Norway Bets NOK 3.94 Billion on Four 18.5 MW Floaters — and on the Supply Chain That Must Build Them

Enova has committed NOK 3.94 billion (about EUR 380 million) to two floating wind projects that will together install just four turbines — 74 MW in total — at METCentre's test site off Karmøy in Rogaland. On any commercial measure that is an extraordinary sum for a small amount of capacity. That is precisely the point: this is not a power purchase, it is a technology purchase, and the technologies being bought are the ones the steel and fabrication supply chain would have to deliver at scale.

What was actually awarded

Enova ran this as a competition, not a general support scheme. Applicants were scored on annual energy production per krone of support, deployment potential, carbon footprint, biodiversity impact and prospects for low future cost. Five bidders reportedly sought a combined NOK 9 billion against a ceiling of about NOK 2 billion per project, so the outcome — one award at the cap and one just under — reflects a genuinely competitive selection rather than a negotiated settlement.

One detail worth flagging for anyone tracking the counterparties: METCentre's own announcement is internally inconsistent on the identity of the second winner, naming Fortius in its summary but Deep Wind Offshore in the body text. The award split and the 74 MW arithmetic (4 × 18.5 MW) are consistent; the corporate identity of the Fortius vehicle should be verified before treating it as a confirmed contracting counterparty.

The subsidy is enormous per megawatt — deliberately

The numbers are worth stating plainly, because they define what kind of project this is:

• Support per MW installed: NOK 3.94 bn ÷ 74 MW ≈ NOK 53 million/MW (roughly EUR 5.1 million/MW at the implied rate of about NOK 10.4/EUR). Fixed-bottom offshore wind capex is a fraction of that.
• Support per unit of annual output: NOK 3.94 bn ÷ 300 GWh ≈ NOK 13.1 per kWh of annual production.
• Lifetime-equivalent: spread over an assumed 25-year production life, undiscounted, that is roughly NOK 0.53/kWh of output (my calculation, ignoring operating costs, decommissioning and repowering).

Those figures only make sense as first-of-a-kind demonstration economics. The relevant benchmark is the one Enova itself cites: market participants estimate that a successful global rollout could bring floating wind generation costs to around NOK 1/kWh. The grant is buying the learning curve between here and there.

A technical note on the output figure. Four 18.5 MW turbines giving 300 GWh/yr implies a capacity factor of about 46% (300 ÷ 648 GWh of theoretical maximum). That is plausible for a harsh, exposed North Sea site but on the high side; a 45–50% range would put annual output between roughly 292 and 324 GWh. The headline number should be read as an approximate expectation, not a guaranteed P50.

Why the turbine size matters more than the megawatts

Four turbines is negligible capacity. Four 18.5 MW floating turbines is a different proposition. European floating demonstrators to date have clustered in the 3–10 MW class — TetraSpar at METCentre, for instance, used a 3.6 MW machine and produced roughly 70 GWh over five years before being towed inshore in September 2026. Jumping to 18.5 MW is not a linear scale-up: rotor thrust, tower-head mass and dynamic loads all rise faster than nameplate capacity, and the floater, mooring and anchor system must be redesigned around them.

The three cost centres Enova names — large-turbine floating foundations, mooring systems, and construction and operating methods — are exactly the three where steel intensity and fabrication cost sit.

Analysis of the steel and fabrication implications (no public tonnage figures were available):

• Floater hulls. Semi-submersible and column-stabilised steel foundations for an 18.5 MW machine will consume substantial shipbuilding-grade plate (typically DH36/EH36), stiffeners, bulkheads and heavy forged or cast nodes. Unit steel mass per MW generally falls as turbines get larger, but total mass per unit rises sharply — and four units of a novel design is a fabrication-learning exercise, not a volume order.
• Mooring and anchoring. Chain, wire rope, forged connectors and anchor hardware scale with the platform's displacement and load envelope. This is a segment where European suppliers are strong and where the demonstration will generate the load data that certification bodies need.
• Towers and secondary steel. Less novel, but still real demand.
• Yards, heavy lift and installation. Two parallel projects are explicitly intended to produce two competing supply chains. That is good news for Norwegian fabrication and maritime contractors in Rogaland and Haugalandet, and for the installation-vessel market.

Timing: with a five-year implementation window and conditional disbursement, fabrication demand would fall roughly 2027–2031, and only if final investment decisions follow. Readers should not model tonnage off this award; they should watch the FID announcements and the floater design selections.

Site, grid and the licence envelope

METCentre's licence permits up to six floating turbines totalling 82.7 MW, alongside the existing 2.3 MW Unitech Zephyros unit, with reserved grid capacity and a planned new 66 kV export cable. Adding 74 MW leaves roughly 8.7 MW of unused licensed capacity (82.7 − 74, my calculation) — enough for one more small demonstrator, but essentially closing the site to further large units under current terms.

That matters strategically. Norway's floating wind ambition will need sites beyond a single test centre, and the Karmøy licence envelope is now effectively allocated. If these four turbines validate the technology, the policy question moves immediately to where the next tranche is demonstrated and under what marine spatial arrangements.

The competitive context Norway is responding to

Enova's framing is explicitly defensive. France has committed EUR 63 billion to floating and fixed-bottom offshore wind over 25 years; the UK and France have run major floating tenders; the European Commission treats floating as a core part of the 2050 mix. Norway's stated advantage is its maritime industry and its ocean area — an industrial-policy argument as much as an energy one.

That framing is the honest way to read this award. NOK 3.94 billion is not buying 300 GWh/yr of Norwegian electricity at a sensible price. It is buying Norway a position in a supply chain — floaters, moorings, anchors, installation methods — that will be built somewhere, and that the country believes it can serve. Whether that bet pays depends less on these four turbines generating power than on whether the fabrication and mooring expertise developed around Karmøy converts into export contracts by the early 2030s.

What to watch

1. FID and counterparty clarification for both awards, including the Fortius/Deep Wind Offshore naming question.
2. Floater concept selection — steel semi-submersible versus concrete or hybrid designs. Concrete would strip much of the steel demand out of this specific programme.
3. Mooring and anchor specifications, which will indicate the scale of chain, connector and anchor demand and whether Norwegian forgers are positioned.
4. Turbine OEM confirmation for an 18.5 MW machine suitable for floating duty — a short list of suppliers can credibly deliver this today.
5. Post-demonstration policy on new Norwegian floating sites, given the Karmøy licence is now nearly full.