1.
Background
Mexico has enormous
potential for renewable energy generation within its 200-nautical-mile
exclusive economic zone (EEZ) measured from its coastlines. Offshore wind
energy (OSW) stands out in particular; its gross potential[1] has been estimated at 869
GW.[2]
The areas where much of this
potential is concentrated are: (i) the coast of Yucatán, Campeche and part of
Tabasco; and (ii) the Gulf of Tehuantepec, off the coasts of Oaxaca and
Chiapas.
Other assessments of the country's offshore wind potential have been carried out by Mexican researchers. The following table describes two of them, together with the World Bank estimate and the exercise carried out for this paper.[3]
|
Estimates of Mexico's Offshore
Wind Energy Potential |
||||
|
Source |
Year |
Methodology |
Geographic
Scope |
Potential
GW |
|
World Bank / ESMAP – Going Global programme
and technical potential map for Mexico |
2019
(Report), 2020 Map of Mexico |
Global Wind Atlas. No social
or environmental exclusions. |
Entire country: 200-kilometre
coastal maritime strip |
Technical potential: 402 GW
with fixed-bottom technology; 467 GW with floating technology |
|
Juárez-Casildo, Cervantes and
González-Huerta (IPN), Energy for Sustainable Development 83:101565 |
2024 |
ERA5 reanalysis (0.25°) at 100
m. Vestas V164-9.5 MW turbine. Foundation by depth: monopile 0–30 m, jacket
30–60 m, floating > 60 m. Geographic constraints only. Includes LCOE (63–241
USD/MWh). |
EEZ of 3,177,210 km²; 300,342
km² usable. "Eastern" Zone (Oaxaca coast): 10,875 km².
"Peninsular" Zone (north and west of the Yucatán Peninsula):
183,613 km². |
Eastern Zone: 68.5 GW at 6.3
MW/km²; capacity factor 50%. Peninsular Zone: 973.1 GW at 5.3 MW/km²;
capacity factor 48%. |
|
Hernández
Gálvez et al., Renewable Energy 256:124127 |
2026 |
Multi-criteria spatial
planning. Depth ≤ 60 m (fixed-bottom only), ≥ 20 km from shore, wind ≥ 6 m/s
at 100 m. Excludes protected natural areas, fishing refuges, reefs and
hydrocarbon zones. IEA 15
MW turbine, 10D × 5D spacing → 5.21 MW/km². |
Gulf of Tehuantepec: 32,325
km² in total, 789 km² feasible for fixed-bottom foundations. Gulf of Mexico
by state marine area (AMB): Yucatán 58,776 km², Campeche 28,901 km², Tabasco
601 km² feasible. |
Gulf of Tehuantepec: 4.11 GW.
89% of the gulf exceeds 60 m in depth, so all floating potential is
excluded. Yucatán 306.2 GW;
Campeche 150.6 GW; Tabasco 3.1 GW. |
|
Own initial estimate, taking
constraints into account |
2026 |
ETOPO 2022 bathymetry and GIS.
Hernández Gálvez (2026) criteria expanded with fishing, navigation and
hydrocarbon layers. Precautionary
scenario, at 5.21 MW/km². |
Tehuantepec: 31,957 km²
(closed by the Puerto Ángel–Suchiate line), mainly floating at 60–300 m.
Peninsular Coast, from the port of Frontera to the port of Progreso: 52,768
km² (100 km strip), mainly fixed-bottom at 0–70 m. |
Gulf of Tehuantepec:
Precautionary, 6,040 km2 (18.9% of the total area), main floating range only:
31.5 GW. Peninsular
Coast: Precautionary: 5,858 km2 (11.10% of the total area), 30.5 GW. |
|
SOURCE: Author's own
elaboration. |
||||
Offshore wind has a higher
capacity factor than onshore wind (40–60% vs 25–35%) owing to the absence of
obstacles, and it can be deployed at scales that are unattainable on land (1
GW+ wind farms, turbines of 15 MW and above). It therefore generates a very
large investment flow that relies on a specialised supply chain which, ideally,
should be located close to the offshore wind farms to be developed, given the
size of the components and the logistics cost of moving them.
A growing number of
developed and emerging countries are putting in place ambitious multi-year
programmes that make offshore wind a key element of their energy transition and
decarbonisation policies. Besides China, the world leader, European countries such
as the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark stand out, and the
United States, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan have joined more recently.
Programmes are being prepared in Australia, the Philippines and Brazil, among
others. In Latin America, Colombia held its first international auction in
2025. The following table lists 22 countries with their known offshore wind
development targets, in descending order of share.
|
Offshore Wind Energy
Development Worldwide |
||||
|
Country |
Target
(GW) |
Year |
In
Operation (GW) |
Share
(%) |
|
China |
100 |
2030 |
50 |
54.10% |
|
United
Kingdom |
50 |
2030 |
16.5 |
17.80% |
|
Germany |
30 |
2032 |
10.8 |
11.70% |
|
70 |
2045 |
|||
|
Taiwan |
13 |
2030 |
4.7 |
5.10% |
|
Japan |
10 |
2030 |
0.5 |
0.50% |
|
45 |
2040 |
|||
|
South
Korea |
45 |
2040 |
0.4 |
0.40% |
|
Netherlands |
21 |
2033 |
5.0 |
5.40% |
|
40 |
2040 |
|||
|
Denmark |
10 |
2030 |
2.7 |
2.90% |
|
35 |
2050 |
|||
|
France |
15 |
2035 |
1.95 |
2.10% |
|
45 |
2050 |
|||
|
Ireland |
5 |
2030 |
0.03 |
0.03% |
|
37 |
2050 |
|||
|
Norway |
30 |
2040 |
0.09 |
0.10% |
|
Poland |
6 |
2030 |
1.00 |
1.10% |
|
18 |
2040 |
|||
|
India |
30 |
2030 |
0 |
0 |
|
Vietnam |
17 |
2035 |
0 |
0 |
|
Australia |
9 |
2040 |
0 |
0 |
|
TOTAL |
584 |
2030-2050 |
93.67 |
101% |
|
SOURCE: Global Offshore
Wind Report 2026. |
||||
In 2025 the United Kingdom
already met 19% of its electricity consumption with offshore wind, and it
expects to reach 50% by 2030.
To date, firm targets total
more than 700 GW of offshore wind, and the international ambition is to exceed
2,000 GW by 2050. OSW grew at an average annual rate of 22% between 2015 and
2024. Mexico, through the Ministry of Energy (SENER), is already preparing its
long-term policy and programme with the support of the UK and Danish
cooperation agencies.
Over the last 5 years
(2021–2026), 44 projects totalling a similar number of GW have been awarded in
8 countries, at a weighted average price of USD 98.50 per MWh. The latest UK
auction (AR7) awarded both onshore and offshore wind projects. The offshore price
was only 25% higher than the onshore wind price, a difference that is also
offset by the former's higher capacity factor.
|
Awarded auctions for offshore
wind projects, 2021-2026 |
||||
|
Country |
No. of
projects |
Awarded
capacity (GW) |
Floating
capacity (GW) |
Weighted
average price (USD/MWh) |
|
United Kingdom |
15 |
19.22 |
0.62 |
$100.8 |
|
France |
5 |
3.25 |
0.75 |
$71.8 |
|
Ireland |
5 |
3.97 |
0.00 |
$98.5 |
|
Poland |
3 |
3.44 |
0.00 |
$135.4 |
|
Denmark |
3 |
2.80 |
0.00 |
$53.0 |
|
Norway |
1 |
1.50 |
0.00 |
$109.5 |
|
Japan |
8 |
4.21 |
0.00 |
$72.9 |
|
USA |
4 |
5.48 |
0.00 |
$141.8 |
|
Total |
44 |
43.87 |
1.37 |
$98.5 |
|
SOURCE: Author's own
elaboration, with the help of the Claude AI model in reviewing the auctions. |
||||
One of the critical aspects
of Mexico's roadmap for offshore wind development is adapting its port
and industrial infrastructure, well in advance, in order to take full advantage
of the major opportunities that will arise in the coming years. This note is a
first approach to the adaptations required.
It also provides a
preliminary, precautionary estimate of the power generation potential of the
two areas of greatest interest, in order to size the likely floor, subject to
refinement once detailed technical studies are carried out.
Finally, it puts forward a
number of recommendations so that our country can begin to harness this very
important energy source within a short timeframe.
2.
Typical
Roadmap for Offshore Wind Energy Development
For an emerging country such
as Mexico, the typical OSW roadmap has four components, which largely unfold
simultaneously:
FIRST COMPONENT
This concerns establishing
the strategic vision and enabling the market: a long-term horizon, multi-year
targets, and public-private working groups. It entails building the regulatory
and institutional framework on four basic pillars[4]:
i)
a
competitive process for obtaining seabed access rights;
ii)
a
clear and expeditious permitting process (one-stop shop; environmental, social
and technical authorisations);
iii)
project
bankability (contracts for difference, long-term power purchase agreements);
iv)
timely
and cost-effective connection of offshore wind farms to the onshore
transmission grid (taking into account the need for battery systems and other
options such as the production of green hydrogen and its derivatives).
It also includes early and
ongoing engagement withstakeholders: local communities, users of marine
space, and community benefit mechanisms.
SECOND COMPONENT
This consists of marine
spatial planning and zone allocation, beginning with an early planning phase
(identifying the zones with the greatest energy potential and the fewest
constraints):
i)
Site
identification and selection methodology: first, exclude areas with
environmental, social, economic and concurrent-use constraints (such as
shipping routes)
ii)
Ranking
the potential of the remaining unconstrained areas (wind speed and density,
water depth, distance from shore, geophysical seabed conditions).
It also includes the
assessment and mitigation of environmental and social impacts (following
international standards), and the definition of the allocation models for
marine concessions (a competitive model among international consortia, with
government revenue from the auctions through upfront fees and annual
fees (per km2, per MW of project capacity).
THIRD COMPONENT
This concerns the
development of enabling infrastructure in two key areas:
i)
Planning
transmission and grid connection, using either high-voltage alternating current
or high-voltage direct current systems (HVAC and HVDC, respectively)
ii)
Port
development strategy: manufacturing ports, integration and assembly ports, and
operations and maintenance ports.
FOURTH COMPONENT
This covers fostering the
supply chain and human capital, through:
i)
An
active industrial policy
ii)
A
comprehensive assessment of the local, regional and national industrial base (supply
chain readiness)
iii)
Human
resource planning and capacity building
iv)
Specialised
maritime transport requirements.
3.
Types
of Support Ports for the Development, Construction, Installation, Maintenance
and Operation of Offshore Wind Farms
Three types of marine
terminals serve the offshore wind industry. The first is the manufacturing
terminal. Its requirements vary depending on the component involved. The
largest components must, for logistical reasons, be manufactured at a marine
terminal or very close to one. One of the best examples is the port of
Cuxhaven, in Germany, which is at the same time a manufacturing port, an
integration and assembly port, and an operations and maintenance port.
The second type is the
integration and assembly terminal (staging, marshalling), which receives
the components, sorts and stores them, assembles and integrates them, and loads
them onto the specialised vessels that carry them out for installation at the
offshore wind farm. A good example is the Danish port of Esbjerg, which has been
the support base for the installation of many offshore wind farms in the North
Sea.
The third type is the
operations and maintenance terminal, from which personnel are transported,
spare parts and maintenance supplies are stored, and the operation of the
offshore wind farm is organised and continuously monitored. It has no special
size or depth requirements, so it can coexist in various ports and marine
terminals.
The following table presents
some of the technical requirements that marine terminals and industrial sites
must meet in order to host the manufacture of the various components of
offshore wind farms, such as blades, nacelles, towers, foundations, inter-array
cables and export cables, among others. For example, the required area ranges
from 10 to 40 hectares per plant, depending on the component. Quay length
ranges from 90 to 375 metres, and the draught alongside the quay ranges from 6
to 82[5] metres. Quay and yard
load-bearing capacity ranges from 2.5 to 30 tonnes per m2.
|
Technical Specifications for
Marine Terminals for Manufacturing Offshore Wind Farm Components |
||||||||||||
|
Ref |
Requirements |
Components |
||||||||||
|
Blades |
Nacelles |
Towers |
Floating
Foundation |
Array
Cable Carousel |
Export
Cables |
Anchors |
Mooring
Lines |
Secondary
Steel |
||||
|
Semi-submersible
Platform |
Spar Buoy
Platform |
TLP
Platform |
||||||||||
|
1 |
Total
area (hectares) |
40 |
10 |
20 a 40 |
30 a 33 |
30 a 33 |
30 a 33 |
40 |
40 |
4 a 12 |
4 a 12 |
1 a 20 |
|
2 |
Yard load-bearing capacity
(t/m2) |
20 a 30 |
20 a 30 |
10 a 15 |
20 a 30 |
20 a 30 |
20 a 30 |
5 |
5 a 10 |
2.5 |
2.5 |
10 a 15 |
|
3 |
Storage
(thousand m2) |
60 a 70 |
|
|
|
|
|
28 |
28 |
20 a 60 |
20 a 60 |
4 a 32 |
|
4 |
Wet
storage (hectares) |
n.a. |
n.a. |
n.a. |
500 |
500 |
500 |
n.a. |
n.a. |
n.a. |
n.a. |
n.a. |
|
5 |
Air
draft / clear height (metres) |
60 |
60 |
60 |
200 |
200 |
200 |
60 |
60 |
|
|
30 a 60 |
|
6 |
Navigation:
basin depth (metres) |
12 |
|
8 a 12.5 |
10 a 12.5 |
90 |
12.5 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
7 a 14 |
|
7 |
Navigation:
basin width (metres) |
60 a 120 |
125 |
46 a 60 |
100 a 135 |
60 a 90 |
90 a 135 |
28 |
28 |
60 a 120 |
60 a 120 |
25 a 60 |
|
8 |
Quay:
length (metres) |
300 |
250 |
250 |
375 |
375 |
375 |
150 |
150 |
90 |
90 |
90 a 215 |
|
9 |
Quay:
width (metres) |
40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
Quay: load-bearing capacity
(t/m2) |
20 a 30 |
20 a 30 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
5 |
5 |
2.5 |
2.5 |
10 a 15 |
|
11 |
Quay:
draught (metres) |
10 |
10 a 27.5 |
11.6 |
11.6 |
6 a 82 |
8.5 a 11.6 |
9 |
9 |
6 a 9 |
6 a 9 |
9 a 12 |
|
SOURCE: Author's own elaboration based on Floating Offshore Wind
Manual: Port Requirements, Opportunities, and Impacts; BW Research,
2024. n.a. = not
applicable |
||||||||||||
The following table shows
the technical specifications for integration and assembly marine terminals.
They require an area of between 20 and 40 hectares, with 6 hectares of covered
storage. The quay would be 600 to 900 metres long so that several vessels can
operate at the same time, and the draught required alongside the quay would
range from 10 to 12 metres. Quay and yard load-bearing capacity would be
between 10 and 30 tonnes per m2. A distinctive feature of terminals of this
type for floating offshore wind farms is the wet storage area required, which
can reach 500 hectares so as to hold, at the same time, 6 turbines of 15 MW
already mounted on their floating foundations.
|
Technical Specifications for
Marine Terminals for the Assembly and Integration of Offshore Wind Farm
Components* |
|
|||
|
Ref |
Requirements |
Unit
of Measure |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
1 |
Total
area (hectares) |
20 a 40 |
||
|
2 |
Yard
load-bearing capacity (t/m2) |
10 a
20 |
||
|
3 |
Storage
(thousand m2) |
60 |
||
|
4 |
Wet
storage (hectares) |
500 |
||
|
5 |
Air
draft / clear height (metres) |
335 |
||
|
6 |
Navigation:
basin depth (metres) |
14 a
30 |
||
|
7 |
Navigation:
basin width (metres) |
135 |
||
|
8 |
Quay:
length (metres) |
600 a 900 |
||
|
9 |
Quay:
width (metres) |
40 |
||
|
10 |
Quay:
load-bearing capacity (t/m2) |
30 |
||
|
11 |
Quay:
draught (metres) |
10 a
12 |
||
|
*Covers all components. SOURCE: Author's own elaboration based on
Floating Offshore Wind Manual: Port Requirements, Opportunities, and
Impacts; BW Research, 2024. |
||||
The following table presents
the technical requirements for operations and maintenance marine terminals,
which are less demanding. The total area may range from 3 to 5 hectares. Quay
length is estimated at 400 metres to allow several vessels to operate at the
same time. The draught required alongside the quay ranges from 4 to 8 metres.
It should be noted that these requirements are sized for a 1 GW wind farm.
Terminals of this type usually serve several wind farms at the same time, with
a combined capacity of more than 1 GW.
|
Technical Specifications for
Marine Terminals for the Operation and Maintenance of Offshore Wind Farms* |
|
||||
|
Ref |
Requirements |
Unit
of Measure |
Remarks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
1 |
Total
area (hectares) |
3 a 5 |
per
GW, with office |
||
|
2 |
Yard
load-bearing capacity (t/m2) |
2.5 a
3 |
|
||
|
3 |
Covered
and open storage (thousand m2) |
10,000 |
one
hectare per GW |
||
|
4 |
Wet
storage (hectares) |
n.a. |
|
||
|
5 |
Air
draft / clear height (metres) |
30 a
45 |
|
||
|
6 |
Navigation:
basin depth (metres) |
5 a 9 |
|
||
|
7 |
Navigation:
basin width (metres) |
30 |
|
||
|
8 |
Quay:
length (metres) |
400 |
simultaneous
operations |
||
|
9 |
Quay:
width (metres) |
40 a
60 |
|
||
|
10 |
Quay:
load-bearing capacity (t/m2) |
0.5 a
2.5 |
|
||
|
11 |
Quay:
draught (metres) |
4 a 8 |
|
||
|
* Movement of personnel,
supplies and spare parts. SOURCE: Author's own
elaboration based on Floating Offshore Wind Manual: Port Requirements,
Opportunities, and Impacts; BW Research, 2024. n.a. = not applicable |
|||||
4.
Supply
Chain for Offshore Wind Farm Development
Offshore wind energy (OSW)
development opens up the opportunity to undertake, in parallel, a large-scale
green industrialisation process around the same ports that serve as support
bases for the offshore wind farms. This is not merely a preference but a necessary
condition for achieving maximum supply chain efficiency and the broadest impact
in terms of regional and community development.
A 1 GW offshore wind farm
entails investment of almost USD 3 billion, a significant share of which could
be attracted to zones expressly designed for that purpose, as is already
happening in different regions of the world.
Consortia of global
companies have consolidated over the last decade, taking part in the
international auctions held every year in a growing number of countries. These
consortia partner with local companies to varying degrees and under different
arrangements, in order to generate community benefits through quality jobs,
local technical capacity building, and technological research and development.
On the basis of long-term
contracts for the purchase of the energy produced by the state-owned
electricity company (CFE in our case), projects become "bankable" and
eligible for concessional financial support from institutions such as the World
Bank and the International Finance Corporation, among others.
The following image shows
some of the typical components of an offshore wind project, to highlight their
dimensions and the advantages of manufacturing them at a port close to the area
where the offshore wind farms will be installed.
Of the almost USD 3 billion
of investment per GW with fixed-bottom foundation technology[6], it is estimated – based
on international experience over the last 10 years – that up to 65% can be
captured as local/regional/national content in the short and medium term.[7] This percentage could
increase if the supply chain development process is supported by an industrial
policy that includes technological research and development, local technical
capacity building, and attractive conditions for foreign investment in industrial
plants and their possible partnership with Mexican companies.
The following diagram and
table show how the different components of the offshore wind supply chain fit
together, and their estimated cost within a 1 GW project.
|
Typical Breakdown of Investment in a 1 GW
Offshore Wind Farm and Estimated Local Spillover with a Supply Chain
Development Strategy |
||||||
|
Ref |
Item |
Amount (USD million) |
% |
% Local Content |
Local investment amount (USD million) |
|
|
1 |
Offshore wind farm |
$2,491 |
85% |
62% |
$1,548 |
|
|
1.1. |
Development expenditure |
$264 |
9% |
50% |
$132 |
|
|
1.2. |
Wind turbines |
$1,406 |
48% |
44% |
$619 |
|
|
1.2.1 |
Nacelle * |
$844 |
29% |
20% |
$169 |
|
|
1.2.2 |
Rotor ** |
$387 |
13% |
80% |
$309 |
|
|
1.2.3 |
Tower |
$176 |
6% |
80% |
$141 |
|
|
1.3. |
Foundations |
$703 |
24% |
100% |
$703 |
|
|
1.4. |
Inter-array cables |
$117 |
4% |
80% |
$94 |
|
|
2 |
Export electrical system |
$440 |
15% |
80% |
$352 |
|
|
2.1. |
Offshore substation |
$147 |
5% |
80% |
$117 |
|
|
2.2. |
Offshore export cable |
$176 |
6% |
80% |
$141 |
|
|
2.3. |
Onshore export cable |
$29 |
1% |
80% |
$23 |
|
|
2.4. |
Onshore substation |
$88 |
3% |
80% |
$70 |
|
|
3 |
TOTAL AMOUNT |
$2,930 |
100% |
65% |
$1,899 |
|
|
*
Includes the generator, gearbox, converter and electrical components |
||||||
|
**
Includes the blades and the hub |
||||||
|
SOURCE: Author's own elaboration based on The role of concessional
climate finance in accelerating the deployment of offshore wind in emerging
markets; World Bank-ESMAP, IFC, PROBLUE; September 2023. |
||||||
If we assume that a
multi-year (10-year) programme can be structured to develop 6 GW per year (3 GW
per zone), a first approximation of the supply chain requirements is shown in
the following table. Assuming a 15 MW design turbine (the largest size installed
commercially to date), 400 wind turbines would be needed each year.[8]
|
Requirements for
Developing 6 GW per Year |
|||
|
Annual
volume |
Frontera–Progreso
(fixed-bottom) |
Gulf
of Tehuantepec (floating) |
Total |
|
Wind
turbines (15 MW) |
200 |
200 |
400 |
|
Blades
(~117 m) |
600 |
600 |
1,200 |
|
Nacelles
/ towers |
200 /
200 |
200 /
200 |
400 /
400 |
|
Foundations |
~160 monopiles with transition
pieces, ~40 jackets |
200
floating platforms |
— |
|
Mooring
lines / anchors |
— |
~600 /
~600 (~500 km of line) |
— |
|
Inter-array
cable |
~360
km |
~360
km (dynamic) |
~720
km |
|
HVDC
export systems (2 GW each) |
~1.5
(~240 km of cable) |
~1.5
(~210 km of cable) |
~3
converter platforms |
|
Heavy
steel plate |
~0.80
Mt |
~0.85
Mt |
~1.65
Mt |
|
SOURCE: Author's own
elaboration, with the help of the Claude AI model. |
|||
|
Industrial Plants Needed
to Manufacture 6 GW of Offshore Wind Capacity per Year |
||||||
|
Component |
Annual
need |
Output
per plant |
Plants |
Land
(ha) |
Permitting
and construction (years) |
Direct
jobs |
|
Blades |
1,200 |
225 |
6 (3
per zone) |
~195 |
3–5 |
~3,000 |
|
Nacelles |
400 |
100 |
4 |
~65 |
3–5 |
~920 |
|
Towers |
400 |
100 |
4 |
~73 |
3–5 |
~1,160 |
|
Monopiles |
160 |
100 |
2 |
65–81 |
2 |
~1,100 |
|
Transition
pieces |
160 |
100 |
2 |
~36 |
2–3 |
~600 |
|
Jackets |
40 |
50 |
1 |
32–40 |
— |
~550 |
|
Floating
platforms |
200 |
~50 |
4 |
120–160 |
~1 |
~960 |
|
Inter-array
cable (incl. dynamic) |
~720
km |
550 km |
2 |
~36 |
5–6 |
~460 |
|
HVDC
export cable |
~450
km |
250+
km |
1–2 |
18–36 |
5–6 |
230–460 |
|
Mooring
chain (and rope) |
~500
km |
2,000
km |
1–2 |
~20 |
4–5 |
110–220 |
|
Steel
plate |
~1.65
Mt |
1 Mt |
2 |
~243 |
5 |
~920 |
|
Casting
and forging |
varies |
— |
2 |
~8 |
2–4 |
~480 |
|
Total |
|
|
~31–33 |
~910–990 |
|
~10,500–10,800 |
|
SOURCE: Author's own
elaboration based on NREL (2023) estimates for the US supply chain. |
||||||
5.
Existing
and Planned Port and Industrial Infrastructure on the Coast of Yucatán,
Campeche and Tabasco
The area initially estimated
to have offshore wind potential in the Gulf of Mexico is the 100-kilometre-wide
coastal strip around the Yucatán Peninsula, from the port of Frontera, in
Tabasco, to the port of Progreso, in Yucatán. It covers an area of 52,768 km2.
Within it, after precautionary deduction of roughly estimated areas
corresponding to other uses that restrict or exclude the siting of offshore
wind farms, a net precautionary area with potential of 5,859 km2 is defined,
equivalent to 11.10% of the total area initially considered. See the following
table.
|
Frontera–Progreso Peninsular
Strip: Net Precautionary Area (km2) |
|||
|
Ref |
Item |
Area
(km2) |
% |
|
1 |
Total area of the Peninsular
Strip |
52,768 |
100.0% |
|
2 |
Pink shrimp fishing grounds
(25 fathoms or less) |
-12,125 |
-23.0% |
|
3 |
Coastal
maritime strip <20 kilometres |
-10,486 |
-19.9% |
|
4 |
Hydrocarbon
Area |
-7,104 |
-13.5% |
|
5 |
Shipping
traffic |
-6,505 |
-12.3% |
|
6 |
Red octopus fishing grounds
(<20 metres deep) |
-6,484 |
-12.3% |
|
6 |
Seagrass
beds (depth <10 metres) |
-2,394 |
-4.5% |
|
7 |
Areas
deeper than 200 metres |
-1,366 |
-2.6% |
|
8 |
Los Petenes Biosphere Reserve |
-445 |
-0.8% |
|
9 |
Net
precautionary area with potential |
5,859 |
11.10% |
|
SOURCE: Author's own elaboration based on an
estimate prepared with the Claude-Projects AI model. |
|||
This exercise provides a
first approximation of the wind power generation potential. The installable
capacity in the net precautionary area is 30.5 GW.[9]
With a net capacity factor of 36.5%, this installable capacity would produce a
total of 97.76 TWh of electricity, equivalent to more than 5 times the
electricity consumption of the Peninsular region in 2026.
The two maps below
illustrate how the areas for the different possible uses of the marine space in
the Frontera–Progreso peninsular coastal strip were conceptually estimated.
First, bands were drawn at every 10 metres of depth down to 70 metres. The shallow
depth of the continental shelf is striking: 91.3% of the zone is less than 70
metres deep, and practically the first 50 kilometres from the coast are less
than 30 metres deep. Except for the initial 20-kilometre coastal strip,
considered an exclusion zone to avoid any visual impact, the rest of the zone
is suitable for installing fixed-bottom wind turbines, and at a short distance
from shore. Both factors help to reduce the overall cost of the projects. The
small portion of the total area with depths greater than 70 metres is
concentrated in the segment known as Frontera–Carmen.
In the second map, the areas
that restrict or exclude the establishment of offshore wind farms were
conceptually mapped. In addition to the 20-kilometre coastal strip, the
following were identified: precautionary fishing zones, representing 35.3% of
the total area; the oil production zone in the Campeche Sound; and shipping
routes, which were assigned a precautionary band of 4.5 nautical miles on each
side of the centreline of each route. The support ports are marked: Progreso,
Seybaplaya, Isla del Carmen and Frontera. All of them will require major
improvements to equip them as integration and assembly ports (Progreso and
Frontera), manufacturing ports (Progreso, Frontera and Seybaplaya)[10], and operations and
maintenance ports (all 4 ports).
It is important to note that
these measurements serve for the initial, broad-brush planning of the zone and
for preliminary validation that there is attractive power generation potential.
Improving the accuracy of the data requires marine spatial planning, following
the methodology already tested in various countries, using geographic
information systems (GIS) and holding consultation and discussion forums with
local communities and relevant stakeholders.[11]
In a long-term projection,
expected electricity consumption in this region (the fastest-growing in the
country) includes the gradual replacement of natural gas, currently the
predominant fuel; the electrification of offshore oil platforms in the Campeche
Sound; and growing future demand from industrialisation and the establishment
of data centres in the region. With the addition of offshore wind, the
peninsula would become an electricity exporter rather than an importer,
supplying other regions of the country, and could even export electricity to
Central America (via a high-voltage grid). The regional electrification
strategy would need to include batteries (30% of the generation capacity
developed) for at least 4 hours (to cover hourly wind variations), as well as
green hydrogen production to blend with natural gas and eventually replace it
(and to cover seasonal wind variations). There may also be enough to produce
green fuels (ammonia and/or methanol) for distribution to the busiest Mexican
ports in the Gulf of Mexico.
The following charts show
recent historical and projected electricity consumption to 2039 for the
Peninsular Region (according to the Electricity Sector Plan, PLADESE), as well
as the trajectory that offshore wind generation would follow under a multi-year
(10-year) programme beginning in 2032.
If a development target of 3 GW per year is adopted, a multi-year programme could be structured for the next 10 years, providing an adequate planning horizon for attracting investment into the supply chain. Accordingly, the plan to be put together by the federal government together with the state governments of Yucatán, Campeche and Tabasco should consider the port–industrial zone pairing, as illustrated in the maps and sketches below.
On the coast of Yucatán,
Campeche and Tabasco, there are four ports that can take on complementary roles
to cover the wide maritime strip with potential:
In Progreso and its
Wellbeing Economic Development Poles (PODECOBIs), it is possible to establish
industrial plants manufacturing components that would then be moved to the port
expansion area, to an integration and assembly terminal of at least 20 hectares[12], which could also be used
as an operations and maintenance terminal.
Seybaplaya and its PODECOBI
could host industrial plants manufacturing components that would then be
shipped through the port's offshore terminal to Progreso or Nuevo Frontera for
final integration. It could also support operations and maintenance tasks.
Isla del Carmen, with its
new multipurpose terminal, could support operations and maintenance activities,
particularly for the wind farms linked to the electrification of offshore oil
platforms.
Nuevo Frontera, relaunched
as part of the Tabasco Port Administration (API), can become a key
port-industrial base supporting manufacturing, integration and assembly, and
operations and maintenance, owing to its potential to develop quays along its
lateral channel and its proximity to the 300-hectare site that the state
government acquired years ago.
It is important to note that
the polygons shown on the maps are freehand outlines drawn with the help of
Google Earth, not precise AutoCAD-type measurements.
6.
Existing
and Planned Port and Industrial Infrastructure on the Coast of the Gulf of
Tehuantepec
On the Pacific coast,
Mexico's main zone with OSW development potential is the marine area within the
Gulf of Tehuantepec, which for practical purposes has been delimited by a
straight line between Puerto Ángel and the mouth of the Suchiate River. The marine
area between the coastline and this straight line covers 31,900 square
kilometres.
The area estimated to have
potential within the Gulf of Tehuantepec is 6,040 square kilometres, equivalent
to 18.9% of the total area considered. This figure is obtained after
precautionary deduction of rough estimates of areas corresponding to other uses
that restrict or exclude their use for siting offshore wind farms, as shown in
the following table.
|
Gulf of Tehuantepec: Net Precautionary Area (km2) |
|||
|
Ref |
Item |
Area (km2) |
% |
|
1 |
Total area of the Gulf of Tehuantepec |
31,957 |
100.0% |
|
2 |
Shipping traffic and fishing zones |
-11,293 |
-35.3% |
|
3 |
Coastal maritime strip <20 kilometres |
-9,817 |
-30.7% |
|
4 |
Areas deeper than 300 metres |
-4,807 |
-15.0% |
|
5 |
Net precautionary area with
potential |
6,040 |
18.9% |
|
SOURCE:
Author's own elaboration based on an estimate prepared with the
Claude-Projects AI model. |
|||
This exercise provides a
first approximation of the wind power generation potential. The installable
capacity in the net precautionary area is 31.5 GW.[13] With a net capacity
factor of 40.8%, this installable capacity would produce a total of 112.47 TWh
of electricity, equivalent to 1.8 times the electricity consumption forecast
for the Eastern region in 2026.[14]
The two maps below
illustrate how the areas for the different possible uses of the marine space in
the Gulf of Tehuantepec were conceptually estimated. First, bands were drawn to
identify the depth of the zone. The first band marks depths of up to 60 metres,
suitable for fixed-bottom foundation technologies. Much of the preliminarily
defined strip extending 20 kilometres from the coastline lies within it; in
that strip, offshore wind farms would not be sited, so as to avoid any visual
impact.[15] The subsequent bands mark
the gradual increase in depth up to 300 metres, the limit of what is currently
considered economically viable. Only a minor portion of the marine area of the
Gulf of Tehuantepec is deeper than 300 metres. Almost the entire area of the
Gulf lies within 100 kilometres of the coast.
Outside the Gulf, depths
exceed one thousand metres, and this area is not included in the analysis.
In the second map, the areas
that restrict or exclude the establishment of offshore wind farms were
conceptually mapped. In addition to the 20-kilometre coastal strip, shipping
routes were identified and assigned a precautionary band of 4.5 nautical miles
on each side of the centreline of each route. The fishing area was also
defined, and areas deeper than 300 metres were discarded.
Expected electricity
consumption in this Eastern region includes major industrial and tourism areas
in the states of Puebla, Veracruz, Tabasco and Guerrero, as well as the demand
that may be generated by the development of the Interoceanic Corridor of the
Isthmus of Tehuantepec. The region has significant hydroelectric and nuclear
generation, as well as onshore wind in the south of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec.
Offshore wind generation in the Gulf of Tehuantepec is not expected to replace
current sources, but rather to complement them and, above all, to meet demand
growth. Besides the mandatory addition of batteries, there is likely to be
enough room for green hydrogen production to help replace the grey hydrogen
used by PEMEX, and to produce green fuels (green ammonia and/or methanol) to
meet the demand of maritime traffic at Mexico's Pacific ports. The region could
also export electricity to other regions of the country and even to Central
America.
The following charts show
recent historical and projected electricity consumption to 2039 for the Eastern
Region (according to the Electricity Sector Plan, PLADESE), as well as the
trajectory that offshore wind generation would follow under a multi-year (10-year)
programme beginning in 2032.
If a development target of 3 GW per year is adopted, a multi-year programme could be structured for the next 10 years, providing an adequate planning horizon for attracting investment into the supply chain. Accordingly, the plan to be put together by the federal government together with the state governments of Oaxaca and Chiapas should consider the port–industrial zone pairing, as illustrated in the maps and sketches below.
The supporting
port-industrial zone centres on reactivating the industrial port project at
Salina Cruz and on the combination of Puerto Chiapas with its two PODECOBIs.
Since the late 1970s, an
industrial port has been envisaged adjacent to the current port of Salina Cruz,
in the area known as Bahía del Marqués. For various reasons, the project has
never got off the drawing board, although it has remained an official goal and
is included in the Salina Cruz Port Development Master Plan 2022–2027.
Its development is now fully
justified for it to become the hub for offshore wind on Mexico's Pacific
coast, capable of combining the functions of manufacturing port, integration
and assembly port, and operations and maintenance port for the entire supply
chain, including the substation receiving the offshore wind power, battery
storage, and the production of green hydrogen and derivatives
(methanol/ammonia). Methanol production could obtain the CO2 it requires from
the PEMEX refinery in Salina Cruz. The green fuels would be distributed by
coastal shipping to other Mexican Pacific ports (particularly Manzanillo and
Lázaro Cárdenas) to provide bunkering services to international shipping
lines that are decarbonising their fleets. This set of activities would give
the industrial port the critical mass it needs, but its role could be broadened
to offer a truly competitive development option[16] to the container terminal
currently being planned at the wrong site. The following diagram and table show the conceptual layout of the
industrial port, together with a first sizing of its quay, yard and depth
requirements, which are even more demanding because the potential lies in
floating technologies, at depths greater than 60–70 metres.
The following table
summarises the characteristics of the three sections envisaged for the
industrial port.
|
Conceptual Layout of the
Salina Cruz Industrial Port |
|||||
|
Section |
Location |
Main
components |
Area
(ha) |
Quays
and draughts |
Phases |
|
1.
Offshore wind cluster |
Centre |
Dedicated basin with 5–7
integration berths and wet storage; 3 platform yards; plants for blades,
nacelles, towers, moorings and dynamic cable; operations and maintenance;
project cargo; plate steel mill |
460–580
(+120–200 for the steel mill) |
5.4–7.3 km; integration at
−16.5 m; 260 m channel and 130 m harbour entrance |
F1–F3 |
|
2.
Energy hub |
West |
Cable landfall and converter
stations (4–7 links of 2 GW); batteries equal to 30% of wind capacity, with 4
h duration (7.2 GW and 29 GWh in 2039); modular hydrogen up to 2.4 GW (200
kt/year); ammonia (~560 kt/year) and methanol (~530 kt/year); tanks; desalination
plant; safety zone |
300–530
(including 115–200 for batteries) |
Liquid bulk jetty with 1–2
berths at −15 m |
F1–F3 |
|
3.
Commercial cargo |
East, adjacent to the current
port |
2,000 m container terminal
with 200 ha (in the order of 3–4 million TEU per year); intermodal rail yard
and customs; other terminals as demand requires (multipurpose, Ro-Ro, bulk,
reefer); logistics activity zone |
430–590 |
2,000 m at −18 m; ~300 m
channel; ~800 m turning basin; other terminals at −14/−16 m |
F1–F2 and as demand requires |
|
Total
onshore |
|
|
~1,300–1,900
|
|
|
|
SOURCE: Author's own elaboration, with the help
of the Claude AI model. NOTE: The
areas of sections 2 and 3 and the capacity of the container terminal are the
author's own estimates. The terminal dimensions (2,000 m of quay and 200 ha
of yards) are a planning assumption. Batteries are sized at 30% of installed
wind capacity with 4 hours' duration, per the PLADESE criterion, with a
density of about 250 MWh per hectare (plausible range of 150–400 MWh/ha). |
|||||
At the eastern end of the
Gulf of Tehuantepec lies Puerto Chiapas, which could serve as a component
manufacturing port, from which components could then be shipped by coastal
shipping to the Salina Cruz industrial port for final integration, drawing on the
adjacent PODECOBIs, and also as an operations and maintenance port.
7.
Conclusions
and Recommendations
·
Offshore
wind energy (OSW) in Mexico has enormous potential to advance the country's
transition towards a clean, independent and affordable energy mix that meets
future electricity demand across a wide area of the country, drives green
industrial development, and helps to significantly reduce natural gas imports.
·
There
is a wealth of international experience spanning more than two decades in the
development of this industry, from which lessons learned can be drawn. In fact,
the Ministry of Energy is working on the regulatory and institutional framework
needed to promote OSW in our country, with the support of the UK and Danish
cooperation agencies.
·
In
parallel, the country needs to accelerate its preparation in several key areas
in order to unlock, as soon as possible, the robust and continuous flow of
investment over at least the next 20 years that the development of this
industry can represent. International experience has distilled the main
workstreams that require coordinated action by the authorities (at all three
levels of government), domestic and foreign investors, and other relevant local
and regional stakeholders. One of these workstreams is the enabling of port and
industrial zones in the marine areas where the wind farms are to be installed.
·
Two
marine areas concentrate Mexico's OSW potential: the coast of the states of
Campeche, Tabasco and Yucatán in the Gulf of Mexico, and the Gulf of
Tehuantepec in the Pacific. They have different characteristics and call for
specific strategies.
·
On
the Gulf of Mexico coast, it is possible to develop a network of mutually
complementary ports and associated industrial zones to support an OSW
deployment based on fixed-bottom foundation technologies, thanks to the shallow
depth of the continental shelf around the Yucatán Peninsula.
·
In
the Gulf of Tehuantepec, efforts should be concentrated on a major
port-industrial hub based on the renewed industrial port project that
Salina Cruz has been contemplating for more than 40 years. Puerto Chiapas and
its Wellbeing Economic Development Poles (PODECOBIs) could be of great help as
a complement.
·
A
first step of great strategic value would be for the federal authorities
(SEMAR, SENER, SEMARNAT, the Ministry of Economy, among others) and the state
governments involved to form an inter-agency and intergovernmental working
group to begin organising and activating the various workstreams that need to
be addressed.
·
In
particular, it falls to SEMAR, as the maritime and port authority, to carry out
marine spatial planning, drawing on the lessons of international experience in
this field.
[1] The estimate is by the World Bank and the International Finance
Corporation, under their Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP). Marine
areas subject to restrictions for environmental, social, economic and safety
reasons, as well as shipping routes, must be deducted from this gross potential
[2] With a capacity factor of 40%, the wind energy that could be generated
is equivalent to 8 times the national electricity consumption forecast for
2026.
[3] All measurements at this scale carried out to date are based on
satellite meteorological data. They are high-level estimates that serve to
determine where there is potential and where there is not. Project-level
information must be obtained from field measurements using floating LiDAR.
[4] As identified by the WB-IFC in the various roadmaps they
have prepared around the world, with the support of concessional financing.
[5] The 82 metres are required for foundations based on spar buoy
platforms.
[6] The maximum depth for using fixed-bottom technology is between 60
and 70 metres. Beyond 70 metres, floating foundation technology is required,
which is more expensive.
[7] The United Kingdom has an indicative target of achieving at least
60% local/national content across the supply chain.
[8] It should be noted that higher-capacity wind turbines (18 to 26 MW)
are already in pilot testing, so the final choice of optimal size could change
in the coming years. It would be realistic to assume that the first offshore
wind turbine will be installed around 2032, once all the preparations
(regulatory, technical studies, port and industrial infrastructure) have been
completed.
[9] This calculation assumes an IEA 15 MW turbine. Its spacing is 2.88
km2 (the product of 10 rotor diameters by 5 diameters, with a 240-metre
diameter). If a 1 GW offshore wind farm requires 66.67 turbines of 15 MW, it
needs a marine area of 192 km2. A polygon of this size fits 30.5 times into a
net precautionary area of 5,859 km2.
[10] In the case of Progreso and Seybaplaya, the manufacturing bases
would be in the PODECOBIs.
[11] In parallel, field measurements of wind quality would be carried
out using floating LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging), in order to rank
the potential of the various polygons suitable for siting offshore wind farms.
[12] It is crucial that the Progreso ASIPONA (port authority) take this
use into account in the port expansion currently under way.
[13] This calculation assumes an IEA 15 MW turbine. Its spacing is 2.88
km2 (the product of 10 rotor diameters by 5 diameters, with a 240-metre
diameter). If a 1 GW offshore wind farm requires 66.67 turbines of 15 MW, it
needs a marine area of 192 km2. A polygon of this size fits 31.5 times into a
net precautionary area of 6,040 km2.
[14] This CFE control region includes the whole of the states of Oaxaca,
Chiapas, Tabasco and Tlaxcala, and most of the states of Guerrero, Puebla,
Veracruz and Morelos.
[15] In European countries, this strip is usually defined with a width
of 6 nautical miles (11.11 km). In Brazil, it has been defined with a width of
12 nautical miles.
[16] The current project is located within the PEMEX oil terminal; the
planned container terminal is small, has no room to assemble unit trains, and
rail connectivity outside the terminal is not functional: it runs through the
port of Salina Cruz and crosses the city.






















