Downloaded from orbit.dtu.

dk on: 7 11, 2025

Techno-Economic Modeling of Floating Wind Farms

Montes, Ariadna; Fournely, David; Sørensen, Jens N.; Larsen, Gunner C.

Published in:
Energies

Link to article, DOI:

10.3390/en18040967

Publication date:
2025

Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Link back to DTU Orbit

Citation (APA):
Montes, A., Fournely, D., Sørensen, J. N., & Larsen, G. C. (2025). Techno-Economic Modeling of Floating Wind
Farms. Energies, 18(4), Article 967. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18040967

General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright
owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

 Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.
 You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain
 You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately
and investigate your claim.
Article

Techno-Economic Modeling of Floating Wind Farms

Ariadna Montes 1 , David Fournely 1 , Jens N. Sørensen 2, * and Gunner C. Larsen 3

1 Copenhagen Energy, Bag Elefanterne 1, 1799 Copenhagen, Denmark; [email protected] (A.M.);

[email protected] (D.F.)
2 DTU Wind and Energy Systems, Technical University of Denmark, Nils Koppels Allé, bldg. 403,
2800 Lyngby, Denmark
3 DTU Wind and Energy Systems, Technical University of Denmark, Risø Campus, Frederiksborgvej 399,
bldg. 114, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: A simple techno-economic model for determining wind power production and
costs related to the development of floating offshore wind power is proposed. The model
is a further extension of the minimalistic prediction model for fixed-bottom wind farms
previously developed by two of the authors. In the extended version, costs associated
with the deployment of floating structures, such as floaters, mooring lines, and anchors,
including additional installation and operational expenses, are taken into account. This
paper gives an overview of the costs of the various components of different types of floating
wind power installations, and using actual wind climate and bathymetry data for the North
Sea, the model is employed to map the annual energy production and levelized cost of
energy (LCoE) for floating wind farms located in the North Sea.

Keywords: offshore wind energy; cost modeling; levelized cost of energy; North Sea

1. Introduction
Wind power is one of the fastest-growing carbon neutral energy sources today. For
many years, the development of wind turbines aimed at optimizing land-based wind power
systems. However, due to lack of space near urban areas and increasing public resistance to
large wind turbines in rural areas, most developments of wind energy systems are directed
Academic Editor: Antonio Segalini
towards offshore locations today. As an illustration of this, more than 140 offshore wind
Received: 16 December 2024
farms have been erected in Europe in the past 25 years, now contributing with an installed
Revised: 22 January 2025
capacity of more than 34 GW [1] and an average of approximately 3.5 GW new installations
Accepted: 7 February 2025
Published: 17 February 2025
every year [2]. This development has been associated with a dramatic increase in wind
turbine size, which in the past two decades has increased with a factor of 10 from about
Citation: Montes, A.; Fournely, D.;
Sørensen, J.N.; Larsen, G.C.
1.5 MW in the beginning of the century to 15 MW today. Going offshore demands wind
Techno-Economic Modeling of turbines to be placed on large substructures fixed to the seabed, such as monopiles and
Floating Wind Farms. Energies 2025, 18, jackets, which are convenient for water depths of up to about 50 m. However, in deeper
967. https://doi.org/10.3390/ waters, fixed-bottom wind energy systems become very expensive, and for water depths
en18040967
of about more than 50 m, it becomes necessary to resort to floating wind turbines (FWTs),
Copyright: © 2025 by the authors. which furthermore have the potential to significantly increase the area available for offshore
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. wind power.
This article is an open access article
Some disadvantages of offshore wind power, in general, and floating wind power,
distributed under the terms and
in particular, are increased costs due to expenses of substructures; the need for special
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license
support structures, e.g., in terms of special build vessels; and the added complexities asso-
(https://creativecommons.org/ ciated with installation, operation, and maintenance in marine environments. According
licenses/by/4.0/). to [3], the levelized cost of energy for onshore wind power is about EUR 4 cents/kWh;

Energies 2025, 18, 967 https://doi.org/10.3390/en18040967

Energies 2025, 18, 967 2 of 26

for fixed-bottom offshore wind energy, it is about EUR 8 cents/kWh; and the cost of the
present floating wind power amounts to about EUR 24 cents/kWh. However, FWT tech-
nology is still in its early stage and, similar to the development of fixed-bottom offshore
wind technology, driven by economies of scale and improvements in manufacturing, it
is expected to undergo a steep learning curve when first taking off. Hence, according
to [3], FWT technology is expected to be reduced with a factor of three, reaching a value of
EUR 8 cents/kWh in 2040. To guide this development, there is a need for techno-economic
models for understanding the economics of FWT farms and for providing tools to guide
long-term strategic decision making.
Presently, various techno-economic models are utilized to analyze the costs of offshore
wind farms, drawing on substantial experience from the operational data and expendi-
tures of fixed-bottom wind farms as documented in published sources. Several technical
reports and reviews have synthesized this information, including references such as [4–7].
Gonzalez-Rodriguez [8] provides a comprehensive overview of prominent cost models,
incorporating historical data on economic factors such as inflation rates and commodity
prices. Some models focus on detailed cost breakdowns of wind turbine components,
such as [9], while others employ global parametrizations for parametric studies on the
levelized cost of energy (LCoE) to identify key cost drivers for wind farms, for instance [10].
Additionally, international collaborative projects, like IEA Wind Task 26, have employed
models combining detailed component modeling with broader industry data to establish
typical LCoE values for offshore wind farms across different countries [11].
The modeling of floating wind turbines and the economic aspects of installing them
are still in their infancy. Estimating the costs of floating offshore wind farms is crucial
for understanding their economic feasibility. This task is challenging due to the limited
number of commercial operating projects, as most are still in the research or development
phase. However, breaking down the components of these floating wind farms helps assess
their total cost. A major research effort is currently underway with the aim of elucidating
the various costs associated with the installation, operation, and maintenance of floating
wind farms. Recent investigations of the economic feasibility of floating wind farms (FWFs)
have been carried out for different predefined regions, such as Portugal [12], the European
part of the Atlantic Ocean [13], and the North of Spain [9]. However, these investigations
generally lack details of the basic parameters characterizing the wind farm layout and wake
losses, and there is a need for a simple model that takes into account the main features of
FWFs to provide a fast and accurate predictive tool for assessing site-dependent energy
production and costs.
This work aims to establish a straightforward, robust, and reliable numerical frame-
work to support developers and decision makers in evaluating the economic feasibility
of floating offshore wind power at a given location. The model is based on the techno-
economic framework previously developed by Sørensen and Larsen [14]. Its primary
objective is to facilitate preliminary cost assessments without requiring detailed technical
specifications of the wind turbines or the precise layout of the wind farm. As a result,
the model relies only on key inputs, such as turbine characteristics (rotor diameter and
rated capacity), wind farm scale (number of turbines and total area), site-specific Weibull
parameters, water depths, and distances to the coast and nearest harbor. The tool provides
outputs, including average annual power generation, power density (power per unit area),
capital expenditures (CAPEX), operational expenditures (OPEX), and the levelized cost of
energy (LCoE).
In the following, the various aspects of the model are described. Section 2 gives an
overview of the main elements of the model, including the power prediction model, a
description of different platform types for FWTs, and the various components of the cost
Energies 2025, 18, 967 3 of 26

model, including simple analytical expressions for the costs of wind turbines, transmission,
floaters, mooring lines, and anchors, as well as installation costs, operational expenses,
and LCoE. In Section 3, different results from the model are presented, and the LCoE is
determined with the North Sea as an example. Finally, conclusions and recommendations
for future work are outlined in Section 4.

2. Model and Methods

In the following, the different elements of the techno-economic model are presented.
Parts of the model for fixed-bottom offshore wind farms presented in earlier works by some
of the authors (see [14–16]) are exploited as the basis for the modeling. In particular, the
model for determining the power production remains unchanged. The economic factors
for offshore wind deployment are examined, focusing on the main cost drivers of floating
offshore wind farms. They cover both CAPEX and OPEX and their impact on the LCoE.
The model includes the main cost elements while keeping it simple and widely applicable.
To give an overview of the model, a visual representation of the various parts of a floating
wind farm is depicted in Figure 1. These parts were included in the CAPEX cost estimates,
along with installation and related costs, which are later presented in detail.

Figure 1. Schematic representation of the different elements of a floating offshore wind farm.

2.1. Power Production Model

The energy assessment model is minimalistic in the sense that only the main param-
eters characterizing the wind turbines and the topology of the wind farm are required
(see Figure 2). In the model, the wind turbine is uniquely defined by its diameter, D, and in-
stalled power capacity, PG . From these parameters, the rated wind speed is determined as
s
3
8PG
Ur = (1)
ρπD2 CP,r

where ρ is the density of air and CP,r is the rated power coefficient. Knowing the rated
wind speed, the thrust and power coefficients are formulated as [14]
(
CT,r for Ui ≤ U < Ur
CT (U ) = (2)
CT,r (Ur /U )3.2 for Ur ≤ U < Uo

and
(
CP,r for Ui ≤ U < Ur
C P (U ) = (3)
CP,r (Ur /U )3 for Ur ≤ U < Uo

where Ui is the cut-in wind speed and Uo is the cut-out wind speed, and CT,r is the rated
thrust coefficient. In most cases, thrust and power coefficients are provided by the wind
turbine manufacturers. If they, for some reason, are not known, typical practical values are
CT,r = 0.75 and CP,r = 0.48.
Energies 2025, 18, 967 4 of 26

The wind farm topology is defined only in terms of the total number of wind turbines,
NT , and the wind farm area, A. Denoting the assumed uniform distance between the wind
turbines, measured in diameters, as S, and assuming, as a simplifying approximation, that
the wind farm is quadratic, the following equation gives the interspacing as a function of
the wind farm area and the number of turbines:
√
A
S= √
(4)
D NT − 1
This expression is based on the assumption that the reference wind farm has a
quadratic layout (see [14]). While not all wind farms follow this configuration, it pro-
vides a straightforward approach to estimating the average spacing between turbines with
reasonable accuracy, regardless of the specific layout. In practice, wind farm arrange-
ments can vary significantly, and their exact topology is often unknown during the early
planning stages.

Figure 2. Scheme of the input parameters to the minimalistic model, allowing calculation for energy
production, CAPEX, OPEX, and LCoE.

The power production model is based on the atmospheric wind farm boundary layer
model developed by Frandsen [17], which evaluates wake effects and their interaction with
the atmospheric boundary layer. This model assumes that the wind farm is sufficiently
large for the wind field within it to reach equilibrium with the surrounding atmospheric
boundary layer (ABL) flow. As a result, the model derives the following simplified equation
to estimate the wake-affected mean wind speed at hub height within the wind farm:

G
Uh = √ (5)
ct +(κ/ln(h/zo ))2

G
1 + ln f ′h κ

where κ = 0.4 is the von Kàrmàn constant; G is the geostrophic wind speed; f ′ = f ·
exp( A∗), with f = 2Ω sin(ϕ) being the Coriolis parameter with Ω denoting the rotational
speed of the globe; ϕ is the latitude; and A∗ is a constant, which is approximately equal to 4
at latitude ϕ = 55◦ . For more information, we refer to a paper by Frandsen et al. [18], where
the method is described in more detail. The essential parameter in the above expression is
ct = πC T
8S2
, which is the parameter that determines the impact of the turbine thrust on the
boundary layer profile.
Energies 2025, 18, 967 5 of 26

To estimate wind farm power production and provide inputs for the cost model related
to operations and maintenance (O&M) expenses, it is necessary to determine the mean
wind speed statistics both for the undisturbed site (ambient wind speed statistics) and
within the wind farm flow field. A two-parameter Weibull distribution, Φ = Φ(λ, k),
where λ represents the scale parameter and k the shape parameter, is used to characterize
the annual wind speed distribution. However, the wind speed statistics inside a wind
farm differ from those of the ambient flow due to wake-induced reductions caused by
neighboring turbines. To estimate the annual power production of a turbine within the
wind farm, the Weibull scale parameter is adjusted to reflect the wind conditions at hub
height for turbines operating within the array.
Since the model described above assumes a fully developed atmospheric boundary
layer in equilibrium with an infinitely large wind farm, a correction is required to account
for the finite size of actual wind farms. To approximate this effect, the following simple
heuristic expression is applied to adjust the wind farm power production estimate:
p p
PE = ( NT − a NT ) PWF + a NT ) PFree (6)

where PE represents the average total annual power production, PWF denotes the average
power output of a single wind turbine affected by wake losses, PFree corresponds to the
average production of an isolated wind turbine operating in free-stream conditions, and a is
a correction factor. This expression is based on the assumption that the correction depends
on the proportion of turbines located along the wind farm’s edges relative to the total
number of turbines. Given that wind turbines can be arranged in various configurations, a
√
general approach considers a square-shaped wind farm with NT turbines along each edge,
√
leading to a total of 4 NT edge turbines. Since the turbines positioned along two of these
√
edges are exposed to the free-stream wind, the power output from approximately 2 NT
turbines is expected to be equal to that of standalone turbines. Additionally, depending on
the wind direction, some turbines near the farm’s perimeter may also experience reduced
wake effects. Consequently, while some turbines operate under fully developed wake
conditions, others are only partially affected, and those on the upwind-facing edges remain
unaffected by wakes. In this work, a correction factor of a = 3 is applied, indicating
that, on average, 3/4 of the turbines along the wind farm’s perimeter experience free-
stream conditions. This assumption has demonstrated good agreement when comparing
estimated wind farm production with actual recorded data [14]. However, ongoing research
is examining the impact of additional parameters, such as turbine spacing and wind speed,
on the value of a.
A detailed explanation of the model, along with the derivations of its equations, can
be found in a study by Sørensen and Larsen [14], where it is thoroughly described and
validated against actual performance and cost data from several full-scale wind farms. The
accuracy of the predicted annual energy production is shown to be within approximately
5%. Despite its simplicity, the model demonstrates a remarkable ability to estimate both
costs and power output for offshore wind farms with high reliability.

2.2. Categorization of Floating Wind Turbine Types

The following subsection gives an overview of different types of floating wind turbines.
The different concepts imply different costs, and it is therefore required to distinguish them
in the following cost assessment.

2.2.1. Floating Platforms

A key difference between floating and fixed-bottom offshore wind installations is
the design of the platform. Traditional offshore wind turbines use monopile or jacket
Energies 2025, 18, 967 6 of 26

foundations, which limit their use to waters with about less than 50 m depth. Floating
offshore wind can access wind resources in deeper, more stable waters, offering significant
growth potential for the offshore wind sector.
Floaters are usually classified on the basis of their primary stabilization methods.
There are three main ways to ensure the stability of a floating system: ballast, buoyancy,
and mooring. The main types of floating support structures are semi-submersible/barge,
spar, and tension leg platform, as shown in Figure 3. In general terms, semi-submersibles
are mainly stabilized by buoyancy, spars are stabilized by ballast, and tension leg platforms
are stabilized by mooring tension. To provide a better understanding of these technologies,
a brief description of each is provided.

Figure 3. Types of floating wind turbine platforms: (A) semi-submersible, (B) spar, and (C) tension
leg platforms.

• Semi-submersible/barge (SSP): Semi-submersibles and barges are two key types of

floaters that use water-plane stabilization. Semi-submersibles achieve stability with
several smaller separate water-plane areas, usually with three columns arranged in a
triangle for optimal stability. Sometimes, a fourth column is added in the center to
support the wind turbine. This design allows for onshore construction and towing to
the site, avoiding the need for expensive construction vessels with marine cranes. Its
shallow draft allows it to be used in waters as shallow as 40 m. The platform can be
detached from its moorings for maintenance, making maintenance easier. Barges use
a similar stabilization method but have a single large central water-plane area instead
of multiple cylinders.
• Spar buoy (SB): Spar buoys use ballast for stability and are usually shaped like long
cylinders similar to a ship’s hull. They have a deep draft, providing ample room for
wind turbines and equipment, and are anchored to the seabed with mooring lines.
The foundation is a steel or concrete cylinder filled with water and gravel ballast to
stay stable. Spar buoys need deeper water, usually starting at 80 m.
• Tension leg platforms (TLP): TLPs use mooring for stability and support the wind
turbine with a central cylindrical structure connected to three or more outward-
extending pontoons. Vertical tendons, anchored by suction piles, driven piles, or
template foundations, provide pre-tensioned stability to keep the platform upright.
This technology is suitable for water depths of 50–60 m or more. TLPs can be assembled
onshore, avoiding the logistical challenges of offshore assembly.
The motion of the floating support structure is largely governed by the mooring system,
which varies among the three primary floater types: spars and semi-submersibles/barges
use catenary or taut mooring lines, while TLPs are anchored with tendons. For floaters
Energies 2025, 18, 967 7 of 26

employing chains or ropes in a catenary configuration, the wave frequency range exceeds
the natural frequencies in all six primary motion directions. In contrast, for tendon-moored
floaters, this applies only to the natural surge, sway, and yaw frequencies.
In summary, Table 1 offers a comparative overview of the primary characteristics, ad-
vantages, and limitations of semi-submersibles, TLPs, and spar buoys, providing valuable
context for understanding their deployment and operational trade-offs. The development
of floating offshore wind turbines has expanded the potential to harness wind energy in
deeper waters, with spar buoys, semi-submersibles, and tension leg platforms being the
three primary types of floater utilized for wind turbines, each with a unique approach to
ensure stability. The dynamics of these floaters depend on how they are anchored.

Table 1. Comparison of different types of floaters based on [19].

Type Strengths Weaknesses

- High motions
- Large footprint
- Shallow water suitable
Semi- - Complex structure
- Simple assembly
submersible - Susceptible to corrosion
- Broad installation window
- Heavy, costly structure
- Long mooring lines
- Intermediate depth suitable
- Unsuitable for shallow waters
- Low motions
- High risk if mooring fails
TLP - Small footprint
- Complex installation
- Little corrosion
- High structural stress
- Shorter mooring lines
- Unsuitable for shallow water
- Simple structure
- Challenging assembly
Spar - Low corrosion
- Large footprint
- High sea state suitability
- High installation costs

2.2.2. Mooring Lines and Anchors

Within the floating wind industry, three primary mooring configurations draw inspi-
ration from the oil and gas sector. These configurations, adapted for floating wind farms,
include catenary, tension leg, and taut or semi-taut systems, illustrated in Figure 4. Each is
briefly described in the following:

Figure 4. Three types of mooring systems: (A) catenary mooring system, (B) tension leg mooring
system, and (C) taut or semi-taut mooring system.

• Catenary mooring systems employ freely hanging steel chains between the floating
structure and the anchor, forming a catenary shape. This design allows the float-
ing platform freedom of vertical and horizontal movements, enhancing flexibility.
Catenary systems are known for their cost-effectiveness and adaptability to various
water depths and weather conditions. However, they face limitations regarding the
Energies 2025, 18, 967 8 of 26

maximum length of the mooring line and susceptibility to lateral forces, making them
most suitable for shallower waters and moderate environmental conditions.
• Tension leg mooring systems utilize pre-tensioned mooring lines, allowing the floating
body to achieve full tension. These systems are more suitable for deep-water applica-
tions, providing high stiffness and stability for improved motion control of the floating
structure. Pre-tensioned tendons aid in reducing vertical motions and establishing a
rigid connection to the seabed.
• Taut or semi-taut mooring systems maintain tension in the mooring lines, unlike
catenary systems, which allow slack to form in a catenary curve. This design strikes
a balance between the flexibility of catenary systems and the stiffness of tension
leg systems. Taut or semi-taut systems are preferred in deeper waters and more
challenging environmental conditions, where a combination of flexibility and stiffness
is desired.
Selecting the right mooring system for a floating wind turbine involves considering
factors such as the type of floater, water depth, seabed conditions, and costs. Therefore, it is
crucial to thoroughly assess these factors to choose the most suitable mooring system for
a project.
When discussing mooring lines for floating offshore wind farms, the choice of ma-
terial is also important. Common materials include studless chains, known for their cost
effectiveness and easy handling in permanent mooring systems, and synthetic ropes like
polyester and HMPE, which offer different levels of flexibility and stiffness to suit various
conditions [4]. The number of mooring lines is another key factor in mooring system design.
While most mooring setups use three lines or clusters, certain floater designs, like those
with four corner buoyancy columns, may need four-line systems. Although redundant
multi-line clusters are not common, future developments driven by operational experience
may trend towards more redundant systems [4].
Regarding anchors, there are various types, including drag embedment anchors
(DEAs), vertical load anchors (VLAs), and suction piles [20,21], depicted in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Types of anchors for floating wind turbine platforms: (A) vertical load anchor, (B) drag
embedment anchor, and (C) suction pile anchor.

Their capabilities are summarized as follows:

• VLA (vertical load anchor): VLAs are suitable for taut leg mooring systems, deployed
in water depths exceeding 400 m. Designed to withstand vertical loads, VLAs rely on
their weight to provide stability, suitable for various seabed conditions and particularly
effective in shallower water depths.
Energies 2025, 18, 967 9 of 26

• Drag embedment: This anchoring technology involves horizontally dragging the

anchor into the seabed, gaining popularity for shallow water applications. Drag
embedment anchors (DEAs) rely on their weight and shape to resist horizontal forces
from wind, waves, and currents, effectively working in different seabed conditions.
• Suction pile: Suction piles excel in deep-water applications, handling both horizontal
and vertical loads. These large steel or concrete structures create a firm grip on the
seabed through suction, stabilizing the floating platform, particularly effective in softer
seabed conditions like clay and fine sand.

2.3. Cost Modeling

Following the benchmark made on existing technologies, the cost of each part of a
floating turbine is assessed. To build up a general cost model, the aim is to derive cost
estimates that only depend on a set of parameters that developers would use to describe a
project in early-stage development. This list of relevant input parameters is given in Table 2.
Each component of the floating wind farm is analyzed based on these parameters. Key
input drivers are identified from the list, and straightforward relationships between cost
and these inputs are established.

Table 2. Main input parameters affecting costs.

Name Symbol Value Units

Rated power PG Variable MW
Rotor diameter D Variable m
Number of turbines NT Variable -
Water depth H Variable m
Hub height h Variable m
Wind farm area A Variable m2
Distance to shore Y Variable km
Number of years of operation YO Variable -
Wind farm density dWF Variable MW/km2
Rated power coefficient CP,r 0.48 -
Rated thrust coefficient CT,r 0.75 -
Air density ρ 1.225 kg/m3
Gravitational acceleration g 9.816 m/s2

For the purposes of this model, the rated power of the wind turbines, PG , is considered
to range from 5 to 15 MW. This range reflects the current market availability of commercial
wind turbines, as well as the typical power ratings for prototypes designed for floating
foundations that we have used to develop this model. The water depth, denoted as H, is
assumed to vary between 40 m and 1000 m. A lower limit of 40 m is selected because it is
the minimum depth for which semi-submersible foundations are considered viable, while
an upper limit of 1000 m represents the maximum theoretical water depth for floating wind
farms. The distance to shore, denoted as Y, is constrained between 5 and 200 km. This
range is chosen because distances beyond 200 km make the installation and maintenance
of the wind farm unfeasible due to increased logistical challenges and costs.

2.3.1. Wind Turbine

Wind turbine costs are mainly influenced by the rated power. Floating turbines are
generally more costly than bottom-fixed ones, as they require stronger and heavier towers
to keep natural frequencies outside the wave excitation range [22]. Accurately assessing
this additional weight and its impact on costs is challenging due to limited data. Floating
turbines are often approximated as equivalent to bottom-fixed ones, which can introduce
Energies 2025, 18, 967 10 of 26

errors in cost estimation. Future research aims to refine cost predictions as more data
become available.
To evaluate the current wind turbine costs and determine if there have been changes
from a previous model [14], several data sources have been reviewed, as summarized
in Table 3. The comparison presented in Table 3 includes cost data from various years
and sources, adjusted to 2022 values for consistency. These adjustments were made using
inflation rates obtained from [23], ensuring that all cost models are normalized to a common
baseline. This approach allows for a fair comparison of values across different years
and sources.

Table 3. Comprehensive breakdown of cost sources for offshore wind turbine prices.

Data Source Year Cost Model [M€] Cost Model [M€2022 ]

[8] 2017 1.347 · PG0.87 1.560 · PG0.87
[10] 2019 1.700 · PG 2.113 · PG
[11] 2021 1.374 · PG0.87 1.594 · PG0.87
[24] 2020 −1.900 + 1.600 · PG −2.109 + 1.776 · PG
[25] 2019 1.128 · PG 1.271 · PG
[26] 2021 1.220 · PG 1.348 · PG
[27] 2022 1.290 · PG 1.290 · PG
[28] 2022 1.440 · PG 1.440 · PG

The analysis suggests that costs have remained relatively stable. Consequently, the
following Equation (7), which was previously employed in [14], is still valid for estimating
wind turbine costs.
CWT = NT · 1.25 · (−0.15 + 0.92 · PG ) (7)

where PG is measured in MW and CWT is given in M€.

2.3.2. Transmission System

Numerous factors shape the cost structure of the offshore wind energy transmis-
sion system, which has an impact on both financial and technical aspects. Key cost
drivers include the following:
• Inter-turbine distance (array cables): The distance between turbines within the wind
farm determines the length of array cables needed. Larger distances require longer
cables, increasing both material and installation costs.
• Proximity to onshore grid connection (export cable): The distance from the offshore
wind farm to the onshore grid connection affects the length of the export cable. Longer
distances require more cables, raising the costs of material, installation, and burial. In
this analysis, this distance is referred to as the distance to the shore, labeled as Y.
• Aggregate power capacity of wind farm (offshore substation): The total power
output of the wind farm impacts the design and capacity of the offshore substation.
Higher power output necessitates larger substations, increasing infrastructure and
equipment costs.
The above factors are interconnected and determine the overall costs of the transmis-
sion system in floating offshore wind farms. Their impact is highlighted in three major
studies evaluating transmission system costs that result in the equations shown in Table 4.
Among these sources, only one study [10] accounts for the costs of the onshore substation.
Energies 2025, 18, 967 11 of 26

Therefore, these costs are excluded from our analysis and approximated as 9% of the total
capital expenditure based on previous models [14].

Table 4. Comprehensive breakdown of cost sources for offshore transmission system prices.

Data Source Year Cost Model [M€2022 ]

[8] 2017 0.359 · L I + 0.748 · Y + 0.539 · ( NT · PG )0.861
[10] 2019 0.323250 · L I + 0.5096 · Y + 0.36907 · NT · PG
0.0390 · L I + 0.0629 · e(234.34· PG · NT /(105·36000)) +
[29] 2018
0.2 · Y + 2.21 + 0.076 · PG · NT

The total cost of the transmission system is calculated using equations that average
the estimates of previous models, encompassing array cables, export cables, and the
offshore substation. These equations, expressed in M€, provide a robust framework for
estimating transmission system expenses in floating offshore wind farms. The expressions
for Cac , Cec , and Co f f −s were derived by averaging the cost components across the three
studies presented in Table 4. Adjustments were made to align with the methodologies
and weightings of the referenced models. For instance, Cac reflects a weighted average
of L I -related coefficients and incorporates terms for exponential scaling from [29]. Cec
averages the coefficients for Y, while Co f f −s combines the scaling terms for PG · NT from
the three studies. These equations provide an aggregated approximation of costs that
balances assumptions from different methodologies.
CTS = Cac + Cec + Co f f −s (8)
5)
Cac = 0.275 · L I + 1/3 · 0.055 · e234.34· PG · NT /(36000·10 (9)

Cec = 0.556 · Y (10)

Co f f −s = 0.168 · PG · NT + 1/3 · (2.53 + 0.625 · ( PG · NT )0.861 ) (11)

where
L I = S · D · ( NT − 1)/1000 (12)

2.3.3. Floater
Floating platforms are typically designed considering factors such as buoyancy, sta-
bility, motion response, and structural integrity. Due to the unique requirements of wind
turbines and wave conditions, a simplified model is necessary. The cost model aims to link
platform size to the turbine’s rated power through the following three-step process:
1. Establish a relationship between rated power and platform weight based on a sample
of tested prototype floaters.
2. Determine material composition and mass breakdown.
3. Calculate material costs multiplied by weight.
To perform step 1, data on existing prototypes, including six semi-submersible plat-
forms and five spar platforms, have been gathered. To estimate the platform’s total mass
as a function of the wind turbine’s rated power, the following two methods are outlined
in [22]:
• Regression-based scaling laws: Two fitting methods are proposed. The first assumes a
power-law relationship y = c · x b , where x is the rated power, y is the platform’s total
mass, and c and b are unknown coefficients. The second uses a heuristic approach
with y = c · x d + f , where c, d, and f are unknown.
Energies 2025, 18, 967 12 of 26

• Scaling from a reference platform: Mass is estimated by scaling a reference plat-

form based on turbine and platform dimensions. For turbines, the scaling factor is
s = Dscaled /Dbase (rotor diameter), and for platforms, p = Lscaled /Lbase (e.g., draft).
Using these factors, the following two scaling laws are applied:
– Power scaling law: p3 = s3 , giving
!3/2
Pscaled
mscaled = mre f · (13)
Pre f

– Mass scaling law: p3 = s2 , giving

!
Pscaled
mscaled = mre f · (14)
Pre f

At this stage, several equation possibilities were considered to establish a relationship

between the platform’s total mass and the wind turbine’s rated power for both spar and
semi-submersible types. For spar platforms, the consistent data from the design prototypes
allowed the derivation of the optimal regression coefficient using a heuristic approach
(Equation (16)). In contrast, the wide variation in semi-submersible designs made robust
regression challenging. A mass scaling law expression was therefore selected to best
represent the relationship between total mass and rated power for semi-submersibles based
on a central data prototype point (Equation (15)).

mtotal = 1946 · PG (15)

mtotal = 2 · PG3.45 + 6796 (16)

To perform steps 2 and 3, it has been noticed that these prototypes have been designed
for various wind turbine capacities and vary in design complexity and materials, which
affects their costs. For example, semi-submersible platforms predominantly use steel and
water for ballast, while spar platforms use concrete. The cost analysis also considers
manufacturing expenses, accounting for platform shape complexity and the type of ballast
used. Moreover, based on the same prototypes, it has been considered that 26% of the total
mass of semi-submersible platforms is steel, valued at a cost of EUR 903/tonne [30], while
for spar platforms, 18% of the mass consists of steel, with the remaining 82% being concrete,
priced at EUR 81.3/tonne [31].

2.3.4. Mooring Lines

The CAPEX of the mooring lines is determined by multiplying the total length of
the lines by the cost of the material. In mooring lines studies, load scenarios and safety
margins are considered to assess the length, composition, and number of mooring lines.
Taut/semi-taut and catenary lines are suitable for both spar and semi-submersible floating
platforms, but the taut/semi-taut design criteria are more complex and depend on specific
environmental conditions. Then, the cost calculation has only been made assuming catenary
lines for the mooring line cost estimation. Using classical mechanics principles [32], it
is possible to show that the length of the mooring line, l, depends on the maximum
horizontal tension applied in the fairlead position, Tmax , and the integration of the gravity
and buoyancy forces acting on each chain element, wH. w corresponds to the average mass
of a unit length of a studless chain mooring line considered underwater (i.e., including
the buoyancy effect), multiplied by the gravitational pull of the Earth, g = 9.8 m/s2 . In
short, w = (m ML − ρwater As ) g, where m ML is the chain’s mass per unit of length, ranging
around m ML = 689 kg/m, and As is the mooring line section area considering a diameter
Energies 2025, 18, 967 13 of 26

of the chain of 200 mm as referenced in [4,33]. The assumption of a constant chain section
simplifies the cost analysis, as the impact of variations in chain section dimensions is
partially offset by adjustments in mooring line lengths in a more complex optimization
problem. This approach appears as a reasonable choice for an initial estimation and
also aligns with industry standards, which often define chain dimensions within specific
ranges based on water depths and load conditions. The density of steel is assumed to be
ρsteel = 7750 kg/m3 . H corresponds to the water depth at the wind turbine position.
r
2Tmax
l=H −1 (17)
wH
This result is obtained by neglecting the bending stiffness, dynamic effects, and hydro-
dynamic forces. The maximum load on the position of the fairlead, Tmax , is assessed
considering the forces of wind, wave, and current, assuming that all these forces are ap-
plied in the same direction and parallel to the mooring line studied, corresponding to a
worse-case scenario. In order to obtain a general expression of the maximum load in the
fairlead position, this load is assessed as a function of the wind thrust force alone FT,max .
Using the wind turbine and the floater described in [34], the wave force, current force,
and wind thrust force are evaluated, showing that the total force is 2.2 times higher than
the thrust force alone. In addition to the horizontal force acting in line with the mooring
line, it must also endure tension from the weight of the two opposing mooring lines. For
a scenario with three mooring lines spaced at 120◦ angles, the tension from the opposing
mooring lines equals wH cos(60◦ ) + wH cos(60◦ ) = wH. Therefore, the maximum load
can be expressed as
Tmax = 2.2 · FT,max + wH (18)

Thus, the length of one mooring line is described as

r
2 · (2.2 · FT,max )
l=H +1 (19)
wH
This cost estimation focuses on steel chains, even if synthetic ropes might replace them
in challenging locations. The cost per unit of mass in air of the steel chain is obtained by
calculating the average of several sources [33,35–37], which resulted in c ML = 2.868 €/kg.
The number of mooring lines is set to 3, a typical value to guarantee stability, although
subject to cost-risk analysis. Therefore, the total cost of the anchor lines is calculated using
the number of wind turbines NT , the number of mooring lines NML , the chain cost c ML per
unit of mass m ML , and the length of a single mooring line l, as follows:
C ML = NT · NML · c ML · l · m ML (20)

2.3.5. Anchors
The cost analysis for anchors in floating offshore wind turbine support structures is
based on one study [38], which reviews three common anchor technologies used in offshore
wind projects: drag embedment, vertical load anchor (VLA), and suction piles. The
study provides a comparative cost analysis of each technology, covering both anchor and
installation expenses. Additional information on installation costs is given in Section 2.3.6.
Table 5 offers a detailed cost breakdown in M€ for each technology. In this table, Tanchor
represents the line tension at the anchor point, measured in kN. This tension is calculated
using Equation (21) for the maximum load scenario, where Tmax = 2.2 · FT,max + wH, and
considering the mooring line section area As .

Tanchor = 2.2 · FT,max + wH − ρgAs H (21)

Energies 2025, 18, 967 14 of 26

Another study [21] suggests that the choice of anchor technology depends on water depth.
In shallow waters, drag embedment anchors are preferred, whereas VLA anchors are
suitable for depths exceeding 400 m, especially in taut leg mooring systems. Suction
pile anchors, capable of handling both horizontal and vertical loads, are commonly used
in tension leg mooring lines and sometimes in taut leg systems in deeper waters. This
classification guides the model’s implementation. However, it is essential to note that
these are rough estimates. The selection of an anchor type should involve a soil test
and a thorough tension analysis to ensure optimal performance. With proper selection
and application of these anchor technologies, effective mooring of floating offshore wind
turbines is achievable at various water depths.

Table 5. Anchor costs obtained from [38].

Anchor Technology M€ [Line Tension]

Drag embedment 108 · Tanchor · Nanchors · 10−6
VLA 129 · Tanchor · Nanchors · 10−6
Suction pile 162 · Tanchor · Nanchors · 10−6

2.3.6. Installation
This section explains how the installation of floating wind farms differs from that of
traditional fixed-bottom offshore wind farms, and describes the most important steps and
costs involved in the installation.
Wind turbine installation: Floating wind turbines are usually assembled either on-
shore or in protected areas close to the port. This process involves putting together different
parts, such as the tower, nacelle, rotor blades, and electrical systems. Onshore assembly
is often chosen because it reduces the risks associated with lifting operations at sea and
possible delays caused by bad weather. It is important to mention that the installation costs
of wind turbines are included in the overall costs of the floating platform.
Floating platforms installation: The installation techniques for floating platforms
differ depending on the type of substructure chosen, which significantly affects the installa-
tion costs. Various installation scenarios are considered, taking into account factors like the
space available in shipyards, draft, the number of liftings, and logistics for transportation.
Among these scenarios, the following two are particularly notable:
• For spar platforms, an onshore installation method is employed, followed by wet
transport of the offshore wind generator and the floating structure. This approach
requires an onshore crane and a tug.
• In contrast, semi-submersible platforms use dry transport of the offshore wind turbine
and the floating structure on a barge, with a floating crane (without storage) for their
offshore installation.
The installation cost per MW and wind turbine is expressed in M€ [9].
Ci, WT −spar = 0.2157 · NT · PG (22)

Ci, WT −semisub = 0.2067 · NT · PG (23)

Transmission system installation: Installation costs for the transmission system are
determined using methodologies and sources similar to those for the transmission system
components. The average costs from various references [8,10,29] are combined to calculate
the installation cost of the transmission system, covering array cables, export cables, and
offshore substations, expressed in M€.

Ci, TS = 0.146 · L I + 0.128 · Y + 0.015 · NT · PG (24)

Energies 2025, 18, 967 15 of 26

Mooring lines installation: The installation expenses associated with mooring lines
are derived from pertinent literature [13]. The installation cost equation is as follows, in M€:

Ci, ML = 0.2533 · NT (25)

Anchor costs: The installation costs for mooring lines are obtained from the same
source as the anchor costs [38]. The equation for calculating installation costs is provided
in Table 6.

Table 6. Anchor installation costs obtained from [38].

Anchor Technology M€ [Installation]

Drag embedment 4644 · Nanchors · 10−6
VLA 7430 · Nanchors · 10−6
Suction pile 10,217 · Nanchors · 10−6

It is important to note that the methodologies and cost estimates may vary depending
on the sources referenced. These insights help to provide a comprehensive understanding
of the installation costs related to floating offshore wind farms.

2.3.7. Operational Expenses

Operational expenses represent a significant element in the financial planning and
long-term sustainability of wind farms. Several studies have proposed methodologies for
estimating O&M costs. In particular, a study [13] introduces a cost model that incorporates
a base cost that is dependent on the capacity of the wind farm in megawatts (MW) and
includes an additional component for travel expenses, which are influenced by the distance
to shore. However, given the relatively limited number of large-scale floating offshore
wind farms, there is a lack of empirical cost data, which complicates the precise estimation
of O&M expenses. More research on failure rates and the resources required for repairs
and maintenance will be critical to reducing O&M costs. As the literature indicates, various
strategies are being explored, but additional research is necessary to identify the most
effective approach for O&M in offshore wind farms.
In light of this, further work has been conducted to refine the equation proposed in a
previous study [39]. This updated model is based on data from Danish, British, and German
wind farms, making it more grounded in real-world observations. As such, despite it not
being tailored to floating wind farms, this equation has been adopted, which is expressed
in M€ as
CO&M = PG · NT · 7.224 × 10−2 · C0.84
f · Y0.19 · dWF
0.22
(26)

where C f is the capacity factor of the wind farm (the expected annual energy produced
divided by its theoretical maximum), and dWF is the power density of the wind farm (the
rated power divided by the total area).

2.4. Levelized Cost of Energy

The levelized cost of energy is used to compare technology costs and assess economic
viability over time. Combining cost and energy production into a single metric determines
the minimum selling price of energy needed for project profitability. To compute LCoE, the
following expression is used:
I +M
∑nt=0 (t1+r)tt
LCoE = n E
(27)
∑t=0 (1+tr)t
Energies 2025, 18, 967 16 of 26

where Et is the energy production in year t, It is the investment in year t, Mt is the operation
and maintenance expenditure in year t, n is the project lifespan, and r is the discount rate,
typically the Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC). WACC is a measure of the average
cost of financing a project, considering both equity and debt contributions. It is calculated as

WACC = E% · ie + D% · id (28)

where

E% = the percentage of the project financed by equity (20–35%); (29)

ie = the return rate expected by equity investors; (30)
D% = the percentage of the project financed by debt (65–80%); (31)
id = the interest rate paid on the debt. (32)

In simple terms, WACC represents the weighted cost of money the project uses,
combining what is paid to lenders (interest on debt) and what is required by investors
(returns on equity).
Supported by the Danish Energy Agency [40], 5% WACC is used, acknowledging that
while floating projects have higher risks, technological advancements can reduce costs,
aligning their WACC with bottom-fixed projects over time.
Inflation, averaged at 2.2% from the World Bank data [23], is crucial for estimating
increases in OPEX during the project’s lifetime. With CAPEX being accounted for in year 0
and OPEX calculated from year 1, the equation for LCoE adjusted for inflation is given as

Y CAPEX +OPEXt ·(1+i )

∑t=O0 (1+r ) t
LCoE = Y
(33)
E
∑t=O0 (1+tr)t

where i is the average inflation rate, assumed to be 2.2% based on World Bank data, and YO
is the project’s operational years.

3. Results and Discussion

In the following, different results computed by the developed model will be presented
and discussed. The basics of the model have, in earlier works, been validated against
available data for existing bottom-fixed wind farms. Furthermore, as mentioned in the
introduction, driven by the economics of scale and improvements in manufacturing, the
actual costs of FWFs are expected to decrease dramatically in the years to come. Hence, an
FWF cost model is not static and needs to be updated continuously. However, the present
cost model can be utilized to demonstrate the expected added expenses to fixed-bottom
WFs and to compare the relative costs of the various components of FWF power systems.

3.1. Comparative Study of Costs

A detailed case study has been carried out to examine the costs calculated from the
model using input parameters that represent typical values for an offshore wind farm. As a
reference case is chosen a wind farm consisting of 100 15 MW wind turbines located 9 rotor
diameters from each other at a water depth of 150 m and a distance of 50 km to the shore
(see Table 7). The parameter YO represents the number of years of operation of the wind
farm, which in this case is assumed to be 20 years. Based on this, a separate parametric
study is performed for analyzing the expenditures as function of the distance to the shore
and the water depth. The reason for choosing a 15 MW wind turbine as a reference is to
mirror current marked trends in turbine size to ensure that the analysis aligns with current
industry standards.
Energies 2025, 18, 967 17 of 26

Table 7. Input parameters for a floating offshore wind farm case.

Cost Analysis Cost Analysis Cost Analysis

Parameter
(Figure 6) (Figure 7a) (Figure 7b)
A 394 km2 394 km2 394 km2
NT 100 100 100
PG 15 MW 15 MW 15 MW
D 245 m 245 m 245 m
h 150 m 150 m 150 m
H 150 m Variable 150 m
T Semi-submersible Semi-submersible Semi-submersible
Y 50 km 50 km Variable
i 2.2% 2.2% 2.2%
r 5% 5% 5%
YO 20 years 20 years 20 years

The expenditures for the various cost components for the full lifetime of the floating
wind farm is shown in Table 8, where the columns represent costs [M€], costs per installed
power capacity [M€/MW], and percentage of the total costs. It is seen here that, altogether,
OPEX and the costs of the platform and the wind turbine constitute about 2/3 of all
expenses, with OPEX constituting the biggest share at 26.2%, followed by the platform with
21.3% and the wind turbine with 19.5%. Unfortunately, OPEX is also the most uncertain
expense as knowledge about operation and maintenance of FWTs is still very limited. In the
present work, the model used to represent OPEX is taken from fixed-bottom experiences;
hence, it represents an ideal case corresponding to what can be expected when the floating
technology has matured to the same technological level as the one of fixed-bottom wind
plants. According to Centeno-Telleria et al. [41], OPEX constitutes about 25% of the total
expenditure for the present bottom-fixed wind farms in the North Sea and about 43% for
the present pilot floating wind farm projects. The latest value is not necessarily a good
reference as it corresponds to prototype floating projects, and the current planned projects
are of a different size. Ref. [41] estimates a value of about 21% as an ideal long-term goal
for floating projects, which better align with the 26.2% obtained in this study case.
The pie diagram in Figure 6 displays the proportional breakdown of CAPEX. Similar
to fixed-bottom wind farms, wind turbine costs make up one of the largest shares, nearly
27% of the total costs. However, in floating wind farms, platform costs, analogous to
foundations in bottom-fixed setups, are of the same order of magnitude, accounting for
about 29% of the total costs. Thus, wind turbines and platforms constitute the primary
component cost drivers in floating wind farms. In this specific case study, the transmission
system also represents a significant cost component, comprising approximately 16% of the
total, attributed to the 50 km distance to shore, highlighting the importance of transmission
costs with increasing distance. In general, these findings emphasize the cost distribution
within a floating wind farm, with wind turbines and platforms being the main expenses,
while the transmission system and O&M are crucial for longer distances to the shore.
Energies 2025, 18, 967 18 of 26

Table 8. Breakdown of the costs for a floating offshore wind farm case (* operation and maintenance
cost is considering the total lifetime of the wind farm).

Costs per MW
Costs [M€] Costs [%]
[M€/MW]
Wind turbine cost 1706.25 1.14 19.5
Transmission cost 1028.27 0.69 12.0
Platform cost 1850.37 1.23 21.3
Mooring cost 405.73 0.27 4.6
Anchor cost 353.62 0.24 4.2
Planning, development, and financing 638.35 0.43 7.5
Installation cost 400.96 0.27 4.7
Total CAPEX 6383.55 4.26 73.8
Operation and maintenance * 2278.34 1.51 26.2
Total cost 8661.89 5.77 100

Figure 6. Breakdown of the expenditures (in percentage) for a floating offshore wind farm case.

The diagram in Figure 7 shows how water depth and distance to shore affect costs.
With regard to water depth, it is evident that mooring costs increase as anticipated, mainly
due to the necessity for longer mooring lines in deeper water. In contrast, while anchor
costs also increase, their impact is relatively minor and might not be noticeable in the
graph. As expected, OPEX is the parameter that mostly depends on the distance to the
shore, increasing at about 25% when going from a near-coast location to a distance of
150 km away from the coastline. The transmission costs also increase with a larger distance
to the shore, though not as distinct as expected. This may originate from the model’s
underestimation of electrical losses over long distances. The increased distance to the
shore increases the likelihood of significant electrical losses, potentially requiring the use of
shunt reactors to offset capacitive power and a shift towards high-voltage direct current
(HVDC) transmission systems. These adjustments could lead to higher transmission costs
if included in the model.
Energies 2025, 18, 967 19 of 26

Figure 7. Breakdown of the costs with the influence of (a) water depth and (b) distance to shore for a
floating offshore wind farm case.

3.2. Analysis of Levelized Cost of Energy

The levelized cost of energy is used to compare technology costs and assess economic
viability over time. Combining cost and energy production into a single metric determines
the minimum selling price of energy needed for project profitability. Using the model
described above, with input data from the mapped distributions of Weibull parameters and
bathymetry data, the LCoE is mapped across the North Sea for spar and semi-submersible
platforms, considering turbine specifications, wind speeds, water depths, and distance to
shore. The wind resource data, sourced from the Global Wind Atlas at a hub height of 150 m,
required a simple extrapolation and second-order numerical filter to account for missing
data of the central North Sea, as detailed in [15]. Water depth data are obtained from the
General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans (GEBCO) following the method described in [42].
Additionally, the distance to shore is computed, corresponding to the Euclidean distance
to the nearest point with elevation larger than zero in the GEBCO-treated dataset. As a
reference case is chosen a wind farm consisting of 100 15 MW wind turbines located 7 rotor
diameters from each other at different locations in the North Sea. To compute the LCoE, the
wind farm is expected to have a lifetime of 20 years, and decommissioning expenditures
(DECEX) are disregarded. A list of input parameters is given in Table 9, which also refers
the different types of substructures (T) to the respective maps of LCoE.
From the isoplots of semi-submersible platforms depicted in Figure 8, LCoE ranges
from EUR 9 to 13 cents/kWh, with the highest values near Norway due to deep water and
low wind conditions. The central part of the North Sea shows lower LCoE due to shallower
waters and higher wind speeds. Similarly, an LCoE range can be observed in the case of
spar platforms in Figure 9, which however, is limited to deeper waters (minimum 80 m
depth prerequisite for this technology).
Energies 2025, 18, 967 20 of 26

Table 9. Input parameters for the LCoE map results.

LCoE Map LCoE Map LCoE Map

Parameter
(Figure 8) (Figure 9) (Figure 10)
λ Variable Variable Variable
k Variable Variable Variable
A 238 km2 238 km2 238 km2
NT 100 100 100
PG 15 MW 15 MW 15 MW
D 245 m 245 m 245 m
h 150 m 150 m 150 m
H Variable Variable Variable
Semi-submersible
T Semi-submersible Spar
and Bottom-fixed
Y Variable Variable Variable
i 2.2% 2.2% 2.2%
r 5% 5% 5%
YO 20 years 20 years 20 years

Figure 8. LCoE of a floating semi-submersible wind farm, with PG = 15 MW, D = 245 m, H = 150 m,
S = 7, NT = 100, YO = 20 years, and r = 5%. The red isoline represents a bathymetric depth of −40 m.
The red dot corresponds to the Kincardine semi-submersible wind farm.

Figure 10 compares the LCoE’s for bottom-fixed and floating wind farms, showing
the lowest LCoE values associated with bottom-fixed and semi-submersible wind farms.
The transition point where floating installations become more economical than fixed ones
is mainly determined by the site’s bathymetry, typically occurring around a water depth
of 55 m. These results are in agreement with the literature, suggesting a transition depth
of 50 to 60 m for this kind of high-capacity turbines. Since the foundation cost is the
parameter that most differentiates the costs between fixed and floating wind turbines,
Energies 2025, 18, 967 21 of 26

a simple test has been conducted to assess the transition between the costs of the two
foundation types. Using the same wind farm parameters and conditions as for Horns Rev
2 and 3, respectively, the depth of the water is varied until floating foundations become
the most cost-effective. These two wind farms are located close to each other west of the
coast of Jutland in Denmark. Horns Rev 2 was commissioned in 2009 with a total installed
capacity of 209 MW, and Horns Rev 3 was commissioned in 2019 with an installed capacity
of 407 MW. More details about the wind farms are given in Table 10. The results of the
test are shown in Figure 11. Hence, according to the model used, Horns Rev 2 would
have been more economically efficient as a floating wind farm if the water depths had
been deeper than 56.9 m. For Horns Rev 3, a floating wind farm concept would have been
the economically most attractive solution at 51.4 m. It is worth noting that the sudden
change in the fixed-bottom cost curve is caused by the transition from monopile to jacket
technology, which becomes necessary because monopiles are assumed to be unsuitable for
depths of more than 35 m, as explained in [14]. Unfortunately, because of lack of reference
data, it is not possible to validate the computed LCoE values, even less the uncertainty
on these. The lack of data is partly due to confidentiality and partly due to the lack of
knowledge regarding the costs of maintaining floating wind farms. However, as a guideline,
in our previous work on fixed-bottom offshore wind farms, CAPEX and annual power
production were on average determined within 5%, as compared with actual performance
and cost data.

Figure 9. LCoE of a floating spar wind farm, with PG = 15 MW, D = 245 m, H = 150 m, S = 7, NT = 100,
YO = 20 years, and r = 5%. The red isoline represents a bathymetry depth of 80 m. The red dot
corresponds to the Hywind Scotland spar wind farm.

Note that the size of the wind turbines has an influence on the results, with these
two real cases consisting of smaller turbines than the computations presented in Figure 10.
Hence, as expected, while bottom-fixed wind farms are more cost-effective in shallow
waters, floating wind farms become viable at larger depths, with ongoing technological
advancements expected to reduce their costs over time.
Energies 2025, 18, 967 22 of 26

Figure 10. Comparison of LCoE’s between a floating semi-submersible wind farm and a bottom-fixed
wind farm, with PG = 15 MW, D = 245 m, H = 150 m, S = 7, NT = 100, YO = 20 years, and r = 5%. The
red line indicates the transition from bottom-fixed to floating wind farms.

Table 10. Input parameters to the LCoE analysis on Horns Rev 2 and Horns Rev 3 with variable
water depth.

LCoE on HR2 LCoE on HR3

Parameter
(Figure 11 Left) (Figure 11 Right)
λ 11.2 11.5
k 2.4 2.4
A 33.6 km2 83.3 km2
NT 91 49
PG 2.3 8.3
D 93 164
h 68 105
H Variable Variable
T All All
Y 32 km 22 km
i 2.2% 2.2%
r 5% 5%
YO 20 years 20 years
Energies 2025, 18, 967 23 of 26

Figure 11. Variation of the LCoE with water depth at the location of Horns Rev 2 (left) and Horns
Rev 3 (right).

4. Conclusions
A simple techno-economic model is proposed to determine costs related to the devel-
opment of floating offshore wind power. The model is an extension of the minimalistic
prediction model for fixed-bottom wind farms previously developed by Sørensen and
Larsen [14]. In the extended version, cost components associated with the deployment of
floating structures, such as floaters, mooring lines, anchors, and additional installation and
operational expenses, are included. The platform cost is determined using scaling laws that
link the turbine’s total mass and rated capacity multiplied by the material’s mass cost. It
is noted that the platform cost estimation is subject to uncertainty due to the wide range
of possible scaling laws and the use of fictive studies or prototypes as data sources. The
costs of mooring lines and anchors are derived from catenary equations combined with
literature-based line tension and cost information.
Different types of floaters, mooring line systems, and anchors are addressed and
subsequently synthesized with actual wind climate and bathymetric data for the North Sea
to map the annual energy production and LCoE for floating wind farms located in this sea
regime. The analysis includes aspects of varying distances to the shore as well as the water
depths, thus allowing for a thorough examination of their impacts on the overall costs of
floating wind. The North Sea demonstration case shows—as expected—that floating wind
farms are less affected by water depth than bottom-fixed installations, and that turbines
and floater platforms are the primary component cost drivers in floating wind farms. The
transition point where floating installations are more economical than fixed installations is
mainly determined by the site’s bathymetry, typically occurring around a water depth of
55 m. Interestingly, this result is in agreement with the literature, suggesting a transition
depth of 50 to 60 m for high-capacity turbines.
While the proposed model provides a simple approach to estimate costs specific to
floating offshore wind power, it was not feasible to fully adapt certain cost equations
from fixed-bottom installations to floating systems. For instance, while the wind turbine
cost equations appear to require minimal adjustments due to relatively small differences
between fixed-bottom and floating systems, OPEX can vary significantly. This is because the
floating wind industry does not yet have a standardized approach to O&M; instead, new
methods are still being tested in prototype projects. These variations in O&M strategies,
including access methods and maintenance schedules, contribute to a lack of reliable
data and introduce uncertainty into the analysis. Future work should focus on collecting
empirical data from operational floating wind projects, not only to refine OPEX modeling
Energies 2025, 18, 967 24 of 26

but also to validate the assumptions and extrapolations made for other components of
floating wind farms, ensuring the accuracy of cost estimates across all parameters.

Author Contributions: A.M.: conceptualization, methodology, software, validation, formal analysis,

investigation, resources, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing, visual-
ization. D.F.: conceptualization, methodology, software, validation, formal analysis, investigation,
writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing, visualization. J.N.S.: conceptualiza-
tion, methodology, software, validation, formal analysis, investigation, resources, writing—original
draft preparation, writing—review and editing, supervision, project administration, funding acquisi-
tion. G.C.L.: conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, writing—original draft
preparation, writing—review and editing, supervision, project administration. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding: This study is partly funded by the European Union through the Horizon Europe project
INF4 INiTY under Grant Agreement No. 101136087.

Data Availability Statement: All data cited and used as input to the model and the presented results
are publicly available and can be found in the open literature.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations
Name Symbol Units
Annual power production PE MW
Average annual power yield of a solitary turbine PWF,y Wh
Capacity factor Cf -
Chain cost per unit of mass c ML €/kg
Correction constant (finite farms) a -
Cost of array cables Cac M€
Cost of export cables Cec M€
Cost of operation and maintenance CO&M M€
Cost of the electrical transmission system CTS M€
Cost of the offshore substation Co f f −s M€
Cut-in wind speed Ui m/s
Cut-out wind speed Uo m/s
Mean wind speed U m/s
Gravitational acceleration g m/s2
Geostrophic wind speed G m/s
Inflation rate r -
Inter-array cable length LI km
Inter-turbine spacing S -
Length of mooring line l m
Mass of chain per unit of length m ML kg/m
Mass of the reference floating platform mre f kg
Mass of the scaled floating platform mscaled kg
Mean production in free wind speed PFree Wh
Mooring element section area As m2
Mooring lines cost C ML M€
Mooring line installation cost Ci,ML M€
Number of anchors Nanchors -
Number of mooring lines NML -
Number of turbines NT -
Rated power PG MW
Rated power of the reference wind turbine Pre f W
Rated power of the scaled wind turbine Pscaled W
Energies 2025, 18, 967 25 of 26

Rated thrust coefficient CT,r -

Rated wind speed Ur m/s
Rotor diameter D m
Scale parameter (Weibull) λ m/s
Shape parameter (Weibull) k -
Tension of the mooring line at the anchor point Tanchor N
Transmission system installation cost Ci,TS M€
Turbine and semi-sub foundation installation cost Ci,WT −semisub M€
Turbine and spar foundation installation cost Ci,WT −spar M€
Turbine cost CWT €
Turbine thrust impact parameter ct -
Von Kármán constant κ -
Water density ρwater kg/m3
Water depth H m
Wind farm area A m2
Wind farm density dWF MW/km2
Wind speed at hub height Uh m/s
Years of operation of the wind farm YO years

References
1. Number of Wind Farms in EU. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/666495/number-of-windfarms-eu/
(accessed on 5 July 2024).
2. Yang, R.; Chuang, T.; Zhao, C.; Johanning, L. Dynamic Response of an Offshore Floating Wind Turbine at Accidental Limit
States—Mooring Failure Event. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 1525. [CrossRef]
3. Ma, K.T.; Luo, Y.; Kwan, T.; Wu, Y. Mooring System Engineering for Offshore Structures, Chapter 2—Types of Mooring Systems; Elsevier:
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019.
4. Jump, E. Mooring and Anchoring Systems—Market Projections. 2021. Available online: https://cms.ore.catapult.org.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2021/12/PN000413-RPT-003-Rev-2-Mooring-and-Anchoring-Market-Projections_Formatted.pdf (accessed on
6 February 2023).
5. Ernst & Young. Cost of and Financial Support for Offshore Wind; Technical Report, Department of Energy and Climate Change;
Ernst & Young: London, UK , 2009.
6. EWEA. Wind Energy—The Facts, Chapter 2 (Economics): Offshore Developments, The Cost of Energy Generated by Offshore
Wind Power. Technical Report, EWEA. 2009. Available online: https://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/index-44.html (accessed
on 23 January 2023).
7. Morthorst, P.; Kitzing, L. Economics of building and operating offshore wind farms. In Offshore Wind Farms, 1st ed.; Ng, C.,
Ran, L., Eds.; Number 92 in Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy; Woodhead Publishing: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016;
pp. 9–28.
8. Gonzalez-Rodriguez, A.G. Review of offshore wind farm cost components. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2017, 37, 10–19. [CrossRef]
9. Castro-Santos, L.; Filgueira-Vizoso, A.; Lamas-Galdo, I.; Carral-Couce, L. Methodology to calculate the installation costs of
offshore wind farms located in deep waters. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 170, 1124–1135. [CrossRef]
10. Ioannou, A.; Brennan, F. A preliminary techno-economic comparison between a grid-connected and non-grid connected offshore
floating wind farm. In Proceedings of the 2019 Offshore Energy and Storage Summit, OSES, Brest, France, 10–12 July 2019.
11. Lozer dos Reis, M.M.; Mitsuo Mazetto, B.; Costa Malateaux da Silva, E. Economic analysis for implantation of an offshore wind
farm in the Brazilian coast. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2021, 43, 100955. [CrossRef]
12. Castro-Santos, L.; Silva, D.; Bento, A.R.; Salvação, N.; Soares, C.G. Economic feasibility of floating offshore wind farms in Portugal.
Ocean Eng. 2020, 207, 107393. [CrossRef]
13. Martinez, A.; Iglesias, G. Mapping of the levelised cost of energy for floating offshore wind in the European Atlantic. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 154, 111889. [CrossRef]
14. Sørensen, J.N.; Larsen, G.C. A Minimalistic Prediction Model to Determine Energy Production and Costs of Offshore Wind Farms.
Energies 2021, 14, 448. [CrossRef]
15. Sørensen, J.N.; Larsen, G.C.; Cazin-Bourguignon, A. Production and Cost Assessment of Offshore Wind Power in the North Sea.
Wake Conference; IOP Publishing: Visby, Sweden, 2021; Volume 1934. [CrossRef]
Energies 2025, 18, 967 26 of 26

16. Sørensen, J.N.; Garcia, A.; Larsen, G.C.; Pedersen, M.M.; Fournely, D. Extension and Validation of Minimalistic Prediction Model
to Determine the Energy Production of Offshore Wind Farms. In Proceedings of the Science of Making Torque from Wind: Wind
Resource, Wakes, and Wind Farms, Torque, Firenze, Italy, 29–31 May 2024. [CrossRef]
17. Frandsen, S. On the wind speed reduction in the center of large clusters of wind turbines. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 1992,
39, 251–265. [CrossRef]
18. Frandsen, S.; Barthelmie, R.; Pryor, S.; Rathmann, O.; Larsen, S.; Hojstrup, J.; Thogersen, M. Analytical modelling of wind speed
deficit in large offshore wind forms. Wind Energy 2006, 9, 39–53. [CrossRef]
19. Leimeister, M.; Kolios, A.; Collu, M. Critical review of floating support structures for offshore wind farm deployment. J. Phys.
Conf. Ser. 2018, 1104. [CrossRef]
20. Vryhof Anchors B.V. Anchor Manual 2015: The Guide to Anchoring. Available online: https://www.plaisance-pratique.com/
IMG/pdf/Vryhof_Anchor_Manual2015.pdf (accessed on 6 February 2023).
21. Benassai, G.; Campanile, A.; Piscopo, V.; Scamardella, A. Optimization of Mooring Systems for Floating Offshore Wind Turbines.
Coast. Eng. J. 2015, 57, 1550021.
22. Sergiienko, N.; da Silva, L.; Bachynski-Polić, E.; Cazzolato, B.; Arjomandi, M.; Ding, B. Review of scaling laws applied to floating
offshore wind turbines. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 162, S1364032122003811. [CrossRef]
23. The World Bank. Inflation Consumer Prices. Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/FP.CPI.TOTL.ZG?end=20
22&start=1960 (accessed on 15 April 2023).
24. Maienza, C.; Avossa, A.; Ricciardelli, F.; Coiro, D.; Troise, G.; Georgakis, C. A life cycle cost model for floating offshore wind
farms. Appl. Energy 2020, 266, 114716. [CrossRef]
25. BVG Associates. Guide to an Offshore Wind Farm. 2019. Available online: https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/media/2860
/guide-to-offshore-wind-farm-2019.pdf (accessed on 5 January 2023).
26. Stehly, T.; Duffy, P. 2021 Cost of Wind Energy Review. 2022. Available online: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/84774.pdf
(accessed on 21 January 2023).
27. Siemens Gamesa. Siemens Gamesa Activity Report—Year 2022. Available online: https://www.siemensgamesa.com/global/en/
home/press-releases/111022-siemens-gamesa-press-release-results-presentation-q4-fy2022.html (accessed on 24 March 2023).
28. Vestas. Vestas Annual Report. 2022. Available online: https://www.vestas.com/en/media/company-news/2023/vestas-annual-
report-2022---a-challenging-year-with-neg-c3710817 (accessed on 24 March 2023).
29. Huang, Q.; Wang, X.; Fan, J.; Zhang, X.; Wang, Y. Reliability and economy assessment of offshore wind farms. J. Eng. 2019,
2019, 1554–1559. [CrossRef]
30. Pricing Tool for the “New Continuum”. Available online: http://steelbenchmarker.com/ (accessed on 15 April 2023).
31. Innovative Concepts for Floating Structures. 2014. Available online: http://www.innwind.eu/ (accessed on 13 January 2023).
32. Faltinsen, O.M. Sea Loads on Ships and Offshore Structures; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1990.
33. Xu, K.; Larsen, K.; Shao, Y.; Zhang, M.; Gao, Z.; Moan, T. Design and comparative analysis of alternative mooring systems for
floating wind turbines in shallow water with emphasis on ultimate limit state design. Ocean Eng. 2021, 219, 108377. [CrossRef]
34. Kim, H.; Young Jeon, G.; Choung, J.; Yoon, S.W. Study on Mooring System Design of Floating Offshore Wind Turbine in Jeju
Offshore Area. Int. J. Ocean Syst. Eng. 2013, 3, 209–217. [CrossRef]
35. Connolly, P.; Hall, M. Comparison of pilot-scale floating offshore wind farms with shared moorings. Ocean Eng. 2019, 171, 172–180.
[CrossRef]
36. Figueiredo, P.; Brójo, F. Parametric study of multicomponent mooring lines at catenary form in terms of anchoring cost. Energy
Procedia 2017, 136, 456–462. [CrossRef]
37. Hall, M.; Lozon, E.; Housner, S.; Sirnivas, S. Design and analysis of a ten-turbine floating wind farm with shared mooring lines.
J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2022, 2362, 012016. [CrossRef]
38. Karimi, M.; Hall, M.; Buckham, B.; Crawford, C. A multi-objective design optimization approach for floating offshore wind
turbine support structures. J. Ocean Eng. Mar. Energy 2017, 3, 69–87. [CrossRef]
39. Cabioch, K. Improvement of Wind-Resource/Cost Model for Offshore Wind Farms. Master’s Thesis, DTU Wind Energy, Technical
University of Denmark, Roskilde, Denmark, 2022.
40. Danish Energy Agency. Offshore Wind Potential in the North Sea. 2022. Available online: https://ens.dk/media/2414/download
(accessed on 30 January 2023).
41. Centeno-Telleria, M.; Yue, H.; Carrol, J.; Penalba, M.; Aizpurua, J.I. Impact of operations and maintenance on the energy production
of floating offshore wind farms across the North Sea and the Iberian Peninsula. Renew. Energy 2024, 224, 120217. [CrossRef]
42. GEBCO. General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans. Available online: https://www.gebco.net/ (accessed on 2 March 2023).

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.