possibilities. The differences in TRL (technology readiness level) explain the different expectations of the projects. What has been proposed as a mere concept idea
test cannot be compared with an industrial test under real environmental conditions.
The leadership in offshore activities at present is clearly located in renewable
energy and more specifically on offshore wind; hence the most promising combination proposals should be those where this industry appears. However, these proposals show the lowest profitability through our set of projects. This fact calls can be
the result of a lower TRL of the combos explored in our sample, to the preeminent
role played by huge electrical companies with broad sources of finance, or just to the
high level of regulation in this industry, heavily subsidised through feed-in tariffs.
The results presented by aquaculture, seabed, logistics and leisure show more
optimistic view in the related projects, but this optimistic analysis does not match
with the real investments developed in those sectors in offshore areas; hence the
eventual existence of a bias has to be tested in future research. The main sources of
uncertainty about the viability of the projects are on one hand the lack of precise
knowledge on the operational conditions of the technology under untested conditions, (losses, operational restrictions and external effects between activities) and on
the other hand the intrinsic volatility of revenues to be obtained in the future with
uncertainty in market conditions, environmental pressures and policy-regulating
measures.
Finally, it is important to assume that the initially recognised lack of maturity is
still heavily restricting further developments in offshore activities. At the present
state of the art, it is unclear that the shared approach creates expectations that it will
be a successful strategy.
References
Ali, A. (2005). Floating transhipment container terminal. Delft University of Technology.
Bridoux (2008). Algal biomarkers and their metabolites in the lower food web of the Great Lakes
(. . .). Degree of PhD.
Busk, K., & Burton, T. S. (2013). Financial implications of container terminal automation. Seaport
Group.
Buck, B., Ebeling, M., Michler-Cieluch, T. (2010). Mussel cultivation as a co-use in offshore wind
farms. Potential and Economic Feasibility.
Burg, S.V.D., Stuiver, M., Veenstra, F., Bikker, P., Contreras, A. L., Palstra, A., Broeze, J., Jansen,
H., Jak, R., Gerritsen, A., Harmsen, P., Kals, J., Blanco, A., Brandenburg, W., Krimpen, M. V.,
Duijn, A.P. V., Mulder, W., Raamsgink, L.V. (2013) A Triple P review of the feasibility of
sustainable offshore seaweed production in the North Sea Burton, T., Sharpe, D., Jenkins, N., &
Bossanyi, E. (2001). Wind energy handbook. John Wiley & Sons.
de Alegrıía, I. M., Martín, J. L., Kortabarria, I., Andreu, J., & Ereño, P. I. (2009). Transmission
alternatives for offshore electrical power. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13
(2009), 1027–1038.
DECC (2013). Electricity Generation Costs.
De Vries, W., Leip, A., Reinds, G. J., Kros, J., Lesschen, J. P., & Bouwman, A. F. (2011).
Comparison of land nitrogen budgets for European agriculture by various modeling approaches.
Environmental Pollution, 159(11), 3254–3268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011.03.038.
3 Comparative Financial Analysis of Marine Multipurpose Platforms Projects. . .
59
test cannot be compared with an industrial test under real environmental conditions.
The leadership in offshore activities at present is clearly located in renewable
energy and more specifically on offshore wind; hence the most promising combination proposals should be those where this industry appears. However, these proposals show the lowest profitability through our set of projects. This fact calls can be
the result of a lower TRL of the combos explored in our sample, to the preeminent
role played by huge electrical companies with broad sources of finance, or just to the
high level of regulation in this industry, heavily subsidised through feed-in tariffs.
The results presented by aquaculture, seabed, logistics and leisure show more
optimistic view in the related projects, but this optimistic analysis does not match
with the real investments developed in those sectors in offshore areas; hence the
eventual existence of a bias has to be tested in future research. The main sources of
uncertainty about the viability of the projects are on one hand the lack of precise
knowledge on the operational conditions of the technology under untested conditions, (losses, operational restrictions and external effects between activities) and on
the other hand the intrinsic volatility of revenues to be obtained in the future with
uncertainty in market conditions, environmental pressures and policy-regulating
measures.
Finally, it is important to assume that the initially recognised lack of maturity is
still heavily restricting further developments in offshore activities. At the present
state of the art, it is unclear that the shared approach creates expectations that it will
be a successful strategy.
References
Ali, A. (2005). Floating transhipment container terminal. Delft University of Technology.
Bridoux (2008). Algal biomarkers and their metabolites in the lower food web of the Great Lakes
(. . .). Degree of PhD.
Busk, K., & Burton, T. S. (2013). Financial implications of container terminal automation. Seaport
Group.
Buck, B., Ebeling, M., Michler-Cieluch, T. (2010). Mussel cultivation as a co-use in offshore wind
farms. Potential and Economic Feasibility.
Burg, S.V.D., Stuiver, M., Veenstra, F., Bikker, P., Contreras, A. L., Palstra, A., Broeze, J., Jansen,
H., Jak, R., Gerritsen, A., Harmsen, P., Kals, J., Blanco, A., Brandenburg, W., Krimpen, M. V.,
Duijn, A.P. V., Mulder, W., Raamsgink, L.V. (2013) A Triple P review of the feasibility of
sustainable offshore seaweed production in the North Sea Burton, T., Sharpe, D., Jenkins, N., &
Bossanyi, E. (2001). Wind energy handbook. John Wiley & Sons.
de Alegrıía, I. M., Martín, J. L., Kortabarria, I., Andreu, J., & Ereño, P. I. (2009). Transmission
alternatives for offshore electrical power. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13
(2009), 1027–1038.
DECC (2013). Electricity Generation Costs.
De Vries, W., Leip, A., Reinds, G. J., Kros, J., Lesschen, J. P., & Bouwman, A. F. (2011).
Comparison of land nitrogen budgets for European agriculture by various modeling approaches.
Environmental Pollution, 159(11), 3254–3268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011.03.038.
3 Comparative Financial Analysis of Marine Multipurpose Platforms Projects. . .
59