Perspectives for the development of the offshore wind energy sector in Brazil - 2006

1. PERSPECTIVES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY SECTOR IN BRAZIL
Viterbo, J.C.* ; Saidel. M. A.Ç ; Prado Jr F. A. A.Ç
* jviterbo@usp.br - Naval & Ocean Engineering Dept. (PNV) – Escola Politécnica, Universidade de São Paulo
Çsaidel@pea.usp.br ; faapj@uol.com.br - Electrical Energy and Automation Engineering Dept. (PEA) – idem
ABSTRACT
In global terms, wind power has been the fastest
growing energy source in the last decades and
probably it will be the same for next ones. The
learning curve for this technology shows cost of
energy (COE) falling down by 15% to 20% each
time that global capacity doubles (what happens
each 3 years, approximately). Although only 0.67%
penetration in the world electric generation by
2005, major playing countries in the wind energy
sector have made efforts towards the 2020 target of
12% wind power penetration in world electric
matrix. The contribution of wind power from the
offshore version is important for such goal, due to:
(i) location at a close distance of major load
centers; (ii) mitigation of environmental impacts
from electricity generation, and (iii) providing
efficiency and economy of scale, compared with
the onshore version. This article shows some
aspects of the offshore wind energy (OWE) in
interesting countries, turning focus on Brazil,
recognized as the third largest offshore wind
resource owner in the world, with a high feasibility
index for projects indeed. Conclusion of work
suggests that Brazilian energy actors shall to
strength R&D about technical and economic
feasibility of OWE projects near to shore and at
country’s continental shelf, where massive offshore
oil deployment has already been taken. For the
world leader in clean and renewable energy, value
creation and strategic paths would come as: (i) a
partial relief of energy supply for major load
centers (which are at the coast); (ii) a
rationalization on the use, transport and foreign
dependence of natural gas; and (iii) pushing
dynamics of new markets for the industry and for
Clean Development Mechanisms (CDM).
1. INTRODUCTION
Electricity projects have been established in Brazil
over the last years, but there is still a lack in supply
for the short run. Brazilian Atlas of Wind Power
returns 143 GW onshore wind power as “possible
to be installed” [1, p. 43] and the official program
for alternative sources (PROINFA) is a sensible
start-up for the Brazilian industry, which has a wind
turbines assembler (Wobben – Enercon), a tower
manufacturer (Eólica Industrial), and a 25 m blade
designer and manufacturer (Tecsis) already.
Purpose of this work is to reinforce Brazilian
discussion about the strategic importance of a
deeper penetration of avant-garde energy
technologies in its electricity matrix, emphasizing
about the weight of OWE for such strategy. This
text brings some steps taken by countries in order to
develop wind energy systems, onshore and
offshore. After that, the article discuss about
economical, political, environmental and industrial
aspects related to deploying such systems in Brazil.
2. AN OVERVIEW OF WIND SOURCE IN
THE WORLD ENERGY MATRIX
Concerning to energy as a whole (not electricity
only), the global energy production strongly relies
on fossil fuels. According to the International
Energy Agency (IEA), 80.2 % of the 10,579 Mtoe
of Total Primary Energy Supply (TPES)1
in 2003
came from the fossil sources, 6.5% from nuclear
and 13.3% came from renewable sources. From
these 13.8 points, 10.6 points came from burning
CRW (Combustible Renewables - as wood or
ethanol; and Waste - as CH4 from sanitary landfills
or biodigesters) [2]. So, only 3.2 % of the energy
consumed in the world in 2003 has not added to the
global warming or with nuclear waste inventories
growth, which management virtue will not be
covered by this work. Between 1971 and 2003,
TPES has grown by 2.1% a year. Renewables
(large hydro, CRW and others) have grown by
2.3% a year. Excluding large hydro and CRW from
this data, renewables’ growth becomes 8.2% a year.
These are the sources which do not contribute for
pollution during their production processes, listed
by IEA statistics as geothermal, solar, wind, tidal,
wave, ocean, etc. Not to forget that the major part
of the carbon from the biomass that died under a
large hydroelectric dam goes out to the atmosphere
as CH4 or CO2 later, beyond the fact of excluding
the flora which would catch CO2 and deliver O2 for
a long time. According to IEA data, the largest
growth over the 33 years analysis was relative to
wind energy (48.9 % per year). From 2000 to 2005,
besides with some mature basis already, wind
energy still demonstrated strong growth, at a rate of
27.7% per year [3, p. 10].
Energex 2006 Organising committee

2. 2,1%
2,3%
2,1%
2,5%
8,2%
0,0%
1,5%
3,0%
4,5%
6,0%
7,5%
9,0%
TPES Renewables CRW Hidro Others
Figure 1. Annual average growth of energy sources between 1971 and 2003. Source: IEA, 2006 [2]
In 2005, the world electric production was nearly
18,000 TWh [4, p. 24]. Wind power production got
120 TWh approximately, 0.67% of the world total2
.
The European Wind Energy Association (EWEA)
has made a report (Wind Force 12) which
establishes the goal of 1,250 GW of wind power for
the year 2020 (this means an annual energy yield of
3,000 TWh, or 12% of world’s electric demand at
that time). In 2003, nuclear power contributed with
a 16.0 % share of world electric supply, the same
amount of large hydro [2]. According to the
European Renewable Energy Council (EREC),
wind energy is able to output 4,000 TWh, when it
would surpass the large hydro and it would become
the main renewable electricity source in the world
at 2022 [5]. Such a performance would be only a
play back of the ones showed by nuclear or large
hydro just few decades ago.
Concerning to the adherence features of wind
energy systems for the Brazilian case, one would be
the higher level of integration with the local energy
resources, unburdening the national grid of load
transmission and improving distributed generation,
improving the quality of the energy distributed and
promoting the use of local industries and human
resources. The learning curve of the wind sector
(research plus production scale) shows that the Cost
of Energy (COE) decreases by 20% each doubling
of world generation capacity (what has happened
each three years approximately). In addition to the
use of windy sites, these figures feed the argument
that, if efficiently established, wind is able to
reduce its (COE), becoming cost-competitive with
non-renewable and pollutants energy sources, as
shown in figure 2 [6, p. 73].
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
5,5 6 6,5 7 7,5 8 8,5 9 9,5 10
Figure 2. Lines: COE for onshore wind and for
offshore, according to the mean wind speed.
Bars: Cost range for traditional sources.
Adapted from Wind Power Monthly, V.20, 2004 [6]
Not to forget that the cost for gas-fired conversion,
as above, is that for established plants and transport
infrastructure. But in Brazil, the investment for
pipelines to transport the gas is a problem, mainly
for the supply of the northeastern region, which has
no longer a great choice of hydropower upgrading,
but has a windy-compliance with its pluviometric
profile, one of the main reasons to the pioneering of
the region on wind power. Also, the external cost
was not considered in the values of figure 2 above.
This is the portion of COE that occurs as a result of
energy conversion, but is not put inside energy
tariffs, once such externalities results have widely
spread consequences in time, space and kinds, so
they are difficult to correlate and measure. As a
result, externalities are covered indirectly by the
society, throughout harvests losses, public diseases
7,6%
28,9%
48,9%
0,4%
0,0%
10,0%
20,0%
30,0%
40,0%
50,0%
Geothermal Solar Wind Tidal
nuclear
coal
gas
onshore (US$ 1 M / MW)
offshore
(US$ 1,6 M / MW)
US$ / MWh
m/s

3. and damages to the common wealth (as hurricanes
or river floods do). Figure 3 illustrates COE gap as
a result of considering externalities in some
countries, corroborating the argument of wind
energy cost-effectiveness even when not an optimal
case of cost of capital and wind speed [7].
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Denmark
Spain
Germany
Denmark
Figure 3. COE considering externalities
Source: EWEA, 2004 [7]
3. INTERNATIONAL HIGHLIGHTS OF OWE
According to the Global Wind Energy Council
(GWEC), 2005 has resulted on the installation of
11,769 MW. This is a 43.4% increase in the annual
addition to the global market, up from 8,207 MW in
the previous year. The total value of new generating
equipment installed was over US$14 billions. The
total wind power capacity as ending 2005 stands at
59,084 MW worldwide, an increase of 25%
compared to 2004. The countries with the highest
total installed capacity are Germany (18,428 MW),
Spain (10,027 MW), the USA (9,149 MW), India
(4,430 MW) and Denmark (3,122 MW). Almost
21% of 2005’ new installed capacity was in the
USA (2,431 MW), due to the federal incentive for
wind energy, the production tax credit (PTC),
which was extended for a three year window of
stability by the US congress [3].
OWE shall to be seen as a complement, and not as
a concurrent to the onshore version. Although the
higher costs, OWE brings comparative advantages.
Sea winds are faster, steady and less turbulent [8,
p.4]. The visual impact gets smooth at sea. Onshore
constraints are avoided. Referring to the turbine’s
nominal power, the capacity of trucks, cranes, roads
and bridges are more limited for onshore devices
than for offshore, limiting the size of turbines. On
the wind farms power size, few onshore plants get
more than 50 MW (restricted to the available space,
cost of land, noise and visual impacts), limiting
scale profits of wind farms. OWE’s “power
density” is usually scatter (6 MW/km2
versus 13
MW/km2
onshore), reducing the “wind shadow”
effect throughout the turbines. Cost of connecting
to the grid is higher offshore, but attenuated by
smaller losses during electricity transport. OWE
systems usually are close to load centers, resulting
shorter connections to the grid (in contrast of the
onshore wind farms). Figure 4 exemplifies a cost
breakdown for an offshore wind farm [9, p. 47].
Transport,
Installation
11%
Yearly
O&M
27%
Other
5%
Transm.
System to
Shore
6%
Electric
Collection
System
2%
Wind
Turbine
24%
Tower
9%
Foundation
9%
Decomissio
ning
1%
Retrofit
and
Overhaul
6%
Figure 4. Cost Breakdown for an OWE system.
Dutch Offshore Wind Energy Converter [9]
As shown in figure 4, transport and O&M
summarize almost 40% of an offshore wind farm
cost. In order to attenuate these costs, scale is
critical for OWE cost-effectiveness. Year by year,
assemblers and project developers launch new
world records for the nominal power of turbines
and for the total power of wind farms. At beginning
of 2006, the largest wind turbine was running at 5
MW, 126 m rotor diameter (12.470 m2
). However,
the development of a 10 MW turbine is expected to
2010 and General Electric has announced to be
“physically possible” a turbine of 20 MW and 200
m diameter [10]. Concerning to wind farms, largest
ones are going to be run at the United Kingdom, as
shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Large OWE projects on planning at UK as
April 2006. Sources: www.crownestate.co.uk;
www.beatricewind.co.uk
Project London
Array
Beatrice Triton
Knoll
Main
investors
CORE;
E.ON;
Shell
WindEnergy
Talisman;
Scottish &
Southern;
EDF
Npower
renewables
(RWE
group)
Place 20 km outer
Thames
Estuary
25 km East
coast of
Scotland
25 km
Greater
Wash
Power 1,000 MW 1,000 MW 1,200 MW
Depth 25 m 45 m 20 m
Full Op. 2010 2010 2010
In fact, huge OWE projects are being planned for
the German part of the North Sea, but a final
definition for their evolvement is still to come,
because of grid integration constraints and once
their sizes calls for a more powerful and diversified
collectivity of stakeholders’ interests. Table 2
shows some of the largest on planning [11].
Wind Power
Natural
Gas
€ / MWh
Internal cost External cost
(min.)
External cost
(máx.)

4. Table 2. GW-scale OWE projects at the German
part of the North Sea. Adapted from [11]
Project Developer Power
MW
Forsetti Prokton Nord 17,500
Jules Verne Plambeck 13,500
TGB North ep4 offshore 10,045
Hochsee
Windpark
Nordsee 54°25’
EOS Offshore 5,355
Weiße Bank
2010
OSB Offshore-
Bürger- Windpark
Butendiek
2,700
Offshore North
Sea Windpower
Enova 2,025
Although some projects on planning in the US and
Canada, at the ending 2005 there was no OWE
plant in Americas. First reason is because countries
moved offshore only after an extensive experience
onshore, with some exception on the British case.
On the mega trend of oil organizations to become
energy organizations, the UK, as major player in
the global oil industry and market, is also the world
seventh wind energy generator (1,353 MW as
2005) [3]. But it still remains some public
resistance against onshore facilities due to cultural
means and visual impact. On the target of turning
into a more peaceful strategy of the security of
energy supply for the middle run, arising
environment-friendly measures at an industrial
basis deployment, UK has made option for OWE as
major tactics for sustainable development, joining
five goals as one: (i) to grow up public acceptance
to the technology; (ii) to create new jobs, (iii) to
promote its well known offshore resources and
industries, (iv) to enable a faster design-to-
operation solution for the energy security supply,
and (v) to evolve towards UK’ commitments to the
Kyoto Protocol . Close and synergic articulation is
between the Crown Estate – as manager of leasing
the public asset (seabed) and on project permitting
– joined to the Dept. of Trade and Industry – in
charge of energy strategy, providing rules for the
industry and defending the customer interest. So
that the first coming Gigawatt scale OWE projects
on planning come from UK. Second reason for no
OWE in Americas is due to the fact there is
relatively fewer shallow waters (<30 m deep) more
than 10 km far from the shore, which is good for a
low visual impact, as found at North Sea and the
Baltic. The shallower the sea is, the less complex
design and cost are. Distance is a combined factor
on the cost of cabling and transport versus the
impacts of plant (visual, tourism, fauna, fishing,
navigation, etc). The second largest OWE plant
running at 2005 is Horns Rev (160 MW). It is 14
km to 20 km far from Danish coast and it is over a
6,5 up to 13,5 m water depth. Such combination is
uncommon at the Atlantic or the Pacific.
Exemplifying about R&D, the National Renewable
Laboratory (NREL - USA) is identifying the
optimal depth of transition from fixed infrastructure
to floating ones, developing equipment and
methodology for erecting floating offshore wind
turbines without using a crane [12]. Furthermore,
NREL shelters the Low Wind Speed Technology
Project, in order to design multimegawatt turbines
with cost-effective output under class 4 winds (5,8
m/s at 10m height). This would increase 20 times
the available area for onshore projects in USA [13,
p. 1], reducing the COE to US$ 30 / MWh onshore
and to US$ 50 MWh offshore up to 2012 [8, p.1].
Plenty of these new areas available will be close to
significant load centers. However, the large cities at
the northeastern cost do not have even the class 4
wind onshore, so that the offshore option to become
the logical choice for an environment-friendly
energy supply. Musial and Butterfield have
produced an interesting essay about OWE in the
USA [8]. Essaying over the available area, they
took the closest 50 nautical miles (nm) width
coastal belt. Then, inside this giant area, they
ignored the first 5 nm (due to visual impact), 2/3 of
the 5 to 20 nm belt and 1/3 of the 20 to 50 nm belt.
The study returned 907 GW of total OWE potential
for the US. Estimation is that 98 GW of that total
amount are at shallow waters (less than 30 m deep).
They have simulated both costs for wind farms
fixed on seabed (30 m) and also for floating wind
farms (600 ft deep). Based on an 5 x 100 MW wind
farm, they have attenuated the profits from learning
curves, concerning to towers and turbines (which
are some matured technologies), but they have
improved learning profits in the case of foundations
or floating systems (as emerging technologies).
Table 3 summarizes the results of simulation.
Table 3: Cost breakdown – 500 MW; class 6 winds:
8 to 8.8 m/s; Cap. Factor 47% – NREL [8]
30 m depth / 15 miles offshore
US$ 000 . 2006 2015 2025
Turbine & tower 338.730 258.746 229.278
Monopile or
tripods 99.200 67.602 59.903
Electric works . 159.300 128.089 113.501
Total . 597.230 454.437 402.682
US$ / kW . 1.194 909 805
US$ / MWh . 54 37 32
600 ft depth
US$ 000 . 2006 2015 2025
Turbine & tower 338.730 245.128 217.211
Floating systems 469.000 289.696 185.406
Electric works . 194.200 156.152 138.368
Total . 1.001.930 690.976 540.985
US$ / kW . 2.004 1.382 1.082
US$ / MWh . 83 51 41

5. In the US Energy Information Administration’
website, US electric supply is about 1,050 GW (as
2004). NREL forecasts are to start floating OWE
between 2015 and 2020. However, besides the huge
potential, US energy matrix will rely strongly on
coal still by decades (fig. 6), even the investment in
gas-fired thermal power plants (fig. 7) and even the
renewable’s COE to be so close with fossils (fig. 8)
in the future. The following figures are from US
Annual Energy Outlook 2006 [14, pp. 77 - 84].
0
5
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
5
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
5
0
0
3
0
0
0
3
5
0
0
Petroleum
Renewables
Nuclear
Natural Gas
Coal
2030
2004
Figure 6. Electricity generation in the USA (TWh)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2005-
2010
2011-
2015
2016-
2020
2021-
2025
2026-
2030
Nuclear Renewables
Natural Gas Coal
Figure 7. Electric generation capacity additions by
Fuel, including combined heat , 2005-2030 (GW)
30 28
11 11
41 44 43 41
5
5
1 1
8
8 8 8
15 16
37 40
7
3 3 3
3
7
7
2 3
7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Capital O&M Fuel Transmission
Figure 8. Levelized electricity costs for new plants,
2015 and 2030 respectively (US$/MWh)
The Deutsches Windenergie-Institut (DEWI)
indicates Germany as the future largest OWE
developer. DEWI’s scenario is 25,200 MW onshore
and 5,600 MW in the North Sea and Baltic Sea at
2014 (210,000 MW total worldwide). Based on
that, the original aim of the German Government to
install 2,000 to 3,000 MW offshore by 2010 can no
longer to be, because the start of installations will
be delayed to 2008. The reasons are technical and
administrative problems, and due to the booming of
the global market, the wind turbine manufacturers
are already working at full capacity. More than
35,000 MW offshore is expected in the German
part of the North Sea and the Baltic until 2030,
raising wind energy almost to 1/3 national power
source at time [15]. Although delayed by political
problems, Germany has an interesting strategy plan
for exploiting OWE [16]. Good publication is also
that of the UK’s strategy on OWE [17]. According
to IEA, as ending of 2005, the total amount of
OWE wind farms was as 804 MW (Denmark 53%;
UK 38% ; Ireland 3% ; Sweden 3% ; Netherlands
2% and Germany 1%) [18].
Forecast for the global electric demand at 2030 is
31,524 TWh, the double as 2000, but tripling in
developing countries. The world’s total installed
capacity will rise from 3,397 GW in 1999 to 7,157
GW by 2030, according to IEA. Computing on the
replacement of plants going into obsolescence, plus
the new power additions, nearly 5,000 GW is
expected to be built in the global system between
2001 and 2030. [19, pp. 124 - 130]. Including
transmission and distribution, the global investment
in electricity over the period will be US$ 10 trillion.
About one third of this amount shall to be in the
big-five non-OECD economies (Brazil, China,
India, Indonesia and Russia). More than 40% of
world’s new capacity projected is expected to be
gas-fired, which jumps from 677 GW in 1999 to
over 2,500 GW in 2030. But it remains very
uncertain whether these big-five countries will be
able to find the capital required to build the
infrastructure, including upstream facilities,
pipelines and LNG terminals, to support new gas-
fired projects [20, pp. 341 - 356]. The Global Wind
Energy 2005 Report calls the goals for wind energy
by 2020. Table 4 summarizes GWEC goals.
Table 4: GWEC goals for wind energy by 2020 [3]
World’s Total Wind Capacity 1.254 GW
Annual Growth 158.73 GW
12% of global electric demand 3,054 TWh
Annual avoided emissions of CO2 1,832 Mton
Accum. Avoided emissions 10,771 Mton
Annual Investment € 80 billions
Jobs on occupation 2,300,000
Cost of plant 512 € / kW
Cost of energy 24.5 € / MWh
GWEC goals are 2,700 GW for 2030 and 3,200
GW for 2040. The offshore wind sector has a
primordial role in such goals due to the smaller
environmental impact, larger scale and efficiency,
saving the space on land for economical activities
other than energy generation.
Coal Gas comb.
cycle
Wind Nuclear
TWh
GW
US$/MWh

6. 4. ON THE BRAZILIAN FRAMEWORK
83% of the Brazilian electric consumption come
from the hydraulic source 3
. This source is tending
for scarcity in supply for providing in full the
increase of the demand. A great increase of the
natural gas in the electric matrix is expected. But
this would mean: (i) dependence raising with
relation to Bolivia and exposition to its sensible
political risk, (ii) verge evasion and great
expenditures with transport, (iii) lower future
availability of the commodity for other industrial
uses in Brazil and (iv) the rise of the Brazilian
fraction in the global warming. Large hydropower
source is growing slowly in Brazil. Major plants are
public-owned and after the 70’s, few significant
investment was made for the national electricity
infrastructure. Potential demand is available, but
the federal government funds are insufficient, so
that alternative solution was found, throughout a
system of investing by partnership with the private
sector (Parcerias Público Privadas – PPP). But the
maturation of such system is still expected,
throughout higher level of accuracy on rules,
equality over the contracts and steady warranties
that the future representatives on the government
will stand on agreements done by others before.
Actually, the most significant potential for new
large hydro projects in Brazil lies at the Amazon
region. National efficiency average for dams is 6.3
W/m2
. Amazon shows efficiency between 0.1 and
0.3 W/m2
[21]. In addition to the lower efficiency,
the complex and delicate ecology of the region
suggests that it is unlikely to receive foreign
financial resources to be invested in a large energy
project. Even the contrary case, it would take many
years to start production. In order to cover demand
growth in the short run, the Ministry of Energy has
made option in 2000 for gas-fired thermal power
plants (GTPP). Due to the imminence of huge
blackouts, entrepreneurs invested in GTPP,
contracting the gas supply from the unique
provider, the Brazilian oil company Petrobrás. In
2001, the market was forced to reduce
consumption, so that in few months the national
demand was that of three years ago. Although the
slashing-down policy, demand did not started
growing strongly, but as the same rate as usual.
With the short-time problem solved, Petrobrás
didn’t provide the gas for GTPPs, preferring to
cover the financial position of theirs in the
wholesale electricity market rather than making a
heavy investment in gas pipelines. As a financial
gap, the exchange rate jumped from R$1,10/US$ in
oct/22/97 up to R$3,96/US$ in oct/22/02,
sacrificing investors’ long term debt from gas
turbines imports. On the political side, there was
instability in Bolivia (major gas supplier). These
factors, joined to other technical constraints of
transporting, have interrupted Brazilian program for
GTPPs, which would launch 13.6 GW into the
system (47 plants planned, only 4 have started) and
would arise Brazilian CO2 emissions from 80
Mton/year by 2003 to 230 Mton/year [22].
In the other hand, an interesting complement exists
between the wind and the rain profiles near to the
coast of the Northeast Region of Brazil [23]. Upper
wind speed averages are over the dry season (July
to December), the season of highest electricity
prices, as of the highest level of energy deficit risk
too. The Wind Atlas of Ceará state [24] indicates
that coastline blows on dry season between 7m/s
and 13 m/s during 90% of time, good for wind
energy conversion. As in December 2005, the
Brazilian Energy Agency (www.aneel.gov.br)
indicated 5,235 MW of wind energy projects
approved for both states (more than 8,000 MW for
the whole country). On such an appropriate
framework, Carvalho [21] made a simulation study
on the contribution of wind energy by its shoreline
version on the displacement of green house gases
under Kyoto Protocol prerogatives. At the coast
line of the states of Ceará (530 km) and Rio Grande
do Norte (493 km), he considered a 2 km width belt
(onshore). By assumption, the study considered
20% of the area as available for erecting wind
turbines, resulting a 409.2 km2
theoretical wind
park. Under a dispersion of 22 x 600 kW turbines
each km2
, a plant of 9,000 turbines (5,400 MW)
was simulated. It was considered the energy losses
due to wind turbines interaction, also those by dust
impregnation on the blades surfaces and by energy
transporting up to the grid. Losses due non-
availability by electrical, mechanical and weather
issues were also considered. Simulation returned an
amount of 18.5 TWh a year, resulting a capacity
factor of 39% for the system as a whole. 10% of
energy produced was discounted as losses over
transmission and distribution, considering that
fossil conversion, which would be displaced,
usually is not so far away from the load center as
onshore wind plants use to be. Study considered a
base line of 0.502 ton of CO2/MWh for
displacement (as like an efficient combined cycle
gas-fired plant). In a direct calculus, an amount of
8.36 Mton CO2/year would be avoided by the wind
park. Considering US$10 / ton CO2 on the Clean
Development Mechanisms, simulation resulted on
the gross annual revenue of US$ 83 M for the both
states of Ceará and Rio Grande do Norte.
Even the nearly 8,500 km long coast line and the
previous senior competence in oil & gas offshore
operations , Brazil faces previous institutional
challenges other than the technical ones which are
expected for deploying OWE systems. The federal
program for alternative energy (PROINFA) was
seen in 2004 as a start-running force to the onshore
wind industry. It consists on public company
Eletrobrás to buy the total amount of energy to be

7. converted from 3,300 MW from biomass, small
hydropower and wind. 1,422 MW of wind projects
were selected be contracted by Eletrobrás. Power
purchase agreements are 20 years long, with low
rates for project funding (up to 80% of capital cost,
one year grace period, 12 years for amortization).
Project developers objected to the energy
acquisition price [25], arguing that price would not
raise enough margins to handle the financial rates
of loans plus the payments to suppliers. Prices are
in the range of R$ 204/MWh, or € 78/MWh, for
lower capacity factor plants (34%) and
R$181/MWh, or €69/MWh, for higher capacity
factor plants (41%). Until June 2006, the final price
of energy for residences in São Paulo city was R$
287.20/MWh (before a 25% value-added tax –
ICMS – and other taxes). The companies selected
argue against the difficulty of covering the
requirements for guaranteeing their equity as a loan
contracting counterpart with the funding provider,
the National Bank for Economic and Social
Development (BNDES). Several disputes of
juridical or administrative issues from companies of
non-selected projects have retarded PROINFA’s
progress. Also, there is a rule of nationalization of
expenditures: 60% of the value of components and
services must be expended inside the country. This
rule has brought more difficulties than market
prosperity for the wind sector and so projects were
delayed else more: the deadline for starting the
wind projects generation moved to ending 2008. It
seems that there was not so close articulation
between public promoters for wind in Brazil as it
was the case in UK (not forgetting the helping fact
that companies in UK have the money enough to
invest or guarantee by themselves in accordance to
the price of energy to be bought by utilities).
Helped by the rule of nationalization, the monopoly
in the turbines supply in Brazil has made the prices
arise by 20% compared to the time of business
planning. Outer assemblers are focused on big
markets and some of those markets showed more
than 30% growth in the last years, so that
manufacturers did not invested on factories in
Brazil. By this way, the country does not have still
a strong solution for the security of energy supply
in the middle run (except by GTPP tries again),
making new blackouts as possible in 2008.
Major part of Brazilian power generation is
concentrated in few points and due to this, 30% of
the final consumer tariff refers to energy transport
and 11% of the total energy produced is just lost
during transmission and distribution (according to
the IEA’ statistics tool, this is about 6% in EU 15).
An important advantage from OWE over onshore
systems is the good possibility of finding windy
sites less than 30 km far from the load centers,
reducing the cost of transport and the energy losses.
Also, OWE calls for larger projects, where the
economy of scale is strategically efficient.
Additional opportunity would be to fulfill electric-
intensive companies, as those of aluminum
industry, a strategic product for Brazilian domestic
market also and for exports, once a major part of
the value-added to this product is about energy.
Through the largest corporation of Latin America
and world’s eighth largest oil company, Petrobrás,
Brazil has a mature know-how in offshore projects
for oil and gas production, at deep waters indeed.
Good part of the gas is just burned, as it is not cost-
effective to transport it to continent. On the other
hand, oil platforms must bring diesel generators
into the decks, occupying an important and
valuable space, concurring to layout constraints and
the risk for the crew. On promoting wind energy for
supplying its own projects, Petrobrás contributes
for the creation of an industrial basis aimed at the
offshore oil industry and the onshore wind energy
industry, pushing dynamics for the sector of
assembling, capital goods and special services
providing. By promoting the exploitation,
deployment and production of wind energy fields,
the company also would be feeding its own
capabilities to sell specialized services in this high
potential international market of erecting wind
turbines offshore. Beyond the fixed turbines, if
using floating OWE to supply platforms, the
company would be able to manage the location of
electricity production, following and adapting if
some necessity comes, once they would be modular
and possible to move from a place to another.
Furthermore, as a very well established prestigious
company, Petrobrás would feed the Brazilian
source of Carbon Credits, as assigned by the Clean
Development Mechanisms and the Kyoto Protocol.
An appropriate reference case is Beatrice Wind
Farm. Talisman is a Canadian-based oil and gas
explorer. One of the largest infrastructure operator
at UK’ continental shelf, it became interested in
offshore wind in 2001, by screening a range of
options to identify how to reduce operating costs,
increase production, and extend economic life of
Beatrice oil field. Studies revealed that finding re-
use opportunity for the infrastructure would
contribute to these goals, and indicated that there
was potential for wind energy. The demonstrator
project consists of 2 x 5 MW wind turbines, linked
to the 2 km far Beatrice platform (see table 1).
Project’s cost is about £30 million and will bring
significant benefits to the UK and Scotland, so that
the project has received funding from the Scottish
Executive, UK Dept. of Trade and Industry and the
European Commission. The feasibility study

8. showed that a successful development would
require combined expertise from the offshore oil
and gas industry with those of utilities. Then,
Talisman UK has partnered with Scottish and
Southern Energy, a major UK utility. After so, the
project has been incorporated into a pan-European
initiative called DOWNVInD (Distant Offshore
Wind farms with No Visual Impact iN Deepwater),
comprising 15 different organizations from 6
European countries. They have established a
synergic catalyst for a R&D cluster in order to: (i)
understand the environmental impact of deep water
windfarms (DWFs), (ii) prove the concept of a
DWF, (iii) explore the cost-effectiveness of
deepwater sites, (iv) share the know-how across
Europe, (v) pioneer the development of DWFs, (vi)
improve and commercialize the technology and
(vii) if approved in pilot phase, the project aims at
growing up to 1000 MW after 2010, providing 20%
of present Scottish demand. But the project has an
immediate impact on Beatrice field too. The energy
will be used to power the platform, reducing the use
of fossil power, following Talisman’s strategy of
reducing emissions and the environmental impact
of its own operations. The demonstrator project
aligns with Talisman’s plan for decommissioning
the Beatrice field, which seeks extending the life of
the field by finding continued and alternative uses
for some of the main facilities and infrastructure.
The Engineering Consultancy Aerodyn GmbH has
identified, in 2003, from a 105 countries initial
data, the most prominent non-EU markets for OWE
deployment [26]. In a total amount of 275,000 km2
of area available for OWE projects, they assumed
that 10% would be less than 20 m deep and 50 km
far from the grid onshore. Interesting that Brazil has
the third largest potential for the OWE yield (609
TWh/year), behind China (1,033 TWh/year) and
USA (612 TWh/year), according to the study. Also,
Brazil is the third in aptitude for developing OWE
projects. Looking only at the feasibility index
created by the consultancy, Brazil is the best index
for developing OWE, if compared with the other
two giants (China and USA). The index created has
considered features like wind speed, economic
framework for wind energy, water depths, distance
to the grid onshore, offshore infrastructure, offshore
interest, and others. If 10% of that Brazilian
potential (609 Twh/year), could be found at good
sites (20 m deep and 50 km far from grid), the 61
TWh/year would supply 17.5% of the Brazilian
total electricity demand by 2004 (350 TWh). If
becoming true, the second phase of PROINFA aims
at contracting power enough (but no longer with
subsidizing prices) to score renewables by 10% of
national electric supply up to 2010.
2006 is an important year for the Brazilian energy
sector. The biggest achievement is reaching self-
sufficiency in oil production at a time of global
scarcity, which has caused high market volatility.
Strategic fact for Brazil is the safety in internal
supply, considering the international market’s
current and future conditions, with indicators of
quick growth in consumption in the emerging
economies and the lack of new and significant
discoveries in the world. The comfortable internal
balance in the oil sector is a privilege of few
countries in the world, most of which are heavily
dependent on oil. Petrobrás is already rated as an
“investment grade” company by Moody’s. The
company is committed to sell, by 2010, 10% of its
total amount of energy offered from renewable
sources (ethanol and biodiesel are major elements
in this mission). Also, 10% of the energy consumed
by the company in its own operations shall to come
from renewables. In this second case, renewable
electric conversion shall to be the way to follow.
The company is already running a pilot project in
the city of Macau, in the coastal state of Rio Grande
do Norte. Project consists on 3 x 600 kW wind
turbines at the beach, few meters distant from the
water (pictures are at the company’s website).
Other interesting opportunity for OWE in Brazil are
illustrated in the Wind potential Atlas of the State
of Rio Grande do Sul (outer south of Brazil). The
state runs the first and also the largest onshore
project selected by PROINFA. The “Osorio Wind
Farm” is a 150 MW system (3 x 50 MW), one of
the largest onshore wind farms in the world. The
state made good survey for its Wind Atlas
completion, considering offshore possibilities over
the Lakes regions indeed. As an example, Lagoa
dos Patos is a wide-area lake (more than 10,000
km2
). The regions of the three lakes in the state
have a total area of 14,550 km2
, with less than 7m
for the average depth. The Atlas returns a total
amount of 19,960 MW (1.36 MW/km2
) for the
Lakes altogether, with a total OWE output of 51.08
TWh (winds at 100 m height, more than 6.0 m/s,
29.2% capacity factor). Maps of proposed “offshore
sites” can be found at the Atlas website [27].
Brazilian engineering and consulting firms are also
preparing to provide special services for regional
OWE development possibilities. Example is
ORICICLON Infrastructure, a start-up technology
company from CIETEC-IPEN institute. Specialized
in offshore structural engineering design, the firm is
planning a small scale pilot project at the southern
seashore of the São Paulo state [28] . It will be
located onshore and, in analogy with that Petrobras’
pilot project at Northeast of Brazil, this will be
exposed to coastal wind profiles. It is planned to be
1.2 MW required by a small and relatively poorer
municipality of Ilha Comprida, situated at an
environmentally-protected reserve. With a weak
grid connection to the primary energy distribution
system, that city has problems with energy supply
during summer (population goes from 10,000 up to

9. 40,000 inhabitants). Quite differently from the
predominantly energy driven Brazilian market, this
region constitute an environmentally-driven market
requiring an integrated energy resources planning
(IRP), what excludes diesel or gas-fired options as
the best choices. Such an environmentally driven
approach fits the wind project development in a
different pathway, as compared to the target
projects of PROINFA program, for example, which
are constituted as energy driven markets.
5. CONCLUSIONS
Although few markets have made option for going
offshore. It is interesting for Brazil to make an
appropriate investment in R&D concerning to
OWE systems. In this sense, Petrobrás should play
a major role, once the company is able to push
dynamics to the industry in the South America.
This would be a strategic contribution to Brazil,
arising the diversification over the national electric
matrix (actually high-dependent on hydropower and
on the rain, by extension). As from onshore as from
offshore facilities, wind energy would help not only
to protect against natural uncertainties (rain), but
also against political and economical uncertainties,
as the natural gas is becoming more and more
important in the national energy matrix, but comes
from foreign and unstable countries, as Bolivia or
Venezuela. Also, the R&D on OWE systems would
contribute with the distributed generation and
losses prevailing along major load centers at the
coastal line, an important path on the energy
planning improvements to come ahead. For
Petrobrás, OWE deployment would be a great
opportunity of diversifying for selling its core
competence realized by clients (now as an energy
company and in the near future as an infrastructure
provider), like major companies started to do in the
North Sea. The worldwide market for OWE
projects is huge for starting on 2010, but few big-
players for a while, on a vertical operation
structure, to handle with.
The promise of 1,422 MW from PROINFA by
2008 (some of them maybe not to come true) made
the Global Wind Energy Report (2004 and 2005
issues) to dedicate good content for the Brazilian
case, as one of the 13 leading-countries that will
perform major role on the world goal of 12% of
global electricity from wind by 2020. Brazil is
covered by the UNEP’s program for funding
developing countries on the assessment of wind and
solar energy potentials (SWERA program). Not for
coincidence, by 2006, the same year of its oil self-
sufficiency, Brazil is the “country in focus”
analyzed by the decision-making publication
“World Energy Outlook” (IEA). In a time of energy
scarcity for the short run, with a 8,500 km long
coastal line (where the major part of Brazilian load
centers are located), it is the better to expect that
Brazil, as the world leader in clean and renewable
energy sources, takes on the way of developing
R&D for OWE at the called “blue amazon”, as so
as other renewable power sources too, but in a so
close as complex articulation by effective measures,
improving the skills that even foreign business or
research organizations assign for the country. Thus,
this present starting work follows on future research
concerning to detailed technical and institutional
prerogatives for the OWE deployment in Brazil
Major points of concern about the OWE conversion
are as follows: (i) impacts over the human and
aquatic local communities, as a result of the
additional O&M, which should fit to pre-existing
behavior; (ii) electromagnetic impact and acoustics
over the sea fauna and the telecommunications. (iii)
technical uncertainties about infrastructure, as
seabed soil, foundations, buoys, cables, etc. (iv)
institutional and juridical aspects for environmental
permitting, for project funding and for fitting OWE
with other economic activities as aviation,
navigation, fishing, mining, tourism, etc.
6. NOTES
1
TPES (total primary energy supply) is the amount
of energy available in a certain place at a time. For
such place and time, it is equal to: (i) the production
from primary sources (the mineral sources, as
petroleum, coal, natural gas and also the electricity
directly converted from its natural sources); (ii)
plus the imports of energetic resources to that place
at that time; (iii) minus the exports of energetic
resources for that place at that time; (iv) plus the
inventories that were taken for consumption; (v)
minus the inventories that were put on reserves.
The common unit for energy resources is the Mtoe
(million of tons of oil equivalent) and it is equal to
11.63 TWh or 41.87 x 1015
joules.
2
The global electric consumption came as an
extension of that figure in the Key World Energy
Statistics 2005 (IEA), p. 24. The wind power
generation data came as a simple ratio calculus
from Global Wind Energy 2005 Report. At the page
16, an amount of 83 TWh is allocated for the
40,504 MW at EU countries, what means a 23.4 %
capacity factor altogether. The remaining 18,580
MW in the world (50% of them inside the US) was
assumed as 22.7 % capacity factor, completing the
120 TWh for the world overall.
3
Calculus was made with data from Brazilian
Ministry of Energy and Mining. The “Balanço
Energético Nacional – BEN 2005” (National
Energy Balance) provides “complete tables” data.
The numbers were added the from table 5.3
(centrais elétricas de serviço público) and table 5.4
(centrais elétricas autoprodutoras). Available at
www.mme.gov.br.

10. 7. REFERENCES
[1] Amarante, O. A. C. (coord.). Atlas do potencial
eólico brasileiro. MME. Brasília, 2001 45p.
Available at www.cresesb.cepel.br
[2] International Energy Agency – IEA.
Renewables in Global Energy Supply – An IEA
Fact Sheet. 2006. 13 p. Available at www.iea.org
[3] Global Wind Energy Concil. Global Wind 2005
Report. 52 p. Available at www.gwec.net
[4] International Energy Agency – IEA. Key World
Energy Statistics 2005. 82 p. Available at
www.iea.org
[5] The European Renewable Energy Council.
Renewable Energy Scenario to 2040. 15 p.
Available at www.erec-renewables.org
[6] The European Wind Energy Association. Wind
Force 12. A Blueprint to achieve 12% of the
world’s electricity from wind power by 2012.
Edition 2004. 104 p. Available at www.ewea.org
[7] The European Wind Energy Association. Wind
Energy – The facts. An Analysis of wind energy in
the EU 25. Vol. 4. – Environment. 2004. 60 p.
Available at www.ewea.org
[8] Musial, W.; Butterfield, S. Future for Offshore
Wind Energy in the United States. To be presented
at Energy Ocean 2004. Palm Beach, FL. National
Renewable Energy Laboratory. Available at
www.nrel.gov
[9] Hendriks, H. B. ; Zaaijer, M. Dutch Offshore
Wind Energy Converter. Executive summary of the
public research activities. 2004. 57p. Available at
www.ecn.nl > special projects > dowec.
[10] Lyons, J. P. GE Energy presentation to the
Offshore Wind Energy Collaborative. Feb 10, 2005.
Available at www.mtpc.org/RenewableEnergy/
Owec_pdfs/owec-lyons_21005_v1.pdf
[11] Deutsche WindGuard GmbH. Offshore Wind –
Implementing a new powerhouse for Europe.
Report 2005 for Greenpeace. Available at
www.greenpeace.org > press centre > reports
[12] Musial, W. UC Berkeley Student Project
Proposal. 1) Determination of the Optimum Depth
for Floating Wind Turbines. 2) Methods for
Minimizing Work-at-Sea Requirements of Floating
Offshore Wind Turbines. 2005. 2 p. Available at
www.ce.berkeley.edu/Courses/CE180/
Offshore_projects.pdf
[13] Calvert S., Thresher R., Hock S., Laxson A.,
Smith B. Low Wind Speed Technology
Development in the U.S. Department of Energy
Wind Energy Research Program: Preprint. 2002.
Available at www.nrel.gov
[14] US Department of Energy – Energy
Information Administration. Annual Energy
Outlook 2006. 236p. Available at www.eia.doe.gov
[15] Deutsches Windenergie Institut. WindEnergy
Study 2006 - Market Assessment of the Wind
Energy Industry up to the Year 2014. Available at
www.dewi.de
[16] Germany. Fed. Ministry for the Environment,
Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (lead).
Strategy of the German government on the use of
off-shore wind energy in the context of its national
sustainability strategy. January 2002. 26 p.
Available at www.bmu.de
[17] UK Department of Trade and Industry – DTI.
Future Offshore – A Strategic Framework for the
Offshore Wind Industry. 2002. 87 p. Available at
www.dti.gov.uk
[18] Data available from www.ieawind.org
[19] International Energy Agency – IEA. World
Energy Outlook 2002. Available at www.iea.org
[20] International Energy Agency – IEA. World
Energy Investment Outlook. 2003. Available at
www.iea.org
[21] Carvalho, P.C.M., (2003), Wind energy and
greenhouse emissions trading market: the brazilian
potential, Wind Engineering, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp.
135 – 142.
[22] Bermann, C. (2002). Energia no Brasil: Para
quê? Para quem? Crise e alternativas para um país
sustentável. Livraria da Fæsica, São Paulo.
[23] Amarante, O.C., Bittencourt, R. M., Rocha,
N.A., Schultz, D.J., Sugai, M.V.B., (1999),
Estabilização sazonal da energia através da
complementaridade entre os regimes hidrológico e
eólico, XV Seminário Nacional de Produção e
Transmissão de Energia Elétrica, Foz do Iguaçu.
[24] The State of Ceará, Secretaryship for the
Infrastructure. Atlas do Potencial Eolico do Ceará.
Available at www.seinfra.ce.gov.br
[25] Kissel, J. M., Krauter, S. C. W. Adaptions of
renewable energy policies to unstable
macroeconomic situations – Case study: Wind
Power in Brazil. Energy Policy, In Press, Corrected
Proof, Available online 8 September 2005.
[26] S. Siegfriedsen, M. Lehnhoff and A. Prehn:
Primary markets for offshore wind energy outside
the european union – Wind Engineering 27: 5; 419
– 430. 2003.
[27] The State of Rio Grande do Sul, Secretaryship
for Energy, Mining and Communications. Atlas do
Potencial Eolico do Rio Grande do Sul. Available
at www.semc.rs.gov.br. Pictures of the OWE
resources of that state can be found at
www.semc.rs.gov.br/ atlas/INDEX_geral.htm
[28] ORICICLON. Prospect for “Sistema de
Geração Eólica de Energia Elétrica Unidade Piloto
de Ilha Comprida, SP”. 2003. Available at
www.oriciclon.com