A view of Equinor’s Dudgeon offshore wind farm off North Norfolk, England. Photo: Equinor

By William Mathis (Bloomberg) — Boris Johnson’s plan to quadruple the size of the U.K. offshore wind industry will require $58 billion of investment and careful management of what’s a tricky building process in some of the world’s roughest waters.

The prime minister is targeting turbines with the capacity to produce 40 gigawatts of electricity by 2030, up from more than 10 gigawatts now. That would speed the nation’s shift away from fossil fuels and help it meet a goal of zeroing out carbon pollution by the middle of the century.

The difficulty is managing so many large infrastructure projects at once. Turbines these days are massive, with blades as big as a jumbo jet’s wingspan. They require highly specialized ships with giant cranes to do the installation, and developers compete to hire the few vessels that can do that work. The money needed to build all those facilities will require steady government policies that ensure the likes of Orsted A/S and Vestas Wind Systems A/S get paid regardless of political change.

“It’s hard, but it’s possible,” said Tom Harries, offshore wind analyst at BloombergNEF.

More Offshore

The goal Johnson set out in his speech to the ruling Conservative Party’s annual conference also would maintain the lead the U.K. built in offshore wind over Denmark and Germany. The government is keen to highlight that position as the U.K. separates from the European Union and prepares to host the United Nations climate talks in Glasgow next year.

Johnson’s remarks amount to a statement of political intent, a reassurance for industries that policies on whose power feeds into the grid will be tilted in favor of renewables and especially offshore wind power. Just seven years ago, Johnson was skeptical of wind power and favored nuclear energy. Since then, the price of atomic plants has surged while the cost of turbines that work offshore plunged. That forced a rethink within government, which increasinly favors wind as a primary source of clean energy.

Price Plummet

Reassurance is crucial for wind developers. Unlike the oil companies, where drillers probe for for reservoirs and then worry later about how to sell it, wind developers generally leave investment decisions until after they’ve pinned down contracts setting a price for the electricity they will produce.

Words alone don’t guarantee that such a massive building project is delivered on time. The turbines needed to supply 40 gigawatts of power may cover an area of the sea close to 9,500 square kilometers, six times the size of greater London, according to BNEF.

Britain increasingly is competing for the resources to build offshore wind farms. As the industry spreads to new markets, the limited fleet of these specialized vessels and cranes large enough to lift massive turbines is spread thin. A delay in one project or a storm that delays a voyage from one project to the next could create a domino effect of delays.

There’s also the issue of the electric grid. Conventional power plants were built relatively close to population centers in the southern part of England. Wind farms off the east coast and in Scotland are much farther away and will require millions in new spending to improve the network.

“There’s not enough capacity in the grid near the coast to enable that much wind capacity,” said Simon Cox, offshore wind business manager at consultant DNV GL. “There’s going to need to be significant investment.”

The grid could also cause issues with keeping projects on time. To get the power to land, offshore developers have to dig up the coast line to install cables and other infrastructure to link with the grid. Residents of England’s coastal communities are starting to complain about all the disturbance. Those issues and others from the fishing industry and environmental groups could delay permitting processes to push projects to completion after the 2030 target.

The U.K.’s network operator National Grid Plc is currently consulting on a plan to link wind parks together to cut down on the industry’s impact on the countryside. It could save billions of dollars in the coming decades, but likely won’t be in place for projects that will be built this decade.

Green Jobs

Johnson doesn’t simply want to build up electric capacity, he wants to create jobs. Offshore wind already employs about 11,000 people, according to the industry group Renewable U.K. That’s set to rise to 27,000 full time jobs by 2030.

Still, the U.K. has lagged in offshore wind manufacturing. While it leads on capacity, it remains behind Spain, Denmark and Germany among European manufacturers of offshore wind turbine components. The massive steel foundations and platforms known as jackets for the turbines are made abroad in bigger ports.

“At the moment we can do blades, we can do cables, we can do some steel works, but we can’t do much else,” said Gary Bills, regional director for Europe, Middle East and Africa at energy consultants K2 Management. “We’re going to be the world’s leading industry with very little capability in house.”

© 2020 Bloomberg L.P.

The New Hayard Ship Technology shipyard in Leirvik, Norway. Photo: Havyard Group

Officials have extended the temporary closure of the Havyard shipyard in Leirvik, Norway until at least October 19 after more workers tested positive for COVID-19.

All shipyard activities were originally closed on September 30 after four people tested positive for the virus. On October 2, Havyard said 17 people had been diagnosed with the virus out of 200 tested.

As of today, the number of cases has now jumped to 75 with 495 tested, according to Havyard.

“In order to prevent further spreading of the virus and to gain control of the situation, Hyllestad municipality has today, pursuant to the Infection Control Act, decided to keep the yard business further closed until 19 October 2020. Such a decision may be extended until it is deemed safe to reopen the production,” Havyard said in a statement.

The shipyard in Leirvik , Norway belongs to New Havyard Ship Technology AS, a subsidiary of Havyard Group ASA. According to the company’s website, the shipyard completes around four to six new builds per year and employs 400 to 500 employees and subcontractors.

Havyard’s current backlog stands at six vessels, including three live fish carriers and three wind farm service operations vessels (SOVs), according to its website.

Today’s update said it is “foreseeable” that the extended shutdown will now likely lead to delayed deliveries, and any delay will depend on the extent of the shutdown and what measures that can be implemented to make up for the lost production time.

Photo shows a severe hog in the ship’s hull.

An end-of-life cargo ship under tow to breakers lost its tow and become grounded along the east coast of Vietnam.

The owners of the MV Jakarta, NKD Maritime Limited, said the vessel went aground on October 10 during very heavy weather and sea conditions.

The vessel was under tow at the time and is not carrying any cargo or fuel. It was also unmanned at the time.

NKD Maritime is a UK-based cash buyer of end of life ships for dismantling in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Reports indicate that the Jakartar was under tow to Alang at the time of the incident.

Images of the vessel aground show a severe hog in the ship’s hull with a large crack amidships indicating that the vessel is at risk of breaking in half.

The MV Jakarta, built in 2002, was formerly the CMA CGM Jakarta.

All crew from the towing vessel are safe and accounted for, NKD Maritime said.

“NKD Maritime would like to thank all those assisting to resolve this situation in a safe manner,” the company said.

Albatross’s of the US Navy: The $8B+ USS Zumwalt sails alongside a littoral combat ship (LCS). Both classes of vessels have failed to meet US Navy expectations. Photographer: Navy Media Content Service

The successor to the $30b troubled littoral ship project was billed as affordable but the Congressional Budget Office projects $12.3 billion for just 10 new frigates.

The Navy also warned CBO there’s a 50% chance the first two ships would exceed their cost estimates

By Anthony Capaccio (Bloomberg) The first 10 vessels in the Navy’s new frigate program may cost $12.3 billion, or 40% more than the service calculated, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, a new sign of looming trouble for plans to expand the U.S. fleet.

An artist rendering of the U.S. Navy FFG(X) Constellation-class guided-missile frigate. U.S. Navy graphic.

The assessment released late Tuesday projects the frigates will cost an average of $1.2 billion apiece in inflation-adjusted dollars in contrast to the Navy’s estimate of $870 million each. It’s an early setback for a ship billed as a more versatile and better-armed replacement for the troubled Littoral Combat Ship, a $30B program that was truncated because of mechanical flaws, light armament and vulnerability to attack.

The Navy is counting on an affordable frigate as a key component in its effort to meet President Donald Trump’s goal of 355 deployable ships by 2035, up from about 299 today. Defense Secretary Mark Esper set out an even more ambitious goal last week of a 500-ship Navy by 2045 that would include unmanned vessels of unknown weight, capabilities and cost.

“If the Navy’s procurement cost estimates” for the frigate “prove accurate, the ship would be, by far, the least expensive surface combatant that the Navy has bought since 1970 — measured in cost-per-thousand tons of displacement,” the budget office said. “That would apply to both the lead ship and the average cost of the first 10 ships.”

Its fiscal 2021 cost estimates for the second through 10th frigates “are at the very low end of the range” established at the outset of a competition that was won by Fincantieri SpA in April, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The Navy also told CBO there’s a 50% chance the first two ships would exceed their cost estimates and a 60% chance the third through 10th ships would as well.

Littoral Ships

Esper’s vision calls for a fleet of 60 to 70 “small surface combatants” that includes the frigates — which will be equipped with guided missiles — and Littoral Combat Ships, a quantity the Congressional Research Service said implies buying more than the 20 frigates currently planned.

Despite the decision to cut short the Littoral Combat Ship program, the Navy still has 35 on contract, with 19 delivered as of March. The LCS is built in two versions: One by Trieste, Italy-based Fincantieri in a joint venture with Lockheed Martin Corp. based in Bethesda, Maryland, and the other by Henderson, Australia-based Austal Ltd.

CBO compared the frigate’s estimated cost with ships of similar tonnage and examined arguments supporting the Navy’s estimate, such as Fincantieri’s long experience building small surface combatants vessels including, in this case, a design that’s been in production for years for the French and Italian navies.

It also looked at elements that “suggest the Navy’s estimate is too low,” such as the service’s star-crossed history in which “costs of all surface combatants since 1970, as measured per-thousand-tons, were higher” than initial estimates.

“Historically the Navy has almost always underestimated the cost of the lead ship, and a more expensive lead ship generally results in higher costs for the follow-on ships,” the budget analysts said.

The report cited the cost growth over initial estimates for the lead ship in other Navy programs, from 155% for one version of the Littoral Combat Ship, 84% on the San Antonio-class amphibious warfare vessel, 44% for the DDG-1000 Zumwalt destroyer and 25% on the Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier, the costliest warship ever.

Compared with the design on which it’s based, the frigate “will be more densely built and will have somewhat more complex weapon systems,” CBO said.

After more than a year in the Central Arctic, this Monday, 12 October, the research icebreaker Polarstern returned to her homeport in Bremerhaven. The event marked the end of a record-breaking expedition: never before had an icebreaker been near the North Pole in winter. Drifting with the ice, they endured the extreme cold, Arctic storms, a constantly changing flow while the rest of the world battled the coronavirus pandemic.

On 20 September 2019 Polarstern departed from the Norwegian port of Tromsø, bound for Arctic ocean ice. Once there, the ship allowed itself to become trapped in the ice, and began a one-year-long drift across the North Pole, completely at the mercy of natural forces – the route and speed were solely determined by the ice drift, powered by wind and currents.

Over the five legs of the expedition, a total of 442 researchers, Polarstern crewmembers, young investigators, teachers and press took part. Seven ships, several aircraft and more than 80 institutions from 20 countries were involved. The researchers, who hailed from 37 countries, had a common goal: to investigate complex interactions in the climate system between the atmosphere, ice and ocean, as well as life in the Central Arctic, to build better climate models.

Even when virtually every other expedition around the globe was canceled because of the pandemic, the entire team, this expedition was able to continue. In the early summer, Polarstern did have to briefly leave the ice floe for a personnel transfer. Four weeks later, a new team commenced fieldwork on the ice, continuing their efforts right up to the last day, when the floe (as predicted) reached the ice edge to the east of Greenland, began breaking up under the influence of the waves, and completed its typical lifecycle.

To explore the last piece of the puzzle in the sea ice’s annual cycle – the formation of new ice at summer’s end – the expedition then headed farther north, crossed the North Pole, and moored to a second floe in its vicinity.

““Climate change is the greatest challenge facing humanity,” said Anja Karliczek, the German Federal Minister of Research. “Throughout their long months in the Arctic ice, the experts retrieved a unique wealth of data that will help to fill critical gaps in our understanding of the region, allowing us to more accurately evaluate our current climate models.”

The total cost of the expedition was ca. 150 million euros, with roughly two-thirds being contributed by Germany.