.
• Price of oil needs to increase, and unit price of renewable methanol needs to decrease.
• It needs to become a more efficient and more economical option than the other alterna-
tive marine fuels.
• Find an economical way to convert existing engines to run on it.
• Find an economical way to convert existing bunker infrastructure to deliver it.
• Maybe ports could also be helped to link up to their own renewable energy source.
• The primary obstacle is to make the fuels competitive.
SOCIAL
• Cooperation from all parties involved. There are a few hurdles that need to be over-
come, from agreeing to adopt it and then going forward with it.
• They need a place and idea of whole plan to make this with safety obvious.
PERISCOPE is supported by the North Sea Region (NSR) EU grant J-No. 32-2-13-17
29
• People need to recognise the importance of renewable energy. The way we are doing
now, we have done years and years. So, it is a bit difficult to persuade people to start do-
ing different and to actually believe in a better solution. However, I think with the RPS
(renewable portfolio standard) it becomes more and more known and normal to start
thinking about sustainable alternatives. I see it happen already in Europe and more and
more in America and Asia. It is a development already starting.
• Prove that it's safer.
TECHNOLOGICAL
• The storage technology for methanol in sea environment is rather complicated.
• Research.
• Electrical power.
• Locate the production next to nuclear stations and wind solar or wave farms.
• They need to set up facilities to mass produce enough renewable methanol in order to
power the ships.
• Implementation of alternative fuels in dual fuel combustion solutions offer a market for
most liquid fuel types, not just methanol. Also gaseous fuels, which can be in liquid state
under pressure, such as LPG, ammonia and others.
• Technically, conversion of engines is possible for dual fuel combustion. Technology ready
for some engines, more will follow.
ENVIRONMENTAL
• The replacement of bunker fuels offer very obvious advantages in term of reductions in
external costs, environmental considerations.
• Prove that production and transport on an industrial scale doesn't create other environ-
mental problems.
• Even though it is already in use to some extent, to become accepted practice, it must be-
come renewable, if we're looking at making it happen alongside nuclear / energy farms,
there is still some way to go.
The distribution of comments among the 5 categories in the PESTE analysis is depicted in Figure 8
below. This shows that only 7% of the comments can be attributed to environmental factors, 10%
to social, 17 to technological and political factors respectively, and 49% to economic factors, mak-
ing the latter the most attributed category.
PERISCOPE is supported by the North Sea Region (NSR) EU grant J-No. 32-2-13-17
30
Figure 8: Respondents’ comments to renewable methanol vessels
6.1.3 BUSINESS POTENTIAL
On the question of the business potential of renewable methanol vessels, respondents, on aver-
age, rated it 3.52/5.
6.1.4 ANALYSIS
Respondents identified economic factors as the most important to realize this opportunity.
A core concern is that the technology is not yet mature enough “to make the fuels competitive”
with diesel. Methanol production “needs to have both a lower cost and an easier process on how
to make it,” in order to close this gap. Beyond the fuel itself, there are issues regarding the “infra-
structure [that] would need to be put in place” face challenges since, as another respondent
claims, “the storage technology for methanol in sea environment is rather complicated” and tests
need to “prove that it’s safer.”
Respondents identify that the implementation of this opportunity will have a “high upfront cost”
and call for “further funding,” “support and subsidies,” and “rules” from government. Ideas on in-
struments for the policy mix include “subsidized fuel for ships” and financial “help with retrofitting
infrastructure for refueling” and funding for research.
Some, however, question methanol as the proper fuel for the job, and suggest that the “imple-
mentation of alternative fuels in dual fuel combustion solutions offer a market for most liquid
fuels types, not just methanol.” Other synthetic fuels are also currently under consideration, but
this prompt specifically focused on methanol.
Among social factors there is a than the alternative, while another state that “people need to rec-
ognize the importance of renewable energy. The way we are doing now, we have done years and
Political
17 %
Economic
49 %
Social
10 %
Technological
17 %
Environmental
7 %
DISTRIBUTION OF COMMENTS FOR
RENEWABLE METHANOL VESSELS
PERISCOPE is supported by the North Sea Region (NSR) EU grant J-No. 32-2-13-17
31
years. So, it is a bit difficult to persuade people to start doing different and to actually believe in a
better solution. However, I think with the RPS (renewable portfolio standard) it becomes more
and more known and normal to start thinking about sustainable alternatives. I see it happen al-
ready in Europe and more and more in America and Asia. It is a development already starting.” So,
the opportunity is challenged by the current attitude among people, but this is supposedly chang-
ing according to the environmental factors, “The replacement of bunker fuels offer very obvious
advantages in term of reductions in external costs, environmental considerations.”
Finally, “the price of oil needs to increase, and the unit price of renewable needs to decrease” and
there are deeper cultural issues related to the risk appetite of the industry, in that “changing ships
is expensive and I don't think shippers want to take risks in these times.”
6.2 REFERENCES TO STUDY D
[1] Hobson, C., & Márquez, C. (2018). Renewable Methanol Report.
[2] Advent Technology, (2019). Methanol: the Surprising Solution for Pollution, Global Warming,
and Electric Car Mass-Adoption
[3] Matzer, M., Alhajji, M., Demirel, Y. (2015), Chemical storage of wind energy by renewable
methanol production : Feasibility analysis using a multi-criteria decision matrix
7.
CROSS-CASE COMPARISON
The data received for each of the surveys was aggregated and analyzed to find the median, the
mean, and the standard deviation of the estimates of when the respective opportunities will be-
come and accepted practice. This analysis is represented in table 1 below, which shows the number
of respondents, the median, i.e. the value separating the lower and upper half of the data samples,
the mean, the standard deviation of the distribution, and the percentage of respondents who an-
swered that the opportunity will never happen. The option, “will never happen”, was added to en-
sure the respondents were able to answer the closed question in agreement to their actual beliefs.
The median, rather than the mean, is more valid in forecasting as it prevents the forecast from being
skewed by outliers.
Respondents
Median
Mean
Standard Devi-
ation
Will never
happen
Study A
29
15
14,52
9,81
10,34%
Study B
23
8
8,61
4,30
4,35%
Study C
20
10
10,33
6,02
15,00%
Study D
22
10
12,64
6,02
4,00%
PERISCOPE is supported by the North Sea Region (NSR) EU grant J-No. 32-2-13-17
32
8.
BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY
This rapid growth in renewable ocean energy generation and the decrease in the costs of its gener-
ation are driving the transition towards a sustainable ocean economy. Offshore energy hubs can be
viewed through a number of different lenses. Large scale ”hub and spoke” concepts, where wind
farms connect to one or several hub islands via alternating current cables, currently dominate North
Sea actors’ imagination. [1] But questions remain on how these can go beyond electricity generation
and distribution in order to contribute to the electrification of the seas. In this report, we focused
on a series of configurations and auxiliary services that can be considered alongside and beyond
renewable energy generation.
To some extent many of these opportunities can be seen as ”chicken and egg” problems, i.e.
should the service come before the users, i.e. supply driven, or should the demand be in place be-
fore the supply is made available, i.e. demand driven. This is a classic problem in many technology
areas. It is unlikely that any commercial windfarm operator will create the necessary infrastructure
without having some (high) degree of confidence that there is a market. Similar to what we have
observed with the diffusion of cars using hydrogen as the fuel: The fueling stations will not invest
in the necessary equipment to make hydrogen as long as they are not sure that there is a demand.
The potential users of hydrogen cars will not buy these unless they are sure that they can actually
get fuel when they need it. This is part of the reason while hydrogen cars has so far not been par-
ticularly successful.
It is clear that given the drive towards major reduction in emission e.g. the Paris agreement [2]
and the EU’s goal [3] the solutions discussed here are relevant in trying to reach these environ-
mental goals. While these technologies are still under development we might expect that they will
receive more attention and funding from both the EU research frameworks as well as national
level support in the future.
TIDE-POWERED HYDROGEN VESSELS
Of all the technologies discussed in this report this opportunity is estimated to be the furthest in the
future. The tidal energy sector is still in an emergent phase of development, and has not yet reached
a commercial scale. There are test plants which have generated 3GWH over a one year period in
Orkney [4], but there is still no clear path to determine which technology will be the most appropri-
ate. The Carbon Trust has estimated that tidal energy has the potential to cover 20% of the UK
electricity demands [4], indicating that the technology might have a large potential.
One of the major advantages of tidal energy is its predictability, i.e. it relays on the gravitational pull
of the moon on the seas of the world. In contrast to the most common renewable energy sources
today wind and photovoltaic which has the disadvantage of being intermittent source, i.e. they do
not produce a constant predictable volume of electricity, as it depends on change in the weather
PERISCOPE is supported by the North Sea Region (NSR) EU grant J-No. 32-2-13-17
33
conditions [5]. A problem that can only be solved in the moment where there is commercial eco-
nomic solutions to store electricity or transform it to another media, i.e. Power to X.
Tidal energy furthermore requires a physical location that has strong tidal currents (at least this is
the thinking is in the moment): There needs to be sufficient difference in the tide to be able to
generate electricity on a sufficient scale [4]. Given this, it will not be ideal in many places.
While the commercial solution is still somewhere in the future, this is a potential area where the EU
and the national funding bodies might be able to help create an ecosystem and actors from Univer-
sities, commercial actors, and research organizations to accelerate the development.
The second issue in this opportunity is what the future fuel of ships will be. Currently there are large
research programs trying to establish alternative fuels and it is far from certain that hydrogen might
be the preferred fuel, alternatives could be bio-methane, ammonia, ethanol, etc. [6]. It is not clear
if there will be an agreement of which fuel will become the standard fuel, or even if there will ever
be one. However, there will potential be infrastructure inadequacies—at least in the short run-- if
there are too many different fuel used simultaneously. Secondly, it is likely that shipowners will be
cautions as any transition from fossil to new fuels will be costly, and it might not be feasible or
possible in some ships.
It is too early to say how big the potential is; but it is likely to eventually be required by regulation,
e.g. at EU or national level as a prerequisite for being able to dock at the ports in e.g. the North Sea
area.
RECHARGING AT WIND FARMS
This is an opportunity which is already technologically possible, but neither the necessary infrastruc-
ture nor the ships with electric engines are adapting. However, there is some potential benefit from
offshore windmills parks growth projections, which are set to expand rapidly over the next decade
[7].
While the growth in offshore windfarms is due to the policies of reducing emission [2,3] it would be
beneficial to think one step broader, and include the maintenance of these off-shore windfarms as
part of the attempt to reduce emissions. This could be done as part of the bidding for the construc-
tion and operation of the windfarms. This way they would become truly green. The additional cost
would be relatively small, particularly as the design and production of support ships would gain
some economies of scale.
There are already fully operational ferries running on electricity [8], so it should be feasible to do
the same as the support vessels, like a ferry, which have a limited or specified operation radius or
route.
FULLY ELECTRIC FISH FARMS
PERISCOPE is supported by the North Sea Region (NSR) EU grant J-No. 32-2-13-17
34
With 15% of respondents claiming that “this will never happen,” this opportunity is seemingly the
least plausible. On the other hand, there is a forecasted growth in fish farms globally, e.g. the world
now produces more seafood from aquaculture than the wild fish catch [9]. With the growing focus
on the environment sustainability, particularly beef, the demand for seafood is likely to continue to
grow. [10]
There are large aquaculture players in the North Sea region e.g. Norway [11]. It is likely that fish
farms will move further from the land, which would not only allow for bigger farms, but also to
mitigate some of the other factors as the farms get bigger, i.e. it is necessary have sufficient water
circulation.
Fish farms have traditionally used fossil fuel to generate the necessary electricity if they were not
close enough to have a connection to land. However there has been a number of experiments with
integrating renewable into the system as mentioned earlier [12, 13]. Using a hybrid of renewable
and fossil fuel, cost and emission reduction have been demonstrated. However, the intermittency
of conventional renewable energy systems, and the not-yet-existing possibility to store electricity
in commercially viable ways, remain as barriers for making fish farms fully renewable with conven-
tional renewable sources.
This problem can be solved in at least two ways, a stable renewable energy source or a commercial
way to store electricity. Wave energy has identified as a potential source of energy, as it, like tidal
energy, is relatively stable. The problem is that this is not yet at a stage in the development where
it can be adopted, and again like tidal energy, there are a number of experiments with it but not yet
any clear design that can be effectively scaled to the requirements of a fish farm [4] However, even
if there was, it is not likely that fish farms are able to use it, as they are normally not located in areas
with large waves because these waves can make the fish sick. The other alternative, the possibility
of storing electricity, is a more likely solution. Energy storage is an area that is currently attracting
significant attention and is expected to create increasingly efficient and cost effective solutions, alt-
hough it is too early to say when and if these solutions will be possible for the isolated fish farm.
RENEWABLE METHANOL VESSELS
Ocean going vessels are one of the largest contributors to Green House Gas (GHG) emissions. The
maritime industry has been characterizes as a traditional one which is slow to incorporate new tech-
nologies. Thus, the IMO and other regulatory agencies have been instrumental in incentivizing ship-
owners to adopt technologies and practices with environmental protection in mind.
As convincing as the case against carbon has been over the recent decades, it still has not been
persuasive enough to initiate much of a transition of the existing fleet to low or zero emission ship-
ping. The Heavy Fuel Oil that powers the propulsion of the large ocean-going vessels is inexpensive,
and is still available without any tax to price in the negative externalities given that these ships sail
most of the time out of the jurisdiction of any government.
PERISCOPE is supported by the North Sea Region (NSR) EU grant J-No. 32-2-13-17
35
This situation is once again an example of the chicken and egg issue, as independent shipowners do
not want to overhaul and retrofit their ships before the refueling infrastructure and fuel is available,
and the ports and producers will not change to methanol from conventional fuels until the demand
is there. Such is the case for regulations make the market through policies that increasingly incen-
tivize shipowners to transition.
It could be that large and influential players can push this transition. For example, Mærsk’s new-
Center for Zero Carbon Shipping is making significant investments into a set of alternative and syn-
thetic fuels that show potential for use by large vessels. Breakthroughs are needed to mature these
technologies, for example, the energy density of methanol is only 49% compared with gasoline, i.e.
1 gallon of methanol has 49% of the energy of one gallon of gasoline.[14] Likewise, improvements
are needed across the value chain: In the conversion efficiency, scaling and mass production, safe
storage at ports and on ships, refuelling equipment, reconversion efficiency back to electricity, pro-
pulsion systems, etc. These issues are often specific and complex for each fuel in question.
The challenges and required investments are significant, but the market potential for such fuels
would be enormous as would be the progress towards a more sustainable planet.
REFERENCES
[1] https://www.offshorewind.biz/2020/10/05/north-sea-wind-power-hub-gets-eur-14-million-eu-
grant/
[2] https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement
[3] https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/2020_en
[4] https://fullycharged.show/blog/the-next-wave-hydroelectric-wave-tidal-hydrogen-nuclear-fu-
sion-fission/
[5] https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/intermittent-energy-source
[6] http://www.emsa.europa.eu/main/air-pollution/alternative-fuels.html
[7] https://www.evwind.es/2020/08/05/offshore-wind-energy-will-surge-to-over-234-gw-by-
2030-led-by-asia-pacific/76266
[8] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50233206
[9] https://ourworldindata.org/rise-of-aquaculture
[10] http://www.agri-outlook.org/commodities/Fish.pdf
[11] https://www.thebalance.com/top-aquaculture-countries-1301739
[12] University of Stavanger (2017), How to make the fish farming industry more climate friendly
[13] Syse, H. L. (2016), Investigating Off-Grid Energy Solutions for the Salmon Farming Industry,
University of Strathclyde and the University of Stavanger.
[14] https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf
9.
CONCLUSION
The transition of the maritime and offshore industries toward a sustainable “Blue Growth” future is
driven by incentives to unlock new growth areas, develop and apply new technologies, and increase
PERISCOPE is supported by the North Sea Region (NSR) EU grant J-No. 32-2-13-17
36
productivity. The development of offshore energy hubs provides an opportunity to support the ac-
complishment of these goals.
This rapid growth in renewable ocean energy generation and the decrease in the costs of its gener-
ation are driving this transition. Large scale ”hub and spoke” concepts, where wind farms connect
to one or several hub islands via alternating current cables, currently dominate North Sea actors’
imagination. But questions remain on how these can go beyond electricity generation and distribu-
tion in order to contribute to the electrification of the seas.
This report looks at some of the potential drone use case in the future that can help stimulate sus-
tainable economic growth. While initiatives, cases, and projects have begun to emerge, questions
of what’s next, how, and when further applications of offshore energy hubs remain potential next
practices for offshore energy hubs and put them to the and validation. Survey instruments were
developed for various use cases that cover new activities to support the electrification of the seas.
The use cases ranged from introducing new renewable fuels such as methanol and hydrogen, de-
veloping multi-use platforms such as charging at wind farms and incorporating electrification into
existing industries such as fish farming, and the production of synthetic fuels. While none of these
individually can be considered an “offshore energy hub” in itself, they contribute with descriptions
of different capabilities that could be implemented at said hubs.
We report on these opportunities to decision processes in enterprises and policy making bodies.
The crowd-based assessments forecast tide-powered hydrogen vessels to become accepted prac-
tice in 15 years, recharging SOVs at wind turbines in 8 years, fully electric fish farms to emerge in 10
years, and methanol-powered vessels on the sea in 10 years. We furthermore make an analysis of
each of these and discuss the opportunities in connection with developing offshore energy hubs.
10.
RESPONDENTS
Respondents identified as acting on this opportunity include:
Aarhus University
Central Denmark EU Office
Danske Maritime
DanWEC
Denmark’s Technological Insitute
ForWind / University Oldenburg
KF Energieberatung
Skua Marine Ltd
University of Exeter
University of Melbourne
periscope-network.eu
Periscope Network
