D1.1 Business case Space@Sea
The goal of this report is to analyse the economic feasibility of floating islands developed in the 3-year project Space@Sea, part of the HORIZON 2020 program. This project’s mission is to provide for smart and sustainable growth based on future needs, by the development of standardized, affordable modular islands with a low ecological impact.
This deliverable presents a combined analysis of the four applications: Living@Sea, EnergyHub@Sea, Transport&LogisticSpace@Sea, and Farming@Sea. These four applications are represented in two modular floating islands: The North Sea and Mediterranean islands. Their creation would promise to deliver growth and job opportunities as per Europe 2020’s strategy. Improving Europe’s competitiveness and productivity along with encouraging a spur in sustainable social market economies are part of the long-term goals of Space@Sea.
The North Sea and Mediterranean modular islands acquire key technology that is both sustainable and efficient. The islands provide competitive marketing with respect to renewable energy and create work opportunities. They provide the European market with green opportunities and are expected to counter competitive threats.
The financial analysis described in this report is composed of quantifying the combined financials of the individual applications along with their costs for each modular island. Non-quantifying benefits provided by the creation of the modular islands such as a relief in increasing needs of maritime throughput are listed in section 4.3.1.
Conclusions made from comparing the Space@Sea islands to their industry competitors, the jacket platform and land reclamation, show that the expansion by use of modular islands is a costly, yet beneficial solution. A strong correlation between cost and water depth was found, as Space@Sea is more economically feasible in the deeper Mediterranean Sea than in the shallower waters of the North Sea.
The main recommendations are to obtain governmental funding and private financial assistance, for the initial capital expenditures of floating modular islands. Other recommendations, suggested by the “Do-Better Scenario” include applying a 30% module cost, if discount rates are available, thereby reducing the initial capital expenditures. Where for single-use applications the party responsible for the investment is more clear, multi-use applications may require a larger role for governments to bring together stakeholders and provide affordable space at sea.
This report validates that both capital and operational expenditures can be reduced for a more economically feasible option by decreasing the construction and module costs for capital expenditures. This will also include a possible synergy between the different modules based on functionality for operational expenditure. d1.1_part1 d1.1_part2
D1.2 Business Case Energyhub@Sea
While in the past, besides transportation, the offshore business was dominated by the oil industry, in more recent years the enterprises venturing the seas have become more diverse. Offshore agriculture e.g. fish farms is contributing to the new mix. Equally, if not more important, renewable energy generation is moving offshore. This may happen through tidal power plants, as well as offshore wind turbines and floating solar pannels. Most of these new business opportunities demand a support structure to perform maintenance or to allow the export of products or energy to shore. The oil industry has all these structures developed for their purposes, but with new products, new challenges emerge. The EU-project Space@Sea acknowledges these challenges and aiming to provide a solution by designing a standardized multi-purpose offshore platform.
The aim of this report is to establish a business case for the use of the Space@Sea base module as a floating offshore hotel and maintenance platform for wind parks: the Energyhub@Sea. The hub provides living and working space for the maintenance employees as well as storage space for spare parts incl. a workshop to repair small components . The question to be answered is, whether Space@Sea is able to fulfil these purposes while being more cost efficient than alternative solutions.
Said question is answered by showing the possible future development of the offshore wind industry, and the resulting demand to develop new concepts like Space@Sea. Similarly, focused concepts, both existing and newly developed, are reviewed. Subsequently, a cost analysis for the Energyhub@Sea is performed combined with presenting a cash flow statement for its lifespan based on a dynamic financial model in comparison to two different solutions. These will be a ground mounted offshore Platform and a leased mothership. A risk assessment, as well as parameter alterations are made for all three alternatives before a conclusion on the economic feasibility of the Energyhub@Sea is presented. d1.2
D1.3 Business Case Living@Sea
The Living@Sea business case investigates the financial feasibility for the use of floating modular blocks developed for living at sea within the Space@Sea project. It is a compilation of all information collected during the business case analysis and process. The key purpose is to provide evidence and justification for a possible investment proposition. Two cases have been used as baselines in this study: “Case I: Offshore Industrial Floating Accommodation” and “Case 2: Nearshore Urban Floating Community”. The study emphasizes on comparing floating development and other common practices such as offshore accommo- dation barges and land reclamation. The focus of the costs lies on the acquisition and implementation phases as they are assumed to play a the largest part in the calculation of the project.
Preliminary results have shown that floating development appears to be financially more interesting than land reclamation for near-shore conditions and accommodation barges for offshore conditions. Regarding nearshore urban environment, the unit price of Living@Sea as stand-alone islands for only living function is €3,037 (incl. VAT) per m2 Usable Floor Area (UFA); the unit price of land reclamation is €4,335 per m2 UFA. The unit price is calculated according to the chosen ‘base case’. It is the price for the space in the buildings.
The costs for the newly created land, only the space of the modular floating platforms without any superstructures is €2,951 / m and respectively €5,203 / m.
Regarding offshore industrial environment, the unit price of Living@Sea as part of the multi-use islands is €4,062 per m2 UFA; whereas, the unit price of offshore accommodation barges ranges from € 5,000-10,000 per m2 UFA. There are two ways to optimize the business results: 1.) to decrease the time needed to build, certify and install the platforms from 4 to 3 years, so as to speed up paying back for the loan, and 2.) to 2 increase the unit sales price from €5,000 to €6,000/m.
The business case provides potential investors and developers with a first impression on the cost structures. However, many assumptions have been made during this study, due to the high amount of uncertainties and unknowns. Because of this, some costs may have been estimated too high and others too low, it is hard to say now, which ones are which. The cost estimates are now based on preliminary designs of platforms, connectors & mooring designs. Also, more clarity is needed on the manufacturing strategy, the means of transport and installation process the floating structures. Market researches will also be needed in order to find out the first potential clients and the range of price that they are willing to pay for floating structures. More importantly, challenges related to certification of the platforms for long-term living purposes, regu- lations, ownership issues, insurance and so on still need to be solved in order to make a more accurate financial projection. Due to the high level of complexity and the phase the designs of the modular blocks etc. are in right now, the business case results are preliminary and a more in-depth investigation is highly recommended. The ultimate aim for a business case development of Living@Sea should be to bring confidence and accountability into the field of making investment decisions. d1.3
D1.4 Business Case Farming@Sea
Within Farming@Sea options are explored for the possibilities of offshore production of various groups of species (micro-algae, seaweeds, mussels, fish) by making use of floating modules as being developed in Space@Sea. The purpose of the business cases described here is to assess the economic feasibility of producing mussels and Sea bream offshore by making use of floating modular islands.
North Sea – Mussel farming: Considering mussel farming, the business case elaborated here could encourage mussel farmers to expand their business to offshore areas. The mussels are cultured on longline systems, suspended in the vicinity of the floating island. The floating island is used as a processing site, and as an area for operation and maintenance activities. The business case intends to expand the production volume of mussels and to transpose (part of) production from the nature conservation area of the Wadden Sea to the coastal North Sea. There is a high biological potential for the offshore culturing of mussels, but the sector is still reluctant to invest for several reasons, including the high costs for technology and ships that can withstand offshore conditions. The floating modules as developed within Space@Sea could remove part of these constraints by providing suitable workspace in the operation and maintenance of mussel culturing. By applying the multi-use aspect to the floating islands investment costs can be shared with other industries.
Different types of information has been collected from several sources to assess costs and revenues, these included biological data on growth and production of mussels, capital investments needed for the culturing systems, and costs for the processing of mussels. Relevant information was mainly found for the ongoing bottom culturing of mussels in the Netherlands, longline systems in Denmark, and additional publications from international aquaculture sources such as STECF. A time period of 25 years was taken into account for this business case, since a longer term would introduce too much uncertainty is the estimates.
With overall costs of €236 million and total income of €247 million, the profit would amount to €11 million over the entire 25 year period of time, excluding the costs for the use of floating modules. The activities for this business case would require 4 modules and the costs of modules should not be higher than this to achieve a profitable business case. Further reductions of costs should be further studied in relation to the multi-use of floating islands. Cost savings could possibly result from sharing space, facilities and activities with other use at the island.
The price of mussels appears to have a major impact on the financial performance of the offshore Space@Sea farm. Therefore, negative impacts on the growth and quality of mussels pose a high risk to the business case. Also, incidents, such as severe storms events, may not only damage the culturing systems for which a re-investment is needed, but also reduce the revenues by destroying part of the production of mussels. Applications in sheltered areas such as fjords and bays will off course reduce these risks.
The assessment shows that the business case may well be viable in case costs savings could be achieved, e.g. by profiting from multi-use benefits. However, also additional costs may become evident from such an analysis. Apart from the financial performance of a mussel farm, the offshore production of mussels also has additional benefits to nature and environment, and stimulates economic development in the vicinity of the farming location.
Mediterranean – Sea bream farming: For culturing of Gilthead sea bream, we assessed the economic feasibility of using recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) in the Mediterranean Sea placed on top of a floating modular island. The use of closed systems would considerably reduce the environmental footprint of the aquaculture of finfish. Furthermore, an offshore location would have less interferences with other human activities in the coastal zone. For the business case a high fish production volume was chosen as it would contribute to the aim to increase food production derived from marine waters. By making use of a multi-use set-up of a modular floating island, faming of sea bream in a RAS system could benefit from facilities and activities related to energy supply, accommodation for workers and transport and logistics.
The designed aquaculture facility requires a large number of modules. It is estimated that about 150 modules each measuring 45x45 m are required for the production of the aimed 50.000 tonnes of sea bream per year. Even without taking into account the costs for modules (either rent or purchase), the business case appears not to be profitable.
Given the assumptions made and the many uncertainties that are involved it is unlikely that culturing of seabream on floating modules in offshore areas will become profitable in the future. d1.4
D1.5 Business Case Transport&Logistics@Sea
The business case of the Transport&Logistics@Sea (T&L@Sea) hub is a detailed comparison between the modular floating (T&L@Sea) hub that is being developed in the Space@Sea project, and respective container terminals situated onshore. Taking into account that the Port of Antwerp (PoA) is already considering expansion further along the river Scheldt the T&L@Sea hub is examined as a potential alternative to normal onshore expansion or via land reclamation. The question to be answered was whether the T&L@Sea hub is able to fulfill the purposes of a container terminal, and under which circumstances it can be more beneficial than the 2 major alternative solutions, an onshore terminal and a terminal situated on reclaimed land. Additionally, 2 other locations are examined as potential deployment sites with different characteristics. A smaller T&L@Sea hub outside the Port of Genoa which has limited inland expansion opportunities and is situated at deeper water depths compared to the North Sea, and a much smaller scale disaster relief effort off the coast of Africa that is operated for 1 month rather than years, and does not require a lengthy installation process like the long-term alternatives.
The T&L business case is explored from the point of view of the 2 main stakeholders related to the development and operation of a port terminal – the relevant port authority and the terminal operator. The port authority is the one that is shouldering the investment costs for all civil works related to a terminal, while the terminal operator will procure the equipment, is responsible for the operational and maintenance costs, and usually leases the land (where applicable) from the port authority.
Based on the results, the T&L@Sea hub cannot achieve lower costs than either of the 2 alternatives, resulting in 1,8 to 4,1 times higher Financial Net Present Values (FNPVs) in all cases. The main reason is the high construction costs of the modules that comprise the platform, and the constraints of the modules requiring an equipment unit present on each module, leading to significant equipment acquisition and maintenance costs. However, if the module related costs and the on-platform handling of containers can be improved via smarter design (leading to a reduction in equipment required), the T&L@Sea hub can potentially become an attractive alternative for land reclamation onshore terminals.
Looking at the T&L@Sea hub as an independent project, it is clear from the results throughout this business case that efforts need to be focused on reducing the cost of modules, try to secure high EU contributions and/or low public and private loans, and a low discount rate for the duration of the project, since these factors have the most significant impact on the FNPVs in all cases.
The results from 2 smaller cases examined, a smaller scale T&L@Sea hub off the coast of Genoa and as a temporary disaster relief effort, still not favor the T&L@Sea hub as a direct competitor of onshore ports. However, in cases of deep water and extremely limited possibilities for expansion, such as the Genoa port, or for short lived specialized operations, a T&L@Sea hub might be the best available choice, as currently there are no feasible alternatives.
However, the T&L@Sea hub offers numerous non-monetary benefits (or non-direct monetary benefits), which may make it a viable option for certain cases, either as an extension of the Antwerp port or as a standalone project. Reduced vessel turnaround times, flexibility in size/operations, low environmental impact and opportunities for temporary deployment may be deciding factors for the realization of such a project. d1.5
D2.1 Inventory of regulations
This report provides an overview of regulatory framework for operations at sea and specific requirements for health, safety and environmental issues on multi-use platforms. For this purpose, an inventory table of rules and regulations was compiled, which reflects the rules and regulations on HSE issues relevant to floating modules at sea as those being developed within the Space@Sea project. The offshore industry is known for its thorough health and safety regulations. The harsh maritime environment enforces a top priority for health and safety. In order to insure health and safety on multi-use marine platforms it is important to understand their behaviour in certain environmental conditions. The assessment of Health Safety and Environmental issues will set standard preconditions for the floating island constructions. Particularly, the potential food and feed safety hazards as well as the associated environmental risks that may result from the multi-use platform environment needs to be investigated.
Health and safety hazards and environmental risks including food safety will be assessed for all steps of the multi-use platform life cycle with a special focus on construction, installation, operation, maintenance and decommissioning. Following from previous analysis of technology options a full HAZID study will be developed reviewing potential hazards for the proposed floating modules being developed in WP 6 (Energy Hub), 7 (Living), 8 (Farming) and 9 (Transport & Logistics). Risk assessments are documented in risk matrixes for WP6 and will be further elaborated for other applications of floating modules. The results of these risk assessment studies will be presented in a HAZID Report, not being part of this Deliverable. d2.1
D2.2 HSE Guidelines
This deliverable of the Space@Sea project provides guidance on Health, Safety and Environmental (HSE) aspects relevant to the design and application of floating modular islands. HSE requirements are very relevant aspects for the further development and future implementation of floating island constructions. The assessment of HSE issues is required to set standard preconditions for the floating island constructions. Particularly, the potential food and feed safety hazards as well as the associated environmental risks that may result from the multi-use platform environment is investigated. The concise guidance presented here is based on different types of information: 1) a hazard inventory (HAZID) elaborated in a risk register, and an evaluation of risks. This work is based on expert meetings and input from the four “application work packages” of the Space@Sea project, i.e. ‘EnergyHub’, ‘Living’, ‘Farming’ and ‘Ports & Logistics’; 2) an inventory of food safety issues in relation to multi-use of islands including aquaculture, based on literature study and 3) an inventory of possible ecosystem-module interactions, i.e. the impact of the floating modules on the ecosystem, and the impact of the ecosystem on food production and the (integrity of) floating structures.
The issues considered and their interactions are elaborated in the report in chapters on hazards and risk management, food safety, and ecosystem interactions. d2.2
D5.1 Transportation and installation manual
The purpose of this report is to provide a Transport & Installation (T&I) manual of the multi-use platforms including the mooring systems and focuses only on the floating island configuration of the Mediterranean Sea. It has been concluded by WP3 that in the current island lay-out, without breakwaters, the proposed mooring system is not feasible in the North Sea location. A high level but qualitative evaluation of the differences in T&I operations for the two locations and its accompanying costs has been described in this report.
The proposed T&I procedure in this report is limited to all activities which take place between the marshalling port (e.g. assembly port) and the offshore site, assuming all floating modules and assets require last checks and commissioning activities before being permanently installed offshore. Section 2 provides a detailed overview on the Engineering, Procurement, Transport & Installation (EPCI) supply chain of the Space@Sea project. This T&I manual is only limited to the installation of the Energyhub@Sea (ref. WP6) and Logistics@Sea (ref. WP7) floating modules as these two setups form the basis of the island. All other setups can be derived from this report by rescaling the basis. Hence, a high level but qualitative evaluation of Living@Sea, Farming@Sea, and Wave Energy Converters has been integrated in this report.
This report starts with describing and selecting the most appropriate marshalling port for both the Mediterranean and North Sea location. Based on various evaluation criteria, this report concludes in section 3 that the Port of Marseille is the most suitable marshalling port of the island configuration on the Mediterranean Sea and the Port of Antwerp for the North Sea configuration.
After selection of the marshalling port, a high level T&I planning has been made based on the required offshore activities. In general, two different offshore activities will be executed which start with the installation of the anchor points, consisting of the anchor foundation piles and the mooring lines. Subsequently, the floating modules will be towed from marshalling port to offshore site and connected with both the pre-installed mooring lines and the pre-installed floating modules. Based on these activities, two different T&I planning scenarios have been proposed. The first scenario indicates that all activities can only be executed during the good weather period of a year 20xx, which might lead to a split of the offshore works over two years, whereas the second scenario is limited in project time and suggests to execute all the works in the same year and starting and ending respectively before and after the good weather period, despite the more cost due to more weather delay days.
It has been concluded that the ‘basis’ setup consisting of Energyhub@Sea and Logistics@Sea can be installed following scenario II (ref. 5.2.2). However, for installing the entire island with all setups, it is highly recommended to consider scenario I which divides the two above mentioned offshore works over two years in order to minimize the amount of weather delays and its associated cost. This scenario is also commonly used in the offshore wind business where wind turbine foundations are being installed in two phases to reduce the installation cost (e.g. installation of monopiles and transition pieces).
A detailed description and selection of the proper marine equipment for transport and installation has been analysed based on the design of the mooring system (WP3), the floating modules and their top structures and the connectors between the modules (WP4). This work package (WP5) was highly depending on the results of other work packages. Section 5 provides a detailed transport and installation manual based on the results from other work packages. Values have been frozen since beginning of January 2020. Updates from other WP’s have since then not been integrated in this report, however this report is made such that certain flexibility in design is applicable without major impact on the T&I. d5.1
D5.2 Operation and Maintenance procedures
This report provides a high level but qualitive description on the required activities for operating and maintaining a floating island such as the Space@Sea island. Operations and maintenance of offshore structures contributes with a substantial part of the total operational expenditures (OPEX) over a life time of minimum 25 years. Experience from current offshore wind industry shows us that floating wind structures have higher operational expenditures, due to O&M activities, than bottom fixed foundations. The reason of this additional cost is due to the fact that floating structures suffer more due their dynamic behavior imposed by (harsh) offshore weather conditions. Although the development of offshore floating islands is rather new, the Oil & Gas market has extensive experience in operating & maintaining floating production, storage and off-loading structures (FPSO).
It is observed that developers of foundations and mooring systems strive to design their products maintenance free. But even though a maintenance free design might be possible, such solutions are more expensive and may not be economically feasible. Hence O&M or Operation and Maintenance procedures are common practice to operate structures inside safe margins and schedule preventive maintenance. O&M will be essential for future floating structures such as the Space@Sea floating island that are complex, have many high loaded parts, and that are required to ensure reliable operation throughout their lifetime. The use of remote monitoring infrastructure (Task5.4 – remote monitoring) is expected to be essential for long term condition monitoring, and allowing for acceptable in situ inspection frequencies and its associated cost, and reliable scheduled maintenance activities.
One of the most important factors for choosing a floating structure over a bottom fixed solution, is its flexibility and modularity during the installation, operation and also during O&M. Stakeholders could decide to build up the island gradually over time in order to justify the investment and mitigate the overall risks. Same accounts for adapting the island during operation and even during maintenance activities. The latter is required if floating to floating operations are too risky which means that it’s more appropriate to tow the floating module to shore to perform the maintenance activities. This is also done in the offshore floating wind sector.
This report describes the activities for operating & maintaining the floating island whereas these activities can be distinguished in corrective maintenance and preventive maintenance activities. Corrective maintenance relates to unscheduled maintenance which means that something has gone wrong and the O&M contractor has to intervene. Preventive maintenance relates to scheduled maintenance which is fixed and pre-determined in order to keep the island operational and in structural health. This type of fixed maintenance can be executed by scheduled inspection campaigns or by means of condition-based maintenance which is described in Task5.4 – remote monitoring. It should be noted that condition monitoring equipment allows the contractor to reduce, but not fully replace visual in situ inspections as the retrieved data will be focused around a priori identified failure modes.
A high-level cost estimation based on experience with bottom fixed and floating wind farms is linked to the O&M activities as outlined in chapter 3. An additional cost estimate is provided for adjusting the configuration or replacing modules in the island configuration. This is based on financial figures mentioned in Task5.2 – Transport & installation as this requires the same type of procedures installation & marine equipment.
The paper ends with an outlook of performing O&M activities in a future period of 10 or more years away. One of the items which is expected to take an important role in the scheduled visual inspection campaigns is the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV’s) and autonomous vessels. d5.2
D5.3 Data-collection, -processing and status monitoring manual
This report considers the outline of a remote monitoring system for a floating island configuration. The objective of the system is to facilitate O&M operations and enable validation of design models as used to dimension floater modules, moorings and the inter connectors. The focus is only on the island infra structure and not on the payload superstructure.
The challenge for O&M monitoring was explained by the Endsley model that describes control of a process characterised by a “state” as stages for perception (measuring), comprehension (what does it mean), projection (what will happen in the future) , decision and control.
The functional requirements of the monitoring system were thus related to: The external influences or stressors affecting the island in terms of wind, waves, current and traffic; The stationary (and adjustable) condition of the island in terms of mooring loads and ballast conditions; the dynamic response of the island in terms of motions, mooring and connector dynamics, and structure loads in the floaters; the structure condition of the island and mooring arrangement in terms of fatigue consumption, integrity, and marine growth and; the effect of the island itself on the surrounding marine environment. d5.3_part1 d5.3_part2 d5.3_part3 d5.3_part4
D6.5 Risk Assessment report for the stand alone module
This report provides a methodology on how to approach the risk assessment and management for the risks of technologies being used in the Space@Sea project and their associated business impact. With this framework subdividing every aspect of a specific step of the assessment, it is also possible to get precise information on a certain aspect that the reader is most interested in, by taking a look on the table of contents of this report. Overall the report tries to contribute to the correct handling of risks, based on the current progress of the Space@Sea project and therefore customizes the approach for the needs of it.
Risks affect the objectives of organizations and projects, which is why they have to be assessed and managed. Especially as a result of the innovative nature of the Space@Sea concept and the innovative technologies being used, there may be uncertainties regarding the feasibility and viability. As the report is a contribution to the “Task 6.6 Definition of the methodology for risk assessment for the energy hub”, while also contributing to the Working Package 1: Business Case of the project, it aims to take a look at the interconnection between these technical uncertainties and the business case outlook.
The report assures a common understanding of the term “risk”, by defining it as the result of the multiplication of the probability of occurrence and the consequence (if the risk occurs) in the beginning. Beside other advantages, this definition primarily enables the comparability between different risks. After that, state-of-the-art and industry approved risk standards that also approve the chosen definition of risk, have been applied on this report, to act as a foundation for the framework to be created. The ISO 31000, a standard that provides guidelines for the general risk management and emphasizes the need of a proper handling of risks, and the ISO 12100, taking technical aspects of the risk assessment into account, are the main standards that are applied. Based on these, it is possible to create the methodology, starting with general aspects for the risk management that should be taken into account, like setting risk objectives for the overall management process and an analysis of all kind of participants and resources being involved in it, followed by what to take into account for every core step of the process. The core steps, defined by the ISO 31000, are: risk identification, risk analysis, risk evaluation and risk treatment. These steps act as the main chapters for the rest of the methodology to assure a thorough approach for the assessment. Each of the main chapters has been subdivided into the same categories to cover all aspects of the objective of this report, either general, technical or business aspects, as well as recommendations for the case of the Space@Sea project. d6.5
D7.1 report: A list of functional requirements for the design
The purpose of this report is to summarize and document the results of Task 7.2. In order to be able to make a suitable design for Living@Sea, the experiences, needs and wishes of current and future inhabitants are collected. A two-phased procedure was used. The first step was a survey of the WPs with the purpose to learn about their information needs. The second step was a qualitative questioning of experts (people with at least several months experience of living and working in artificial and isolated habitats). The interview guideline was based on the results of the survey of WPs. The outcome of the investigation is a list of functional requirements for the design from the users’ perspective in terms of comfort, availability, working conditions, design of the living area and the outdoor area, communication, social life, leisure, safety, shopping, and ecology.
An environment under which the participants could imagine themselves living permanently offshore needs to fulfil several aspects: Regarding comfort the increase of the platform’s stability, the provision of soundproof rest areas as well as odour-free living spaces was stated. The living area should be appealing and creative as well as provide increased space availability and intimate private retrieval zones. Outside spaces should be foreseen including green spaces and communal areas. If working offshore permanently shall become an attractive concept also changes from a regulatory point of view would need to happen. The participants would like to have regular working hours as on the mainland. Furthermore, the community size should be adjusted so that finding friends but also avoiding each other is possible. Lastly, the participants would like to have the possibility of taking and integrating or at least being able to receive visits and/or visit their family regularly. d7.1
D7.2 report: A catalogue of technical requirements and best practices for the design
Living@Sea addresses the conceptualisation of marine floating islands that are intended for human habitation (i.e., living, working, recreation). These floating islands could be located on the high seas, near economic marine activity, or closer to shore, as an extension of existing cities or port areas. Safety and comfort of such floating islands are of paramount importance and have been the focus of Task 7.3. Available knowledge includes floating offshore accommodation in the offshore and shipping industry, and floating urbanisation on the calm inland and coastal areas; however, offshore and urban environment are completely different worlds and speak different languages. After literature review and interviews, it has been concluded that currently there is no example of large-scale floating development with the purpose of living. Therefore, it was not possible to gather information on the best practices for the design of living at sea. The ones coming closest are from the offshore and shipping industry such as flotels or accommodation units for on offshore platforms; however, rules and regulations with which these structures comply are confined to oil, gas and shipping industries, which are stricter than ones complied in the urban environment. This led to a totally different approach for this task than expected upfront. To find the most optimal solutions, standards from land-based urban planning will have to be integrated with living and building standards from the offshore industry. Preferably this combination should form the basis for new legislation made specifically for floating islands in general and living on these islands. d7.2
D7.3 Demonstrator design
The purpose of Task 7.4: Conceptualisation and Design exploration of Living@Sea is to explore how living space at sea can be accommodated on modular floating platforms which are used for multiple functions at sea. The starting point for the exploration is to consider modular triangular platforms. It is soon concluded that triangular shapes are an option, but from the perspective of spatial distribution and usable space, far less efficient compared to platforms based on a rectangular geometry (e.g. squares). Therefore, it is decided to change the module shape from triangle to square.
Based on a square module of 45 x 45 m, explorations of urban layouts, functions and architectural designs are carried out. A parametric model is set up, integrating multiple urban functions and exploring design alternatives. For Living@Sea, input is gathered from the analysis of land developments and comparing them to ones on water. Using the parametric model script, a design with 2,000 inhabitants is elaborated and visualized through artist impressions. An alternative design with 90 x 90 m platforms is also presented. Such design would be more optimal for locations such as the North Sea because of the sea states occurring. From the design exploration it can be concluded that a module of 45 x 45 m is suitable for the purpose of Living@Sea. Next to the design explorations, a general arrangement study and a weight analysis are
performed. For the Living@Sea reference design (45 x 45 module) a platform height of 10 to 11 m is estimated. This height is necessary to make sure connector points are above the water level. A preliminary analysis shows that the module meets the intact and damage stability requirements during transit. d7.3, part1 d7.3, part2 d7.3, part3
D7.4 Report on how to increase social acceptance
The purpose of this document is to summarize and document the results of Task 7.5. In Western industrial societies new technologies often encounter acceptance problems. The rejection of new technologies is due to the way in which technical innovations are usually planned, communicated and implemented. Appropriate means of improving social acceptance are participatory research and development. Space@Sea offers an opportunity regarding participation in the development of modular floating islands right from the start. This makes it possible to minimise the distance between developers and future users. Stakeholders can get involved in the process and thus gain valuable knowledge or introduce a new perspective to the developers. The adaptation of the design to their needs and the constant communication during the development process fosters the stakeholders’ acceptance of the project. Thereby, undesirable developments can be detected and corrected early in the process. Task 7.5 of the Space@Sea project contains 27 qualitative interviews with people from different stakeholder groups from Germany, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands. The sample includes people from Rostock, Trondheim, Aarhus, Alkmaar, Rotterdam, Den Helder and The Hague. The three different groups were potential inhabitants, investors and developers as well as governmental officials. The interviews were conducted to analyse what kind of visualisation worked best, how the interviewees liked the most recent design, which reaction of the citizens the interviewees anticipated and how they assessed the feasibility of the project. The project is assessed differently in the locations participating in the survey. The design received mainly positive feedback from Rostock’s repondents. Assessments from the other cities’ respondents were more reserved. Rostock’s respondents expect mainly positive reactions from the citizens. Aarhus is expecting a vehement rejection of the project. Citizens’ reactionsmight also be reserved in Trondheim and the Netherlands. Rotterdam could be a potential location as the city is already familiar with floating development. Furthermore, the harbour area provides potential development area. Floating develoment could be interesting for Rostock. Due to the survey, many decision makers in the city are now familiar with the project: potential investors as well as administrative and political representatives. Recommended further actions are workshops with the participants of the survey to inform them about the project’s progress and to keep them interested as well as actions regarding public relations to familiarise Rostock’s citizens with the concept of living on the water. d7.4
D8.1 report: Outline of concepts for aquaculture on floating modular islands
This report describes concepts for aquaculture that can be considered for application at floating modules as being developed in the Space@Sea project. It provides an inventory of the culturing options of a range of organisms; i.e. fish, shellfish (mussels), seaweeds and microalgae. A general description is provided for state-of-the-art systems for culturing these organisms. In relation to the use of floating modules, several options are available for the positioning of culturing systems. They can be positioned on deck of the modules, placed under the models or in between them. Also “open” modules specifically designed for aquaculture could be considered. In addition, the modules could serve as an anchoring point for culture systems placed on the outside of modules. Finally, culture systems may be anchored independent, where modules are only used to deliver services, including work space. For each relevant combination of organism-culture system-position a factsheet is provided giving a short description, the main characteristics and requirements and a Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) analysis. Possible combinations are discussed and it is proposed to perform a multi-criteria analysis to select the most promising options for further elaboration with respect to the application at/with floating modules and in combination with other functions of floating islands, and combinations. d8.1
D9.1 report: Cargo and cargo streams
The purpose of this document is to identify and select potential locations for the Transport&Logistics@Sea hub and to describe location specific cargo and cargo streams. For regular port services six potential locations have been defined, see Ch.0 for details. They have been ranked from a Transport&Logistics hub perspective using a Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA). The top three ranked locations are:
Thessaloniki: best overall ; Constantza: best regarding the added value of a platform that shall take over future planned developments and Hamburg, Amsterdam and Antwerp: best from a logistical hotspot point of view.
Expected cargo flows at these locations are (see Ch.0 for details): Thessaloniki (Dry Bulk and/or Unitized); Constantza (Dry Bulk) and Antwerp (Dry Bulk and/or Unitized)
Other functions, in addition to the Transport&Logistics, that can be expected at each of the locations are very dependent on the overall design and basic engineering but regardless of the selected location the following are expected: Living aspects, either temporary or permanent are expected to be present; at the very least, energy generation and storage for the required day-to-day operations shall be provided. Locations with offshore wind farms nearby are preferred so Constantza, with its development plan and locations with access to the North Sea (i.e. Hamburg, Amsterdam and Antwerp) wind farms would be ideal. Proximity to an offshore wind farm would make the Transport&Logistics hub also suitable for a windmill O&M platform; food production and storage would be ideal, but the other aspect take precedence on the Transport&Logistics hub. d9.1
D10.1 report: Formulation of requirements
The purpose of this document is to summarize and document the results of Task 10.2, which has the objective to formulate the requirements for the design of a modular floating island. The requirements are defined by the four applications Energyhub@Sea (WP6), Living@Sea (WP7), Farming@Sea (WP8) and Transport&Logistics@Sea (WP9). This document contains all necessary requirements of the applications, which will be forwarded to the generic work packages (WP1-5) as boundary conditions for their developments. d10.1
D10.4 Results from demonstration wave tank
In Task 10.5 of the Space@Sea project, an integrated Space@Sea island was tested and demonstrated in the Offshore Basin of the Maritime Research Institute Netherlands (MARIN) at a scale of 1:60. The exemplary island model was developed in Task 10.4 and described in . Its layout and mooring were designed for deep waters in the Mediterranean Sea.
During the tank test campaign, the modules did not carry any superstructure. The reason was to reduce the amount of varying parameters (mass, COG, draught, etc.). By that, the effort and error rate in the physical and numerical setup of the already complex model could be limited. Moreover, it allowed a better understanding of the test results and the influence of the main parameters (position of module, environmental condition, etc.). In contrast, for the final demonstration of the Space@Sea island, all four Space@Sea use- cases (Energy@Sea, Living@Sea, Transport&Logistics@Sea and Farming@Sea) have been integrated and modelled.
The aim of the model tests was to analyse the hydrodynamic response of the island on waves and current loads. Furthermore, the interaction of multiple subsystems (73 island-modules, 260 module-connectors, 46 mooring lines and container vessel, moored side-by-side to the island) was studied. Prior the tests, the weight distribution and several environmental conditions, including the 100-years sea state at the installation site, were calibrated. A static load test at the mooring lines and decay tests were carried out to check the model behaviour and use the results for tuning numerical simulations. During the seakeeping tests, the current speed, wave height, module’s and vessel’s six degree of freedom (6DoF) motion and the 6DoF connector- as well as mooring line loads were measured at dedicated locations. d10.4_part1 d10.4_part2 d10.4_part3 d10.4_part4 d10.4_part5 d10.4_part6
D10.5 Updated requirements formulation
The Space@Sea floating island contains various different applications, i.e. Energyhub@Sea (WP6), Living@Sea(WP7), Farming@Sea (WP8) and Transport&Logistics@Sea (WP9), see Figure 1-1. Each has specific (operational) requirements. In order to design a modular island, that serves different purposes and is not limiting, it is necessary to respect all these requirements at an early stage. At the beginning of the Space@Sea project, a catalogue of requirements was formulated in D10.1. However, at the start of the project some requirements could not be known, changed, or were not identified yet. Therefore, it was decided to keep the definition of requirements open to all applications in order to update changes that became necessary by knowledge gained. Regularly, a questionnaire was sent to all partners to gather the information and to provide a data base with the updated requirements and boundary conditions. One result of this report is the definite requirement of rigid connectors between the modules, as applications require more undisturbed deck space than the given module size. Some requirements and limiting criteria could not be evaluated within the scope of the project, however this report gives an overview of the final information and serves as a base for future development work. d10.5
D12.5 report: Dissemination and communication strategy
This deliverable report provides an update of the Dissemination and communication strategy, of the H2020 project Space@Sea (GA774253). This work is carried out as part of WP12 Dissemination, Communication and Exploitation – in particular related to Task 12.3 ‘Dissemination and Communication strategy’ and Task 12.4 ‘Dissemination and Communication activities’.
The report is the plan for dissemination and communication of the Space@Sea project and its results, which is updated with minor changes. It presents the objectives of the project in the context of dissemination and communication of the project results and refers to the different types of dissemination and communication opportunities. The project partners’ commitment to and responsibilities for the dissemination activities to be carried out are provided.
At this time, while the project has been running for almost three years, much progress has been made. Although we did experience the challenge to adjust original ideas due to the COVID situation, we managed to bring our EU-funded research and its results to the attention of multiple audiences. d12.5
D12.7 report: Data management plan
This deliverable provides an updated Data Management Plan, which details how data are stored, tagged and archived throughout and after the project. The Data Management Plan deals with how data will be stored in a secure and privacy-safeguarding way, and how reuse and sharing after the project will be ensured. The deliverable also provides governance arrangements on how to carry out the Data Management Plan in practice. The deliverable is considered a living document that has been updated during the project, when necessary from law or changes in policies by the EU Commission or one of the partners. d12.7