🔔 Subscribe to ShipUniverse Weekly →
Dutch research organization TNO warned in a study published November 2, 2026, that offshore wind decommissioning requirements are advancing faster than the technologies and infrastructure needed to meet them. Commissioned by the Netherlands Enterprise Agency (RVO) and Energy Innovation NL Offshore Energy, the study examined nearly 50 innovation areas and found major uncertainties involving full monopile extraction, seabed rock removal, port capacity and recycling. The Netherlands has used a €120,000-per-megawatt starting benchmark for decommissioning bank guarantees since 2016, but TNO says that amount barely covers removal of older 3–5 MW turbines alone. An earlier TNO cost study provides a numerical comparison: approximately €172,500 per MW for complete removal of a representative modern 2 GW wind farm, before accounting for project-specific guarantee indexation and future revisions.
The Offshore Wind Cleanup Funding Gap
Dutch researchers are questioning whether historical financial guarantees reflect the engineering costs of removing turbines, monopiles, cables and seabed protection.
Per MW, before required indexation and periodic reassessment.
Per MW for TNO's 2 GW, 15 MW-turbine reference project.
What This Means for a Hypothetical 2,000 MW Wind Farm
Like-for-like nominal comparison before applying the guarantee's indexation or projecting future decommissioning costs.
Where the €172,500 per MW Goes
Individual campaign estimates from TNO's earlier engineering cost study. Scour protection is the single largest expense.
The Equipment Needed to Build a Wind Farm May Not Be Enough to Remove It
TNO identifies technical gaps from the turbine tower down to the seabed, followed by another set of constraints when recovered materials reach port.
The Six Decommissioning Work Packages
The equipment and commercial opportunities below are mapped to the removal challenges documented by TNO. Proposed techniques are not presented as fully proven commercial methods.
| Work Package | Vessels / Equipment | Current Technical Constraint | Potential Improvement | Key Contracting / Regulatory Question |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Turbine Removal | Jack-up vessels, heavy-lift cranes, rigging and blade-handling systems. | Offshore lifts, dismantling sequences, vessel day rates and weather downtime drive costs. | Faster disassembly, optimized lifting campaigns and better coordination with recycling logistics. | Can the dismantling scope and transport interfaces be fixed before vessel mobilization? |
| Full Monopile Extraction | Heavy-lift vessels, vibro tools, hydraulic extraction equipment and specialized pile handling. | Old piles may resist extraction differently in sand and clay; large modern piles lack extensive full-scale removal history. | Vibration-assisted extraction, water jetting and sealed-pile hydraulic pressure methods. | Who carries the risk of unexpected extraction forces, failure and additional vessel days? |
| Partial Foundation Removal | Jack-up or heavy-lift support, internal abrasive cutting, subsea excavation and ROVs. | Cutting below the seabed leaves embedded steel and may cause sediment disturbance. | Faster cutting tools, improved subsea access and less expensive deployment methods. | Will the regulator approve the exact retained depth and future seabed obligations? |
| Scour Protection | Grab dredgers, hopper barges, tugs, rock-handling equipment and survey vessels. | Slow rock recovery, worsening grab efficiency, weather restrictions and sensitive seabed habitats. | More capable offshore recovery systems, rock reuse and nature-compatible retention where permitted. | Must all rock be removed, and who remains liable if it is retained? |
| Subsea Cables | Cable recovery vessels, ROVs, excavation equipment and cable-cutting systems. | Cable crossings, burial depth, older materials and damage during recovery complicate reuse. | Less destructive retrieval methods and higher-value separation of copper, polymers and insulation. | Which sections must be removed versus safely left in place? |
| Port & Recycling | Heavy-load quays, storage areas, cranes, transport equipment and specialized recycling facilities. | Incoming installation equipment competes with removed structures, while some material-processing chains remain immature. | Dedicated dismantling layouts, shared port facilities and scalable composite and magnet processing. | Who pays for infrastructure before sufficient project volume is committed? |
Fugro removed two 2 MW turbines in 2019 using the Excalibur jack-up. The monopiles were cut below seabed level and recovered. Useful experience, but not proof of complete extraction of today's much larger embedded foundations.
The 108 MW offshore wind farm has 36 turbines rated at 3 MW. Its operating life has been extended through 2031, creating a possible early source of decommissioning experience.
TNO's Recommended Demonstration Approach
We welcome your feedback, suggestions, corrections, and ideas for enhancements.
Please click here to get in touch