Transcript of Mid-Atlantic Offshore Wind Power and Fisheries Prof. Jeremy Firestone Alison Bates University of...
- Slide 1
- Mid-Atlantic Offshore Wind Power and Fisheries Prof. Jeremy
Firestone Alison Bates University of Delaware College of Earth,
Ocean & Environment August 13, 2013
- Slide 2
- STATE OF THE WORLD OFFSHORE WIND INDUSTRY Figures and Tables
Source: EWEA 1
- Slide 3
- 2
- Slide 4
- 3
- Slide 5
- 4
- Slide 6
- 5
- Slide 7
- Substructures Cumulative 6 www.theengineer.co.uk
- Slide 8
- European Substructures 2012 7
- Slide 9
- New Generation Turbines Siemens 6MW, 154m rotor Alstom, 6MW,
150m rotor Areva, 5MW, 135m rotor Repower, 5MW, 128m rotor Vestas,
7MW, 164m rotor (planned) Mitsuhishi, 7MW, 165m rotor (planned)
8
- Slide 10
- Spacing Moving toward 8x8 rotor diameters Moving toward 1.2 km
to 1.3km between wind turbines (0.65 - 0.7 nautical miles) 9
www.vestas.com
- Slide 11
- Example offshore system layout from: Sren Juel Petersen, Rambll
Wind Energy (talk at UD, 2 Oct 06) 10
- Slide 12
- 11 Nysted Offshore Wind Farm, Denmark Nov. 2006
- Slide 13
- OFFSHORE WIND IN THE UNITED STATES PLANNING FOR CONFLICTS AND
COMPATIBILITIES 12
- Slide 14
- 330,000 MW Average current use: 73,000 MW Kempton, et al 2007
The largest shallow offshore resource in US is in the Mid-Atlantic
13
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Mid-Atlantic Offshore Wind Projects New York (NYPA/LIPA/Con-ed)
up to 700 MW100 turbines, preliminary stage New Jersey 1100 MW
Planned NJ BPU denies approval of Fishermens Energy Demonstration
Project Delaware (Bluewater, 230 MW) Has federal lease, but
long-term power purchase contracts abandoned. Maryland Minimum
200MW planned per state legislation Virginia Lease sale on
September 4, 2013 Research leases North Carolina 15
- Slide 17
- Offshore Wind Planning Areas Department of Energy Goals 10GW by
2020 54GW by 2030 Department of the Interior early planning for
wind development Wind Energy Areas in the Mid-Atlantic 16
- Slide 18
- Marine Spatial Planning More extensively used in Europe to
assist in planning for offshore wind projects and other existing
ocean uses National Ocean Policy signed in 2010 Mid-Atlantic
Regional Planning Body State, Federal & Tribal representatives
Stakeholder input 17
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- 19
- Slide 21
- 20
- Slide 22
- 21
- Slide 23
- MSP: How to simply? How to Quantify Tradeoffs? In an
increasingly crowded ocean, where uses evolved organically without
regard to other users, how do we put aside our parochial interests,
and advance the wider public interest? Start be examining ways in
which we might re-arrange the deck chairs Examine where there are
potentially large gains from trades, particularly, where costs are
minimal Easiest is to look at just two uses at a time Samoteskul,
et al 2013 22
- Slide 24
- 23 Mid-Atlantic Vessel Traffic Density and potential Wind
Energy Areas (Purple) if Ships continue status quo transits
- Slide 25
- 24 Wind Energy Areas that could be developed if Ships transit
further from shore
- Slide 26
- Redirected Traffic Route and New Wind Energy Areas
- Slide 27
- Cost-Benefit Considerations Commercial Vessel Costs Greater
labor costs Greater fuel costs Earlier ship replacement Greater
social costs (e.g., carbon and SO 2 emissions) Offshore Wind Power
Benefits Lower materials and installation costs & lower debt
payments True, even with less power generation per installed MW,
leading to more turbines Decreased O&M costs Smaller
transmission losses Lower social costs 26
- Slide 28
- Commercial Fishing How to account for commercial fishing as a
valuable existing ocean use Look for ways for the two industries to
be compatible Evaluate the effects of wind development on both fish
species and on fishing as an industry Image: Coonamessett Farm
Foundation 27
- Slide 29
- Artificial Reefs Scour protection materials are installed at
the base of turbine foundations Potential for attraction or habitat
creation for fish species by adding seafloor complexity Material
selection can in part determine the species assemblages that will
be formed Synthetic Fronds Gravel Protection Boulders 28
www.dongenergy.org
- Slide 30
- Electromagnetic Fields Cables connect between wind turbines and
to shore Electric fields are shielded, magnetic are not Many fish
and crustaceans are sensitive to magnetic fields; elasmobranchs use
EM fields for hunting prey Several species have exhibited
behavioral changes in response underwater cables Altered swimming
patterns Congregation near cable Avoidance to cross cable 29
www.futurelab.com
- Slide 31
- Noise Fish use sound for communication, orientation,
identification or predators and prey, and to find conspecifics
Noise can be generated during wind farm construction, operation and
decommission Vessels Pile driving Blades Cutting and removal of
foundation Impact depends on many factors Behavior Prior exposure
Hearing capability Stress, altered behavior, avoidance, changes in
growth/reproduction, injury, mortality Noise mitigation measures
can reduce the impact on fish 30 Image: HYDROTECHNIK LBECK
- Slide 32
- The European Experience Horns Rev (Denmark) species richness
and abundance increased after installation, likely due to more prey
availability (Dong Energy, 2006) OWEZ (Netherlands) overall fish
species richness and CPUE were unchanged, although some species
showed an increase (e.g. sole, whiting) and others decreased (e.g.
lesser weaver) (Lindeboom et al., 2011) Bligh Bank (Belgium)
significant decrease in benthic fish density one year after
construction; neighboring Thorntonbank significant density
differences in only part of project area (Coates & Vincx, 2010)
Lillgrund (Sweden) no major effects on diversity or abundance of
benthic fish communities (Bergtstrom et al., 2013) From a
conservation perspective, impact on populations more important than
impact on individual fish; long-term, cumulative impacts on fish
populations is an ongoing focal point of research (Hawkins, 2011)
31
- Slide 33
- Wind/Fisheries Research at UD Identify gear/fishing
classifications to look at the industry impacts Quantify the
economic impact of conflict areas by assuming levels of de-facto
exclusion due to gear restrictions or safety Suggest areas for wind
development that would be least conflicting both spatially and
economically as the MSP process moves forward 32
- Slide 34
- jf@udel.edu abates@udel.edu www.carbonfree.udel.edu
www.ocean.udel.edu/windpower Thank you