I will hopefully show by the end some of the keys and niches since it's a true market in itself. Uh, although I am the first of them, this is because I am the second RWE for Airborne in Mango RWE. But I am relying very heavily on some very good work done by the other authors here, as well as several other people.

Uh, some of them bring this through, so, uh, the next presentation is by, uh, BPG, some of the numerics of the analysis and BPG-based service. Several Airborne winning companies have been involved, uh, some of my former colleagues at UT, some of my friends at UT have been involved, so.

Okay, a lot of work has gone into this, I'm going to give a brief overview of these three things, and then we'll go into the details of the presentations. Um, but before we go into the, uh, the details of what I'm actually presenting here, probably some of you know me from my days in ER.

Um, and we are now RWE Renewables, and it's worth just saying who RWE Renewables are. So, as of the first of this month, he owns Renewables, leads the transfer to RWE. This is the first step of building one of the largest, uh, Renewables utilities in the world, so at the end of this process, we will be the, um,

in the world. Outside of China, we are, I think, the fourth biggest open Renewables.

Uh, so it, we are one of the biggest people doing Renewables, so I think it's a good position, but we are showing interest in it. I think it's actually positive that we have this merger. Um, and if anybody's asking questions on this at the end. Um, so the particular bit of work I am presenting here is a high-level overview of how, what we would like to do in Airborne Wind.

So we see Airborne Wind in the end as being a great potential for commercial offshore technologies. It could beat, uh, conventional winds in a lot of places, so it's, we don't see it as a niche in the long term,

and what we want to know is what are the things that need to be done to get between here and there. So we're trying to develop this road map ourselves, so what are the things that need to be done, what tests need to be involved, which bits can you skip,

and we have looked at all sorts of things to the max, um, our analysis, but here, I'm presenting two particular parts, which is re-powering, which several Airborne Wind companies have proposed as a hostile way forward, and floating foundations, which I'm very happy to say has been mentioned by a lot of people at this conference already,

so I think it's, the idea that floating is a good idea seems like fairly well embedded. So, unfortunately this means you may hear nothing new in this presentation, I'm not sure if you've said some very good things already in this conference. So we see them as two early markets, so as I, if I just pop back, we do see commercial fixed bottom as being a possible market

that you can get to, so there's no reason you might not actually have Airborne Wind, competing with conventional in fixed foundations, but the places where you're likely to compete earliest are the ones which at the moment are seen as a niche market. So one of these is re-powering, so we've got a 20 year old offshore wind farm,

can be taken down to a bottom to replace them with some Airborne Wind devices, which hopefully have some reduced loans, make a big saving from the capex, so we don't have to do any foundations, we don't have to do any array cables, and then generate an extra few years. So that is kind of a niche market that some people see as a stepping stone towards full commercial rebuild.

And the other market we looked at in as much detail is floating, so it's an easy place to compete, because floating conventionally is very expensive, and conventional floating Airborne Wind could be a lot cheaper. It could open up new markets, now I've seen a few people say that it brings you the deep water markets.

I actually think that's not the key thing to think about here. Floating Airborne brings you access to shallower water markets that you can get with floating conventionals. So because you need smaller floating foundations, actually moving to shallower water is something that is a viable option for Airborne,

which isn't very easy for conventionals. So as a result of this, it is a viable idea in itself. It's entirely possible that offshore Airborne Wind will be floating, but I hope one day it will also be fixed. So as I said, there's a lot of work that's gone into the background of this.

I won't go through all this, but it will take quite a long time. So we obviously did a fairly simple literature review, that includes looking at the standards that are in existence for floating, and need for repowering. There are standards for how you could open and light the foundations. We've done a lot of LCA remodelling, as I said, some of that has been assisted by VPG.

So yeah, he's not just us making up our minds here. That's also packed up by several Airborne Wind companies. Physical modelling, repowering puts an ultimate load of states and fatigue for life. These are two key things in the kit foundation.

For floating, we have looked at multiple different floating configurations. So we have one kit from the spa, we've also looked at semi-surfs and etc. And we have primarily focused on the stability calculations. So this is if you could ignore where you can tell how small could you make your floating foundation and not your own.

So that's the driving force of how big your foundation is. So I'm going to go on basically through the conclusions. I'm trying to share, when I can, I'm going to share the conclusions between both technologies. There's a picture in the top corner of the slide, and that says these are permanent or repowering or floating.

So these are produced in both. As you can see, some of them are specific to one technology, but it's actually quite a lot of bonus. So the largest technical challenge that you will have in either case is fatigue. So as I said, we've done a lot of modelling to back this up. We launched a new technology, so they went through all the standards and did a lot of fatigue modelling,

and they did the calculus of loads based on what we got from F1 wind companies. The conclusion we came to is that fatigue is a tricky problem for your family. If you've designed your foundation well, when you've reached the end of your conventional life, you've reached the end of your fatigued life.

If you haven't, then you've designed your foundation a bit too heavily. So to extend your life through trying new things, you need to do a few quite complicated things. You need to work out how much of your fatigue life has been taken, so you need to look back at the operation of data and try to calculate how much of your fatigue life has been used.

You need to look at your corrosion, see how much of your metal has been corroded away, because there have been assumptions in your design about how quickly metal can corrode. If it's corroded slowly, it might have an extra ten years of drop rate. If it's corroded quicker, then probably you need to decommission as fast as you can. For floating, fatigue is again a problem, but surprisingly it's not in the stiff components.

It's in your moving lines and it's in your export table. So the export table from your foundation where you get the electricity off is actually the key one. People haven't designed these to be able to be tracked around too much. That is driven primarily by the cyclic loads. So there is an advantage for the elastome economy.

You won't be sopping in and out, so your loads are more constant. If you have a single lift device, so you have a minute cycle at a time, you have got thousands of cycles where your entire foundation will be tracked and the work will go back again, and the fatigue life on your export cable will be one of the key things that need to be better understood and extended.

So we've done a lot of work on the design trade-offs, what things actually need to be changed in order to push it down to the causes. Maximum tilt angle, so for floating specifically, what angle can you tilt your ground station to?

It's by far the largest driver. If you can allow your floating foundation to tilt to 30 degrees, it's much cheaper than if you can. If you tilt it only 10 degrees. The winch height, so how high, apart from water level, the winch drives your turning moment. So are you allowed to put your winch in the splash zone? So if your winch has to be 22 metres above the water so that it doesn't ever get splashed,

then that's quite a big turning moment if you can put it down so it does get splashed occasionally, then your turning moments get smaller and your entire foundation shrinks. And then again fatigue life. There are things you can do to reduce your fatigue life. You could have multiple devices on one foundation so that you can trade off the loads from one,

the loads from the other so you're not going to soak up such large cycle loads. And you can also do things like control the device to reduce yield in exchange for reduced fatigue loads. So just as an example of what that looks like, this is specifically for floating, I built a quick model of what a floating foundation looks like and I looked at what happens

as you increase the maximum tilt angle you can allow. So on the left-hand side of the graph shows if you allow your device to tilt to 15 degrees, it's quite a lot cheaper if you have it only allowed to tilt 40 degrees. This is for a 70 metre long sparl or a 3 metre long type on-wool device on it.

It's kind of a profit factor, pretty close to correct. But as you can see obviously as you continue to move more and more, you don't reach the stage where you have no foundation. So this is really one of the big key drivers and it's again quite possible you probably don't want the drag test devices or you don't have such sensitive components on the ground.

So it's a design challenge to be aware of as you can see, you're not sure as to how much can you let your foundation or ground stations move. Winch height, I'm much surprised that this is a very linear relationship. The hierarchy of the winch is bigger at the moment and bigger at the moment.

So on to the money side. So we've done quite a lot of these calculations in the past. The one I'm showing here is for a re-powered winch case, it is, I reckon, pretty close to correct. There are a lot of things, there's a lot of uncertainties,

and there's lots of things that you can change now. We've done this first model winch case where we know what things are expensive, we know what you change. So if you try and run your re-powered winch case with merchant price of electricity, it is not a profitable operation. You will continue to make a lot of threats like this is by high OPEX costs, and high OPEX costs for re-cowering winch,

because it's an immature technology, so you're only going to be doing this early in your life, so you haven't developed your OPEX appropriately yet. And it is main course if your engagement requirements are very high. So if you find yourself needing to have inspections every two years, or every one year to keep your device volume here,

certified manual, that pushes that prices. So these things just need to be accounted for when you start thinking back, and you're not sure if that's what you're going to do. However, within the remaining tea life of the foundation that we tested, you could have a profitable project, so the breakeven, with a relatively low support structure.

So I've chosen rocks here as the support structure, but I've used them because from my background in wave energy, I know that wave energy was offered five rocks, and at five rocks, this is a brilliant idea. It only needs about two rocks, which is the equivalent of about a pound per millimolar, and this becomes a viable thing to try out. If you get the same support mechanism as high-wool stockman's got,

then this actually starts making money quite quickly. So, as I said, there's uncertainties around this, but it works, but you have to overcome some engineering challenges, and you have to have some support mechanism. It's also worth noting that your support mechanism could be in capex support, so some can help you find some obviously new development,

but if you're doing that, then you're a test project rather than an early implementation. Finances for floating, so here I can be able to compare them on different sorts, so you can't be able to see cash flow. This graph, on the left hand side, we have a conventional floating 10 megawatt device.

This is a good estimate. It's one of the better ones that we've seen, and you've got to do all that to show that it's reasonable. And then airborne wind, a 3 megawatt floating device, looks like it could beat a conventional 10 megawatt floating, and that is a huge advantage. That's really a great thing for airborne wind.

If you can continue to upscale your airborne wind to the 10 megawatt scale or beyond, and bear in mind I don't mean to need a 10 megawatt device, you can have two 5 megawatt devices, that's absolutely fine. It's all about the balance of the plateau, one foundation, one M4 cable, is what's important here. Then you actually get very competitive, and you reach the stage where you are competitive,

conventional, fixed, bottom 12 megawatts, so you're not quite beating them, but you're close. So long term futures really, this is not a niche market, this really could be the next big thing, so when you're best to continue to support that. So, conclusions. There's a lot of them here that I haven't said,

so re-powering is challenging. I would recommend against making it a key part of your business plan, and say, if your business plan has you have to do a re-powering project in the next stage, I need to look for alternatives. It's not to say it won't work, it's just it won't be easy. A key thing here is, each offshore wind farm that you consider re-powering,

you're going to have to do a study on its foundations. It's different for everything you move on, particularly as we go over later. So the early wind farms have quite a lot of fat in them. Once you get to the ones which are built later on, they've optimised their foundations, so there's a lot less fatigue left.

So it's not going to be a long term thing, it's a difficult market, but feel free to continue to investigate, it can work with support mechanisms. Floating airborne wind really could be the way. It has some big benefits, which mean it could actually be cheaper and conventional, and that's probably your first real commercial market utility scale.

We did look at other things and there's just some other things to bear in mind. So environmental, conservation areas, trying to look at the new possible sites and looking for new environmental constraints in place. Bear in mind we've been able to operate them as birds of line ranks.

This is a bit surprising, difficult question to answer. Aviation restrictions, going to airports and trying to get costs low. Supply chain doesn't exist yet, so we need to get a supply chain and sort of skip over safety during operation. So one of the interesting things is that conventional wind service

is actually quite a new thing to operate safely, and this is when you need to go to your device to make some modifications and you need to go and tighten up the bolts. There is no point in conventional wind turbine that you lock and secure, apart from just when you step onto the foundation. So if you're designing your floating foundation, it doesn't have a fence around the edge so you can get blown off

and you might want to turn it around in the end because we don't want to operate things where people fall in the sea too often. And port availability actually has a huge impact on, well port and also just the construction methods available to you have a huge impact on what types of foundations you can use. So if you want to use a 70 meter spa, then you can use a deep water cooler to do what happens when you lock it.

So, thank you very much for your speakers.