Presentation - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council

murmerlastΠολεοδομικά Έργα

16 Νοε 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 7 μήνες)

53 εμφανίσεις

Mid
-
Atlantic Offshore Wind Power and
Fisheries

Prof. Jeremy Firestone

Alison Bates

University of Delaware

College of Earth, Ocean & Environment

August
13, 2013


STATE OF THE

WORLD OFFSHORE WIND
INDUSTRY

Figures and Tables Source: EWEA

1

2

3

4

5

Substructures Cumulative

6

www.theengineer.co.uk


European Substructures 2012

7

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

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

Example offshore system layout from:

Søren

Juel

Petersen,
Rambøll

Wind Energy (talk at UD, 2 Oct 06)

10

11

Nysted

Offshore Wind Farm, Denmark


Nov. 2006

OFFSHORE WIND IN THE
UNITED STATES


PLANNING FOR
CONFLICTS AND
COMPATIBILITIES

12



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

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 Fishermen’s 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

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

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

19

20

21

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
?



S
tart 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

23

Mid
-
Atlantic Vessel
Traffic
Density

and potential Wind Energy Areas (Purple) if Ships continue
status quo transits

24

Wind
Energy Areas that c
ould
b
e developed if
S
hips transit
further from shore

Redirected
Traffic Route and
New
Wind Energy
Areas

Cost
-
Benefit Considerations

Commercial Vessel

Costs


Greater labor costs



Greater
f
uel 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


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

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

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

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
LÜBECK

The European Experience


Horns Rev (Denmark)


species richness and abundance increased
after installation, likely due to more prey availability
(Dong Energy,
2006)



OWEZ (
N
etherlands)


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 (
B
elgium)


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)



F
rom 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

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

jf@
udel.edu

abates@udel.edu


www.carbonfree.udel.edu

www.ocean.udel.edu/windpower

Thank you