6. The energy transition in Nordic oceans
The Nordics offshore energy sector has begun its transformation, aligned with Europe’s broader shift toward renewable energy. Denmark stands out as a Nordic leader in this transition. DNV forecasts that offshore wind will deliver 25% of Europe’s electricity in 2060 (DNV, 2025a), with most capacity in the North Sea, followed by the Baltic Sea (DNV, 2025d).
6.1 Offshore wind contribution to electrification – will targets be reached?
Offshore wind in the Nordics will contribute to a more integrated electricity system in Europe, a region focused on decarbonizing its energy mix. Europe will be the world region with the highest share of offshore wind in its energy mix in 2050. The region has ample wind resources, and large areas suitable for bottom-fixed (jackets, gravity-based or monopile structures) and floating (semi-submersible, tension leg platforms, or spar-buoys) offshore wind structures, particularly in the North Sea (DNV, 2025d). The long-run trend of adding offshore wind to the energy mix will continue as costs are reduced due to efficiency gains from learning and increased standardization. The cost-learning effect suggests that costs fall at a given rate each time cumulative installed capacity doubles (DNV, 2025a). In the short term, the sector faces headwinds due to supply chain disruptions and high costs, especially related to price developments in input materials such as steel.
The Nordics currently contribute around 8% of the current offshore wind capacity in Europe. Denmark dominates the Nordic offshore wind sector today, with 2.6 GW installed, almost 90% of the Nordic capacity. The rest of the Nordics countries, Sweden (192 MW), Norway (101 MW), and Finland (71 MW) only make up around 1% of the total European capacity. In a European setting, the UK is by far the most important country for offshore wind at 16 GW (44%), followed by Germany (25%), and the Netherlands (13%). In terms of yearly capacity additions, the leaders in 2024 were the UK, Germany, and France, which together added more than 2 GW in 2024.
Figure 6-1 Installed capacity by country and sea basin as of spring 2025
Source WindEurope, 2025
Figure 6-1 breaks down offshore wind capacity by sea basin and country. The North Sea hosts almost 30 GW, approximately 80%, of European capacity today, followed by the Baltic Sea and the Irish Sea. Denmark’s capacity is roughly evenly split between the Baltic (56%) and the North Sea, while 80% of Germany’s capacity is in the North Sea. Though most of the installed capacity so far is using bottom-fixed turbines, Norway and the UK plan to build large volumes of floating offshore wind in waters deeper than 100 metres. Some of the first large-scale offshore wind farms are intended to electrify offshore oil and gas operations. Examples are Hywind Tampen, already in operation (Equinor, 2023), and GoliatVIND, commissioning planned in 2028–2029 (Ocean 24, 2024).
Ambitious plans for growth in offshore wind exist in most Nordic countries, aligned with the broader European prioritization of renewable energy. The need to accelerate the energy transition is driven by many factors, but primarily the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power production. The ongoing war in Ukraine has disrupted energy supplies, leading to increased energy prices and rising concerns about availability, highlighting Europe’s dependence on energy imports.
EU targets for offshore wind were revised in November 2024, considering integration of European offshore grids in all sea basins (European Commission 2024a-b), and following the Renewable Energy Directive targets of 281–354 GW by 2050 (European Commission, 2023). Adding to the EU targets, the Ostend Declaration was also signed by Norway and the UK, putting the overall capacity target for the ‘North Seas’
Note that this is not one-to-one with the North Sea. ‘North Seas’ is taken to include all North Atlantic waters (all sea basins) of the signatory states, including areas in the Bay of Biscay (France), the Irish and Celtic Seas (Ireland and the UK), and the Norwegian and Barents Seas (Norway) (DNV, 2025d).
Figure 6-2 compares the expected 2030 capacity and 2030 pledges made by European countries, including the Nordics, according to an assessment by WindEurope (2024b). Note that this overview includes a previous Swedish target for 2030. Among European countries, France and Poland are most likely to achieve these ambitions. The Nordics will fall short of reaching the goals, and by a large margin. Denmark is expected to come closest, at 53% of the 2030 goal. Norway’s first large-scale bottom-fixed offshore wind project at Sørlige Nordsjø II, with 1.5 GW capacity, is expected to be completed in 2031, meaning the 2030 estimates in Figure 6-2 are already on the optimistic side. Large-scale floating offshore wind projects are taking longer to realize, due to high costs, high technological risks, and slow permitting processes. DNV (2025d) estimated a shortfall of approximately 15% from the 2050 ambitions for the North Sea basin.
Figure 6-2 Expected and pledged 2030 offshore wind capacity
Source WindEurope, 2024b
6.2 Challenges for coexistence with other uses
Offshore wind’s space use, and its potential environmental and visual impacts, are key concerns that drive attention on coexistence between offshore wind, other human activities, and marine ecosystems. In the North Sea basin (including parts of Denmark’s, Norway’s, and Sweden’s EEZs), space use by offshore wind can increase up to six-fold, occupying 60,000 km2 or around 9% of the sea basin (DNV, 2025d). Previous Nordic initiatives have provided recommendations on inclusion of coexistence in tendering requirements for offshore wind (Nordic Energy Research, 2023).
Nature and ecosystem: Ecosystem impacts of offshore wind differ by foundation type and by lifecycle phase; construction, operation, and decommissioning (Bergström et al., 2022). During installation, underwater noise due to pile-driving (for monopiles and jackets) can induce physical damage and stress in fish and marine mammals (Bergström et al., 2022; Öhman, 2023). Noise-reduction techniques like bubble curtains are used to reduce these impacts (Tsouvalas and Metrikine, 2016). Installation operations can also cause the formation of sediment plumes that may impact marine life. Impacts during the operational phase include underwater noise from the structure, and electromagnetic fields from cables. Through the operational phase, the foundations may act as artificial reefs, attracting fish and other marine organisms that colonize the structures (Andersson and Öhman, 2010; Bergström et al., 2013). Less is known about the environmental impact of decommissioning. The effects could be similar to those in construction phase, though other managerial considerations may arise (Hall et al., 2022).
Fisheries: The possibility for coexistence with fisheries is a matter of ecosystem preconditions and impacts, as well as access to area. The fisheries are concerned that allocating space for offshore wind reduces what is available for fishing and navigation. See also Sections 4.4 and 6.5.
Aquaculture: Possibilities for co-location with low-trophic and salmon aquaculture are being considered. Low-trophic aquaculture is likely easier to combine with offshore wind, as the operations are simpler and there is less navigational risk. For instance, low-trophic aquaculture needs neither transport of feed, nor fish handling operations. Combining low-trophic aquaculture and offshore wind has progressed in demonstrating viability (e.g. at Krieger’s Flak in Denmark), but recent innovation projects also find that salmon farming combined with floating offshore wind can be technically feasible, despite regulatory and operational hurdles (Freja Offshore et al., 2025), see Section 5.3.
Tourism: The visual impacts of wind turbines and large energy plants are key concerns in the coastal tourism sector (and coastal communities in general). An example is the planned energy island on Bornholm, where there are additional concerns about the land connection points for the offshore grid located close to popular beaches, and the additional influx of construction workers that will compete with potential tourists for space at hotels and summer house rentals (Hansen, 2024).
Shipping: For shipping, a key concern is increased navigational risk in fairways close to wind farms, which is also the case for other ship types, such as fishing vessels. However, potential synergies include offshore charging infrastructure near wind farms to increase the range for battery-powered ships (see also Chapter 7).
Low-carbon technologies: Carbon capture and storage (CCS) and offshore wind have the potential to conflict spatially, due to the need for vessel-based monitoring of active carbon storage sites, as exemplified by a dispute between Ørsted and BP in the UK sector (Buljan, 2023). The Danish Maritime Spatial Plan (MSP) features several locations in which offshore wind development zones overlap with carbon storage sites (Danish Maritime Authority, 2025). See Sections 6.4 and 6.5.
Defence: Military considerations have hindered developments due to conflicting strategic interests. The most prominent Nordic example is the Swedish government halting 13 wind farms in the southern Baltic Sea in 2024 (Swedish Government, 2024). The rationale for rejecting offshore wind includes concerns about navigation, radar coverage, and the risk of sabotage of turbines or electricity cables. These concerns echo the Nord Stream pipeline explosions and the cutting of several Baltic Sea subsea cables (Bueger and Edwards, 2024).
6.3 What is the future for offshore oil and gas?
The prospects for continued offshore oil and gas in the Nordic region illustrate the trilemma between energy affordability, security, and environmental sustainability. Oil and gas production is a huge contributor to the economic value of the ocean industries and has contributed 15% to 20% of the Norwegian national economy in terms of gross value added since the early 1990s (Figure 6-3). Norwegian offshore oil and gas is essential for European energy security and affordability. After the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Norwegian offshore gas transported through North Sea pipelines has been vital in reducing the EU’s dependency on Russian natural gas imports, along with liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports (DNV, 2024a). Long-term power purchasing agreements (PPAs) for Norwegian gas was proposed as a measure to improve the competitiveness of the European economy by ensuring robust access to energy and stability in prices (European Commission, 2024c). In terms of carbon footprints associated with upstream activities (production and transport), Norwegian pipeline gas emits approximately 3–4 kgCO2 per barrel of oil equivalent, as opposed to 40–120 kg per barrel for imported American LNG. For comparison, emissions during consumption are in the range 300–400 kg per barrel (Norwegian Department of Energy, 2025).
The long-term trend will be a reduction in oil production, due to field depletion and consequent reduction in the competitiveness of these products compared to cheaper oil from elsewhere. Consequently, oil production will most likely decline faster than for gas, in line with the need for a demand-led downscaling of fossil fuels (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2023). Capacity additions in oil and gas will mainly be built out as ‘tiebacks’, fields with subsea installations connected to existing infrastructure (Norwegian Offshore Directorate, 2024). In 2050, DNV prognoses indicate that most remaining production of oil and gas in Europe will come from fields on the Norwegian Continental Shelf (DNV, 2024a). Denmark has also been an active oil and gas producer in the North Sea but, unlike Norway, has decided to completely phase out production by 2050. Compared to Norway, the Danish offshore oil and gas sector has never played a similarly important role in the national economy, and hence it has likely been easier to reach political acceptance for phasing it out.
Figure 6-4 displays the production pathways forecasted by the Norwegian Offshore Directorate (2024), measured in standard cubic metres of oil equivalents (Sm3 o.e.). They present high, low, and base estimates. These all indicate production decline towards 2050 but differ in the degrees to which areas are explored for new resources and technology is developed to exploit reserves. The base and high scenarios are consistent with most new developments being marginal and often developed close or connected to existing infrastructure. DNV (2024a) estimates are close to the base scenario presented in Figure 6-4. About half of the remaining offshore gas production in 2050 will likely be used to scale production of ‘blue’ hydrogen and derivatives such as ammonia (DNV, 2024a) in pathways involving steam reforming natural gas with CCS to reduce associated carbon emissions.
Figure 6-3 Offshore oil and gas as a share of total value added in the Norwegian economy
Source Statistics Norway, 2025a
Figure 6-4 Three production pathways for fossil-fuel production on the Norwegian Continental Shelf
Source Norwegian Offshore Directorate, 2024
6.4 Low-carbon technologies in the ocean space
6.4.1 Carbon capture and storage
By 2030, the global capacity of carbon capture and storage is expected to quadruple, and CCS is expected to capture 6% of global CO2 emissions by 2050 (DNV, 2025b). This is a large increase from today but falls significantly short of what is required to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. CCS will primarily be applied in hard-to-abate manufacturing sectors such as steel and cement production, for gas and hydrogen production, and in combination with bioenergy use. In the maritime sector, implementation of onboard CCS is expected from 2040 onwards (DNV, 2025b), with a first commercial-scale pilot of Finnish manufacturer Wärtsilä’s onboard CCS system on the Norwegian-owned LPG tanker Clipper Eris in 2025 (Maritimt Forum, 2025).
Carbon capture plants are planned or under commissioning in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. The North Sea area has a strategic advantage in CCS due to existing offshore infrastructure and world-leading offshore industry clusters, making Denmark and Norway well-positioned to lead on storage of captured CO2 in retired gas wells off the coast. CO2 capture has also previously been applied in the oil and gas industry for EOR (enhanced oil recovery), injecting CO2 into existing reservoirs to increase pressure and thereby increase oil production while trapping the CO2 underground. The subsea injection systems for Northern Lights CCS in Norway are controlled from the existing Oseberg A platform, and both the Bifrost and Greensand Future projects in Denmark will make use of offshore platforms previously used in the oil industry.
The newly opened Northern Lights in Western Norway has a current storage capacity of 1.5 million tonnes of CO2 annually, and the project has received official approval for a phase 2 which will increase capacity to 5 million tonnes. This, the world’s first full-scale supply chain for CCS, began operating in 2025. The CO2 was first captured at the newly-built carbon capture plant at Heidelberg Materials, South of Oslo, then transported on the specially designed CO2-carrier ship Northern Pioneer to final storage at Northern Lights. For the project’s next phase, storage agreements have been signed with several partners, such as Stockholm Exergi in Sweden, Ørsted in Denmark, and Yara in the Netherlands (DNV, 2025b).
6.4.2 Blue and green hydrogen, and ammonia
DNV’s Energy Transition Outlook for Norway (2024b) forecasts that production of blue hydrogen – made from natural gas coupled with CCS – will increase and peak in 2040 to supply Europe’s increasing demand. Production of blue hydrogen, and hydrogen derivatives such as ammonia and e-fuels (mainly e-methanol), will drive a continued demand for Norwegian natural gas. The maritime sector will be a main demand driver for ammonia and e-fuels.
Green hydrogen production – hydrogen produced through renewables-powered electrolysis – is also expected to pick up towards 2050. Countries with an excess of renewable and affordable electricity will have an advantage; however, the EU and US both have regulatory frameworks with clear requirements for electrolysis-based hydrogen. Starting in 2028, the EU will require green hydrogen production to be powered by additional renewable electricity that would not exist in the absence of hydrogen production – for instance, electricity produced by offshore wind (DNV, 2025a). This is to ensure that hydrogen production does not conflict with renewable electricity consumption targets.
Hydrogen will need specialized infrastructure for distribution, storage, and bunkering. Most will be transported through medium-distance pipelines, of which some will be repurposed natural gas pipelines to reduce cost. Ammonia and e-methanol will also need bunkering infrastructure but can use existing distribution and storage infrastructure currently used for global ammonia trade and transport in other industries (DNV, 2025a).
6.5 Opportunities and barriers
6.5.1 Growth opportunities for Nordic offshore energy
Knowledge transfer from offshore oil and gas to low-carbon offshore technologies: Technologies such as offshore and marine structures, including subsea technology, can be successfully repurposed for uses in offshore wind and carbon capture and storage, as well as seabed mining (see Chapter 9). Seabed and geological data gathered for purposes such as oil and gas exploration can be reused for decisions on siting several low-carbon offshore technologies, such as identification of offshore reservoirs for carbon storage. For offshore suppliers, offshore wind already represents a venue for technology transfers from offshore oil and gas to drive significant exports (COWI, 2024; Menon Economics, 2025).
Standardization of concepts for offshore wind: This a likely prerequisite for reductions in costs and project development time. Energy system forecasts commonly assume positive feedback between cost reductions and cumulative capacity to account for learning, including in offshore wind (DNV, 2025a; d). Standard solutions (e.g. set turbine sizes, foundations) create repeatability in projects and reduce uncertainty regarding technical requirements for the marine engineering and construction supply chain (e.g. construction vessel capabilities and port restrictions).
Multi-use and co-location: Co-use of space has gained a lot of research interest in areas where there are big plans for offshore wind, such as in southern North Sea countries like the Netherlands, Germany, and Denmark (Nordic Energy Research, 2023). See Section 6.2 for several concrete examples of this, including co-location of offshore wind with aquaculture and other offshore activities.
Synergies with nature protection and restoration: Offshore wind can indirectly have positive effects on conservation as certain human activities, such as fishing and shipping, may be restricted in the developed areas (see also Section 4.3). These effects have led offshore wind farms being described as de facto marine reserves, creating a win-win outcome for renewables and marine protection (Fitkov-Norris et al., 2025). Wind farms in areas previously impacted by bottom trawling can reduce a major stressor and facilitate recovery of sensitive species. By providing a refuge for demersal fish species such as cod and sandeel, wind farms can deliver ecosystem benefits, including feeding, spawning, and recruitment areas. In turn, this could increase productivity in these areas. Spillover effects from such areas can positively impact surrounding areas that are still accessible to fisheries (Galparsoro et al., 2022). These circumstances may require more selective fishing practices, a change in use of fishing gear, and careful attention to coexistence between offshore wind and fisheries (see also Chapter 4).
Repurposing of offshore infrastructure: This can reduce the investment cost burden for low-carbon technologies such as CCS and hydrogen, while also reducing the material footprint of new infrastructure. It can also reduce the risks of stranded assets. The costs associated with decommissioning offshore oil and gas are likely to be very high, and finding alternative uses for these structures can be beneficial both economically and environmentally (DNV, 2025d).
6.5.2 Barriers to an efficient energy transition
Area use and spatial planning: Offshore wind requires significant amounts of ocean area. Insufficient allocation of area in marine spatial plans can slow growth in offshore renewables. Inclusive marine spatial planning processes can reduce the risk of competition for space with other actors, while taking into consideration the role of ecosystems. The EU Maritime Spatial Planning Directive mandates development of spatial plans for the EEZs, and current plans in Denmark, Finland, and Sweden therefore allocate space for offshore wind while taking other sectors into account (Directive 2014/89/EU, 2014). In Norway, the ocean management plans exist but are not legally binding, and the Ministry of Energy is responsible for allocating area for offshore wind (Ehler, 2021).
Permitting: Permitting systems vary by country, with Denmark, Finland, and Norway using a centralized approach where the responsible government agency opens and auctions out area and aligns this with the development of offshore electricity grids (WindEurope, 2024a; European Commission, 2024a-b). Sweden’s approach differs, with its use of a so-called ‘open-door’ system assigning more of the planning efforts to the developers (WindEurope, 2024a), including requirements for environmental surveys and coordination of spatial planning with the local authorities (Malafry and Öhman, 2022).
Grid connections: Expanding grids to accommodate new power production such as offshore wind also require large investment and is the responsibility of transmission system operators (TSOs) in their respective countries. Large-scale infrastructure for which TSOs are responsible includes export cables, offshore substations, and prospective energy islands planned in the Danish North Sea and on Bornholm, but which face delays due to high costs (DNV, 2025d).
Strained supply chains: Constraints on access to materials (e.g. steel), components (e.g. permanent magnets for wind turbines), and infrastructure (e.g. ports and construction vessels, see also DNV (2025d)), can constitute major bottlenecks in offshore wind. Many key port areas in Nordic cities have been redeveloped with housing or urban amenities (Donovan et al., 2021), reducing the supply of potential coastal sites for industrial activity (see text box in Chapter 7). Offshore oil and gas, and offshore wind, often compete in a global market for the same construction vessels (DNV, 2025d). When high oil and gas prices boost their producers’ revenues, offshore wind will often struggle to hire construction vessels, an example of capital-intensive assets being prioritized for uses related to fossil fuels.
The potential for other emerging offshore renewables
‘Emerging offshore renewables’ here refer to those other than offshore wind. Examples include technologies for floating solar power; tidal barrage – using the difference between high and low tides to produce energy by forcing the flow through a barrier; tidal stream – generators directly in the tidal stream without obstructing the flow; ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC); and marine current power (DNV, 2025a). DNV (2025a) argues that these are most likely to serve niche markets such as small island states, or as part of ‘multi-use’ solutions that couple power generation with other production systems offshore (e.g. concepts for seawater desalination or aquaculture farm power supplies). In these cases, energy imports or grid connections could be costly, thereby justifying the investment in novel types of offshore renewables.
Floating solar PV has been proposed mainly for inland bodies of water, with less saltwater intrusion, but offshore concepts have also been suggested. Floating solar is also considered in combination with offshore wind – for example, Dutch-Norwegian SolarDuck’s demonstration project installed in an RWE-operated wind farm offshore Holland (SolarDuck, 2024). Furthermore, Norwegian start-up Alotta has installed floating solar power at several fish farms, reducing, but not eliminating, the need for diesel generators at fish farms in Norway and Chile (Alotta, 2025).
Tidal energy: Swedish company Minesto operates one tidal power plant in Hestfjord in the Faroe Islands. Minesto’s concept is a submerged kite anchored to the seabed, with the most recently commissioned version having a 1.2 MW power rating. The company aims to scale up operations to deliver 200 MW power generation capacity to the grid, thereby contributing to the Faroese ambition of 100% renewable energy by 2030 (SEV, 2025).
6.6 Scenarios for the Nordic offshore energy sector
Nature First | The Nordics nearly close the implementation gap with the political ambitions for offshore wind, while emphasizing coexistence with other sustainable ocean industries and the environment. Successful development of floating offshore wind and of power-to-X solutions to produce green hydrogen. Other offshore renewables see some uptake, particularly in the Faroe Islands. Realization of nature-inclusive design and co-use options for aquaculture production in offshore wind farms to maximize value of output per area and reduce overall human footprint at sea. Europe decarbonizes at a quick pace, but still with an implementation gap relative to EU net-zero targets. Norway follows the ‘low’ trajectory for offshore oil and gas as presented by the Norwegian Offshore Directorate (2024), see Figure 6-4. Offshore CCS initiatives are developed, with few project failures relative to planned projects. |
Constant Compromise | The Nordics do not completely overcome barriers related to long project development cycles and supply chain bottlenecks, although offshore wind costs will come down. The region sees substantial shortfall compared to the stated political ambitions for offshore wind generation capacity. Offshore oil and gas in Norway follow the base trajectory of Figure 6-4, with blue hydrogen production laying claim to an increasing share of the natural gas output. |
Regional Rivalry | The Nordics exercise caution on energy security, prolonging Norwegian fossil-fuel exports to the EU to reduce further the dependency on energy imports (Russian natural gas and LNG from other regions). There will be fewer investments in offshore wind, particularly detrimental to development of floating offshore wind. Most new development happens in the Danish EEZ. Shallow water areas are prioritized for development, and potentially at the expense of fisheries and environmental considerations. Additionally, military concerns retain their precedence in permitting decisions, limiting the potential for new build-out in the Baltic Sea. Offshore wind that is being built out will see stricter security requirements, including cybersecurity and surveillance. Ocean monitoring systems installed with focus on surveillance, including ‘dual-use’ equipment for monitoring, biodiversity management, and maritime surveillance. |
Growth First | Continued offshore oil and gas exploration and development of new areas (Barents Sea and Greenland), due to high social acceptance for fossil fuels and high demand in an EU focused on energy stability. Correspondingly, there is little appetite for floating wind projects with high initial costs. Some fixed offshore wind projects will be developed (subsidy-free), mainly in Denmark. These developments will increasingly be standardized to realize cost reduction benefits. Fewer mitigation actions are taken to reduce the environmental impact of offshore energy production, including carbon emissions. |