Offshore Wind Technologies and Risk Analysis

Offshore Wind Technologies and Risk Analysis

Bonnie Ram

Energetics Incorporated

Lansing, MichiganMarch 25, 2009

Bonnie Ram

Energetics Incorporated

Lansing, MichiganMarch 25, 2009

2

Energetics supports complex science

and technology

RD&D programs

Energetics supports complex science

and technology

RD&D programs

Overview

• Products and Services:– Strategic planning and analysis – Partnership building and

implementation– Visions and technology roadmaps– Technology assessments and

performance metrics– RD&D program management – Environmental analysis and compliance– Renewable energy technology assessment– Conference management and facilitation services

3

Overview

• Clients: Federal Government, State Governments, Industry Associations, National Laboratories, Universities, Private Companies

• Staff: 120 professionals• Offices:

– Columbia, MD (HQ)– Washington, DC– Morgantown, WV– Arlington, VA

• Ownership: Established in 1979. Since 1995, wholly owned subsidiary of VSE Corporation.

4

Bonnie Ram

• Consultant to DOE and the National Wind Technology Center of NREL since 2001– “20% Wind Energy by 2030”– International Energy Agency: Co-author of first Offshore

Wind Annex – Wave & Current Technology Deployment Strategies– First Deep Water Workshops with oil & gas experts– Facilitator and Founder of Bats and Wind Energy

Cooperative

• Environmental Analyst - NEPA compliance and strategic advice for a dozen years

• Other experience– Transboundary and nuclear waste management– Naval ship dismantlement and recycling– Energy analysis in Southern Africa

5

Presentation Overview

• Why renewables?• Lessons learned from

Europe• Potential risks to

environmental and human systems

• Offshore wind challenges in the Great Lakes

• The need for integrated risk analysis

• What is risk assessment and uncertainty analysis?

• RecommendationsPhotos: Courtesy GE Wind

6

Renewables are a Bridge to Low Carbon Portfolio

• Near-term reductions of carbon & air emissions– Public health

• Climate change mitigation

• Energy security• Diversifying local

energy supplies • Reduction in water use• Regional economic development

and green jobs - Tapping local talent

Offshore Wind in Europe Seas

8

Germany Great BritainDenmark

Belgium Netherlands

Europeans: Planning on a National Scale

Slide Adapted from Jos Beurskens, ECN, Netherlands

9

Danish Before-After-Control-Impact (BACI) Studies

• Sea mammals – harbor porpoises and seals

• Fish• Birds• Hydrography• Coastal effects• Artificial reef• Socioeconomics• Community acceptance• Noise emissions• Temperature gradients around

the cables• Electromagnetic fields• Benthic fauna• Viewshed

Photo credits: Wageningen IMARES

Over 350 Studies: No Signs of “Unacceptable” Risks

Danish Offshore Monitoring Program for Nysted & Horns Rev Projects

U.K. Strategic Zones and Competitive Rounds of Projects

Beatrice Wind Farm Demonstration, Scotland

German Research Platforms in the North & Baltic Sea

Netherlands – We@Sea

IEA Annex XXIIIImage accessed from website http://www.fino-offshore.com

11

Lessons Learned from Europe

• Regional zone planning– Strategic Environmental Assessment

(similar to our Programmatic EIS)– Marine spatial planning

• Policy and regulatory certainties• Need early and sustained public

involvement• Committed state leadership• Financial support for baseline

studies– Variety of sites and ecosystems– Replication of methodologies

• Need integrated risk framework

Deploying Offshore Wind in the Great Lakes: Challenges

Deploying Offshore Wind in the Great Lakes: Challenges

Galveston, TX Met Tower

179 feet installed at Horseshoe Shoal

13

Environmental Risks (physical/biological)

• Seabed sediments• Scour pits• Riparian and coastal

processes• Seabed contamination • Water and air quality• Protected sites and

species• Benthic ecology• Fish and shellfish/

Fisheries• Birds

• Marine mammals and bats

• Cables and pipelines• Military activities• Disposal areas• Electronic and

magnetic fields• Onshore grid

connection• Noise and vibrations• Cumulative risks• Climate change• Decommissioning

14

Human Risks

• Worker health and safety• Integrity of shoreline communities• Tourism and recreation• Aesthetics• Cultural/historic views• Property values• Conflicting uses/accidents• Shipping and navigation• Noise• Radar/radio disturbances

(military/commercial uses)• Transmission lines• Electromagnetic fields• Marine archaeology• Cumulative risks (e.g., air quality)

15

It’s Not One Type of Risk (Impacts) and It’s Many Sites

Land-based examples• Raptors in CA• Bats in the East• Military radar across sitesOffshore• East Coast – recreation and beach tourism• Eastern shore – migratory birds• Southeast region – right whales

Why the Need for Integrated Risk Framework?

• Risks determined by regulations, expert opinions, and politics

• Sector-by-sector risk analysis leads to “lopsided”decisionmaking, e.g., wildlife risks

• Call for more data does not lead to better decisions, judgment about significant risks or priority research gaps

• Need to understand who will tolerate which risks

• Allows decisionmakers to move forward with uncertainties

17

What Does the Decisionmaker Get with Risk Analysis?

• Specifics on probability and consequence

• Allows comparison of impacts, including ecological and human

• Includes analysis of uncertainty

• Building blocks for decisionmaking

18

A Simple Model of Risk

Risk = f {xi,pi,ci}

Where,

xi = Adverse effect i (What can happen?)

pi = Probability of xi (How likely is it?)

ci = Consequences of xi (So what?)

Source: Kaplan and Garrick, 1981

19

Two Risk ModelsModel 1 – Command and Control

Source: Morgan, et.al. 2007

Identify the

problem

Identify the

problem

Solve the problem

Solve the problem

Do researchDo research

Gain full understanding of all relevant issues

Gain full understanding of all relevant issues

Identify policy optionsIdentify policy options

Choose the optimal policyChoose the optimal policy

20

Model 2 – Adaptive Management

Source: Morgan, et.al.

Refine problem identification as

needed

Refine problem identification as

needed

Assess what you can and what you can’t know (at least now)

Assess what you can and what you can’t know (at least now)

Identify adaptive policies and choose one that

currently looks best and present options

Identify adaptive policies and choose one that

currently looks best and present options

Implement decision and observe how it works

Implement decision and observe how it works

Reassess risks in light of new understanding

Reassess risks in light of new understanding

Assess the riskAssess the risk

Continue risk

research

Continue risk

research

Identify the problem

Identify the problem

Risk Characterization

23

Determining Risk Tolerability (continued)

24

Management Options (continued)

25

Why is Uncertainty Analysis Essential?

• Assists in prioritizing research: – How reducible are different uncertainty types?– What issues will give greatest traction on

understanding overall risk?– What methods are likely to be most successful?– When should the ‘precautionary principle’ prevail?

• Provides guidance on the selection of a management and mitigation strategy

Recommendationsfor Multi-layered Steps

• Validate wind resource assessments– LiDAR vs. Met Towers

• Continue technology R&D– Fresh water and ice loads

• Designate renewable energy zones with defined regional demand– Map where are the good sites

• Power purchase agreements• One-stop shop for permitting/lease fees • Commitment to adaptive management• Tap into local university/NGO talents

Recommendations for Multi-layered Steps

• Initiate integrated risk analysis• Establish a knowledge base for

comparative risks and benefits of energy options

• Compile baseline studies from existing resources

• Identify the most significant risks = research priorities

• Sustain public perception studies and dialogues

28

Bonnie Rambram@energetics.com

Thank you for supporting this research:

U.S. Department of Energy Office of Wind and Hydropower Technologies Program and National Wind Technology Center of the National

Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)

Note: The views and opinions expressed in this presentation do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. DOE, NREL, or any agency

or entities thereof.

29

National Research CouncilRisk Decision Process

Source: National Academy of Sciences 1996

30

Selected References;North American Projects

• Great Lakes Wind Collaborative– http://www.glc.org/energy/wind

• Michigan Great Lakes Offshore Wind Permitting: Dry Run. Final Report (Michael Klepinger). May 2008

– Overview of evolving regulatory requirements• “Michigan’s Offshore Wind Potential,” Michigan State University. Land

Policy Institute. October 2008.– Wind resource assessment and potential

• MMS Alternate Energy Site – Environmental Studies

• http://www.mms.gov/offshore/AlternativeEnergy/Studies.htm– Cape Wind Project

• http://www.mms.gov/offshore/AlternativeEnergy/index.htm• American Wind Energy Association

• http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_offshore.html• Naikun Offshore Wind (British Columbia)

• http://www.naikun.ca/the_project/index.php

31

Selected References: Risk Analysis

• NRC.1983. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. Washington: National Academy Press. (red book)

• NRC. 1996. Stern, Paul and Harvey V. Fineberg, eds. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington, DC: National Academies Press (orange book).

• Gregory, Robin. 2003. Incorporating Value Tradeoffs into Community-Based Environmental Risk Decisions. Environmental Values 11: 461-488.

• NRC. November 2008. Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

• U.S. EPA. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. 1998. U.S. EPA, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC, EPA/630/R095/002F.

• Pidgeon, N., R. Kasperson, and P. Slovic. (eds) 2005. The Social Amplification of Risk. London: Cambridge University Press.

• Morgan, M. Granger et al. 2007. Best Practice Approaches for Characterizing, Communicating, and Incorporating Scientific Uncertainty in, Climate Decision Making, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

32

Selected European References

• European Commission. 2003. “External Costs: Research results on socio- environmental damages due to electricity and transport.” Directorate General for Research. Brussels. http://externe.jrc.es

• European offshore resources with word searches– http://www.offshorewindenergy.org/

• European Wind Energy Association. Offshore Wind Statistics, 2009

– http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/statistics/Offshore_Wind_Farms_2008.pdf

• Council of Europe – Summary of bird studies– http://www.coe.int/t/e/Cultural_Co-operation/

Environment/Nature_and_biological_diversity/ Nature_protection/sc23_inf12e.pdf?L=E

33

Selected European Programs and Studies

Danish Offshore Monitoring Program for Nysted & Horns Rev Projects

http://uk.nystedhavmoellepark.dk/frames.asp

http://www.hornsrev.dk/Engelsk/default_ie.htm

U.K. Offshore Program

Strategic Environmental Assessments

Collaborative Offshore Wind Research Into The Environment (COWRIE)

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/newscontent/offshore_wind_energy

http://www.offshore-sea.org.uk/site/scripts/sea_archive.php

http://www.offshorewindfarms.co.uk/Pages/COWRIE

Beatrice Wind Farm Demonstration, Scotland

http://beatricewind.co.uk/downloads/default.asp

German Research Platforms and Environmental Studies in the North & Baltic Sea

http://www.fino-offshore.comhttp://www.minos-info.org

Netherlands – We@Sea http://www.we-at-sea.org/index.php