Does Offshore Wind Need To Float?

Written by Jay Sheppard, Project Manager at Marine Energy Wales.

This opinion piece explores the current industry discussions around whether offshore wind needs to float. It follows our Project Manager, Jay’s, visit to FloWave in Edinburgh, where Marine Power Systems showcased PelaFlex in action.  

Marine Energy Wales has been a strong advocate for and remains supportive of the current pipeline of floating offshore wind projects in the Celtic Sea. However, we think it is equally important that we, as a sector, remain open to the role that technological innovation can play in reducing project cost and risk, as well as creating more opportunities for the domestic supply chain.  

In offshore wind, it is easy to assume that the most mature technology is automatically the best choice. But relying too heavily on Technology Readiness Level (TRL) can lock in familiar designs that may not deliver the reductions in cost and risk, or the supply chain benefits, that the UK urgently needs. As the sector scales up, we must avoid confusing “ready now” with “right for the future”.

That is why it was refreshing to see new thinking in action at FloWave, the University of Edinburgh’s wave and current basin, where Marine Power Systems recently showcased their PelaFlex technology.  

When I stepped onto the gantry last week, three 1to50 scale offshore wind platforms faced the same simulated Atlantic storm. A conventional semi-sub rocked and rolled, while the PelaFlex steel tension leg and hybrid lattice designs barely moved, the hybrid almost as steady as a fixed monopile. That moment was a clear reminder that innovation can provide more stable, scalable and affordable solutions, while equating “high TRL” with “best” risks locking in higher costs and offshoring value.  

PelaFlex Technology 

TRL is a useful scorecard for grant managers, but, as one CTO keeps reminding me, “High TRL just means it exists.” It says nothing about lifetime economics, local content or supply chain resilience. Many first-generation floaters require tailored quayside infrastructure, specialist heavy lift vessels, and wider mooring spreads – factors that can increase cost and risk. 

PelaFlex starts from the premise that floating platforms should be manufactured, not monumental. Its modular steel lattice is lighter than conventional semi-subs, is transported in standard sections, and bolts together with equipment already sitting in UK fabrication yards. This approach requires significantly less infrastructure investment to deliver. It avoids the need for major port upgrades, large-scale heavy lift equipment, and dynamic export cables. Less complexity means lower capex, shorter schedules and far less execution risk. 

£1 Billion per GW – Right There for the Taking 

Marine Power Systems estimate that their PelaFlex technology could translate into up to £1 billion of capital savings per gigawatt installed. In an era when every Contracts for Difference (CfD) auction is fought over pence per megawatt hour, that is the margin that decides whether a project is financeable. Because the structure is lighter and can be built in the UK, more of the spend also stays within the UK as wages, tax receipts, and reinvestable profit. 

MPS modelling shows that rolling out PelaFlex across 4.5 GW of UK capacity by 2032 could inject over £2 billion of economic value and create 1,200 skilled jobs in Wales alone. These are skilled, well-paid roles – digital weld inspectors, precision fabricators and assembly technicians. As one supply chain attendee put it, “We don’t need more jobs; we need better jobs.” 

Policy Meets Industrial Reality 

From the Clean Energy Industries Sector Plan to the Offshore Wind Industrial Growth Plan, policymakers warn that net zero targets risk outrunning domestic supply chain capability. PelaFlex helps close that gap: it can be built today, in the UK, within existing port draught limits and crane capacities – a perfect fit for the Government’s Modern Industrial Strategy. 

Yet alignment on paper means little if leasing rounds and CfD auctions stay prescriptive about how turbines are attached to the seabed. Two modest tweaks would change everything: 

1. Technology Agnostic Seabed Leases – allocate seabed acreage without prescribing fixed or floating solutions, so developers can choose the optimum technology for their site. 

2. Recognise Deep Water Wind as a nascent technology – and include within the Pot 2 of the Contracts for Difference technology groups. 

Make those adjustments, and the market could begin to reward next-generation platforms that maximise national benefit, rather than exporting gross value added overseas. 

It’s a System, Not a Pontoon 

Put a lighter, stiffer platform under a turbine then anchors shorten, mooring spreads shrink, and quayside integration can be swapped for offshore integration. Reduce weight and complexity, and the need for specialist vessels, and days at sea, can begin to decline. The savings compound across the profit and loss. End of life matters too: steel feeds straight into established circular economy loops. 

Seeing Is Believing – And Many Have Seen 

Non-disclosure agreements cloak most of the guest list, but attendees ranged from The Crown Estate and GB Energy to DESNZ officials. Their reactions echoed the showcase quotes: 

“This is purpose-built technology engineered to tackle the biggest barriers in offshore wind—cost, risk and scalability. PelaFlex is designed to be built right here in Britain. Right now.” — Gareth Stockman, CEO, MPS 

“Deep-water wind isn’t the future—it’s the now.” — Martin Carruth, Commercial Director, MPS 

Enabling the Next Chapter 

So, why does offshore wind need to float? After last week, my honest opinion is: it probably doesn’t – and that opens up significant opportunities for innovation. The most stable structure in the tank looked and behaved like a fixed foundation; it can arrive in modular steel segments, be assembled with existing capabilities that already exist in the UK, and be installed using conventional heavy lift methods. In other words, the industry needs offshore turbine solutions that can access deepwater resources while minimising the associated costs and complexities. 

As policymakers, investors, and supply chain leaders shape the next stage of offshore wind, certain principles could help steer progress toward practical, scalable outcomes: 

• Prioritise the lowest credible CAPEX per MW. Ensure that platform selection processes favour solutions with demonstrable capital cost reductions – a key lever for lowering consumer bills and driving competitive auction outcomes. 

• Make near fixed stability the new benchmark. When evaluating designs, treat minimal pitch, yaw and roll as the baseline standard for operations and maintenance certainty. 

• Insist on verifiable UK content plans. Tie leases, permits and support packages to robust commitments for domestic fabrication, assembly and long‑term skilled jobs. 

Even if platforms like PelaFlex didn’t exist, these priorities would still apply. With thoughtful procurement design and inclusive evaluation criteria, the UK can create space for new technologies that deliver on performance, cost, and national benefit from the start. 

Marine Power Systems already meets the criteria for innovation, cost effectiveness, and practical deployment; the missing ingredients are procurement criteria and political will. Maturity is important, but it shouldn’t be the only measure of merit. Let’s back the solutions that prove their value – in pounds and in carbon.

The post Does Offshore Wind Need To Float? appeared first on Marine Energy Wales.