Offshore Wind Energy Bonnie Ram Energetics Incorporated Southeast and Mid-Atlantic Regional Wind Summit Raleigh, NC September 20, 2005 Research sponsored by DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Download ReportTranscript Offshore Wind Energy Bonnie Ram Energetics Incorporated Southeast and Mid-Atlantic Regional Wind Summit Raleigh, NC September 20, 2005 Research sponsored by DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Offshore Wind Energy Bonnie Ram Energetics Incorporated Southeast and Mid-Atlantic Regional Wind Summit Raleigh, NC September 20, 2005 Research sponsored by DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory Agenda • • • • • • • Why Offshore Technology Overview Ocean Jurisdictions Current Projects Learning Curves What We are Learning from the Europeans References Cost of Energy on Land NSP 107 MW Lake Benton wind farm 4 cents/kWh (unsubsidized) 1979: 40 cents/kWh 2003: 3.5 to 5.5 cents/kWh at 15 mph sites (30 ft height) • • • Increased Turbine Size R&D Advances Manufacturing Improvements Why Go Offshore? Windy onshore sites are not close to coastal load centers The electric utility grid cannot be easily set up for interstate electric transmission Load centers are close to the offshore wind sites US Population Concentration Graphic Credit: Bruce Bailey AWS Truewind US Wind Resource % area class 3 or above Graphic Credit: GE Energy U.S. Offshore Wind Energy U.S. Offshore Wind Energy Opportunity Resource Region 0 - 30 New England 10.3 Mid-Atlantic 64.3 Great Lakes 15.5 California 0.0 Pacific Northwest 0.0 Total 90.1 GW by Depth (m) 30 - 60 60 - 900 43.5 130.6 126.2 45.3 11.6 193.6 0.3 47.8 1.6 100.4 183.2 517.7 > 900 0.0 30.0 0.0 168.0 68.2 266.2 U.S. Department of Energy Resource Not Yet National Renewable Energy Laboratory Assessed Offshore Wind Projects Worldwide: 617 MW (2004) Proposed Offshore Wind Projects 11,455 MW (through 2010) Location of Existing Offshore Installations Worldwide Source: Wind Directions September 2004 Wind Power’s Significant Impact on National Energy Balance Country % of National Elec. Supply Installed Power (GW) Denmark 20 3.2 Germany 6 16 Spain 5 6.5 Netherlands 2 1 India 0.8 3.2 USA 0.35 6.5 EU (15) 2.5 30 World 0.5 41 > 75,000 jobs Source: Jos Beurskens, ECN Wind Potential by Depth 5 - 50 Nautical Miles Offshore 70 Fixed Bottom Tripod/Lattice/Guyed Floating Systems Monopiles 60 Gravity Base 20 New England Mid-Atlantic California Pacific Northwest Current Wind Projects 30 10 180 170 160 150 140 130 > 180 Depth (m) 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 0 10 Potential (GW) 50 40 151 123 GW GW Fixed Bottom Substructure Technology Proven Designs Monopile Foundation Most Common Type Minimal Footprint Depth Limit 25-m Low stiffness Gravity Foundation Larger Footprint Depth Limit? Stiffer but heavy Graphics source: http://www.offshorewindenergy.org/ Future Tripod/Truss Foundation No wind experience Oil and gas to 450-m Larger footprint Talisman project How big will wind turbines be? 2010 1980 150 m2 2005 1985 250 m2 . 1990 800 m2 1995 2000 1,800 m2 A= 12,000 m2 2.97 acres 3,700 m2 Current Technology Deepwater Platform Concepts Wind Turbine on a Spar Buoy Oil Rig on a tension leg platform -TLP Wind Turbine on a TLP Wind Turbine on Tripod Tower Hannevig-Bone – Sea Breeze Partnership DOWNVInD Talisman Energy Wind Turbine on Dutch Tri-floater Oil Rig on a Spar Buoy Offshore Wind Technology Challenges • Resource assessment • Wave loading & design criteria • Integrate/optimize marinized turbines, support structures • Grid integration • Ocean installation, O&M • Social acceptance Typical Offshore Wind Farm Layout Ocean Jurisdictions Not to Scale Adapted from US Ocean Commission Primary Jurisdictions for Ocean Renewables • Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Independent Federal Agency – First jurisdictional case with AquaEnergy wave power project • Definition of powerhouse applies to ocean technologies – First legal exception for tidal power project – Approves link to the power grid • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration US Department of Commerce – Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (Specific legislation for OTEC) – Marine sanctuaries Primary Jurisdictions in the Ocean • U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACOE) Department of Defense – Navigational obstructions in federal waters (Section 10) – No longer the lead agency for offshore wind permits – Approvals for transmission lines • Minerals Management Service Department of Interior – Oil and gas leasing – Sand and gravel program – Energy Policy Act of 2005 gave MMS lead agency status for permitting of non-extractive energy facilities on the OCS • 270 days to develop new regulations • Interim guidance for new projects Jurisdictional Unknowns • Transition from USACOE to MMS with the Energy Policy Act 2005 – Standards and codes – Multiple agency authorities • Interim guidelines for new projects • Designating planning “zones” – Multiple uses of the sea • Public involvement • Leases, Fees and Royalties • Ocean Renewables (FERC?) Significant Role for State and Local Authorities • Selected State Permits & Approvals – – – – – Environmental Quality Review Boards (NEPA analysis) Coastal Zone Management Programs Siting Boards for Energy Facilities and Transmission Lines State Parks, Forests, and Cultural & Historic Resources Tidal Wetlands, Coastal Erosion Hazard, Water Quality • Assessing Environmental and Health Benefits – Renewable Portfolio Standards requirements – Clean Air Act • Local Land Use Entities – Town Planning Boards – Zoning Boards – By-laws (e.g., setbacks) Community Involvement Primary Objective of the Permit Process is Public Involvement – Assessing public interest – Educating broad group of stakeholders – Uncertainty of potential impacts on the human & physical environment Viewshed Environmental tradeoffs – Economic benefits Potential Effects/Benefits • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Viewshed Sea mammals Fisheries Avian Hydrography & Coastal effects Seabed Artificial Reef Socioeconomics Community ownership Noise/Vibrations Radar/Radio Disturbances (military/commercial uses) Transmission Lines Subsea Cables Electromagnetic Fields Navigation & Risk collision Air Traffic Safety Marine Archaeology Cumulative Effects (e.g., air quality) U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Permit and NEPA Process Reference: Adapted from USACE presentation, Karen Adams Cape Wind Nantucket Sound • 468 MW = 130 - 3.6 MW GE turbines • About 24 square miles • Two lawsuits • Meteorological Tower installed • Draft EIS issued (Nov. 04) • Lack of political support Cape Wind Project Status Federal Jurisdiction – ENF/USACOE application filed – fall 2001 – DEIS/DEIR – released November 2004 Currently reviewing 5000 comments State Jurisdiction – Energy Facility Siting Board filing – fall 2002 – Decision approving the Cape Wind project was released May 2005 CZMA determination pending Cape Wind Visual Simulation Source: CapeCodToday.com June 15, 2003 Study commissioned by the developer 7 miles off of Craigsville Beach. Scientific Measurement Devices Station 179 feet installed at Horseshoe Shoal NEPA Analysis • Surface and Subsurface Geological Conditions • Wind, Tide and Wave Conditions • Sediment Transport Patterns • Benthic Infauna and Shellfish Resources • Essential Fish Habitat Assessment • Commercial and Recreational Fisheries • Marine Mammals and Threatened & Endangered Species NEPA Analysis (continued) • Avian Risk Assessment • Visual Impact Assessments • Navigational Transit and Vessel Type Assessment • Marine Archaeological/Cultural Resources • Aviation Flight Patterns and Conditions • Shoreline Landfall Conditions Assessments Avian Radar Barge Avian Radar Cape Wind DEIS Section 5.7 Avian Resources No nesting activity impact Piping Plover and Roseate Tern impacts unlikely Various waterbirds and waterfowl may avoid or refrain from activities near the turbines Bird collisions are unlikely to cause population declines Collision mortality of migrating songbirds and shorebirds are expected to be infrequent due to height of flight Post-construction monitoring proposed Long Island Power Authority Long Island Sound 100 -150 MW LIPA - a municipal utility – – Guaranteeing purchase power agreement Substation construction Early public involvement process Strong state political support LIPA selected FPL as developer - May 2004 Long Island Power Authority Jones Beach • April 2005 Section 10 permit application – Public comment period ended August 12, 2005 – Imminent decision on NEPA document • 3/2004 – Aerial and boat surveys weekly during migration seasons & monthly in off-season through next spring • 9/2005 - Marine radar (onshore and offshore) fall and spring • Construction start April 2008 Long Island Visual Simulations 7.5 miles from shore Source: LIPA website www.lipower.org Long Island Visual Simulations 3 miles off off Jones Beach Source: LIPA website www.lipower.org Uncertainties • Regulated Species & Habitats – – – – Ecological risk assessment methods Best available data & standards Quantified environmental benefits Cumulative effects • No national experience with the technology – Need for education and debate • Market-driven development requires due diligence Consistent Policy Needed! • Muddled institutional & legal boundaries – Jurisdictional control shifted to MMS August 2005 – New regulations by May 2006 • No national offshore wind strategy – Federal agencies setting their own policies – Lead role for States – Regional initiatives • Offshore Wind Energy Collaborative (GE, MTC, DOE) Learning Curve • History of land-based permitting – Siting criteria is critical – Need standardized protocols – Lack of baseline data • Need collaborations between industry, government & NGOs to define & fund studies • Viewshed is important – Not near my beach! – “Put it further away in deeper water!” Learning from the Europeans • A national energy policy works – Political will and financial incentives • Climate change motivated their offshore wind policy! Learning From the Europeans • Establishing “Zones” for Development • U.K. Prepared a Strategic Environmental Assessment Danish Approach Centralized Decisionmaking 1998: Ministerial order to build five wind farms 1999: In-principle approval after formal application – Start of preliminary engineering – Start of environmental investigations 2001: Final approval obtained after public hearing and public authority acceptance of EIA report and project proposal Streamlined Approval Process Horns Rev Wind Farm Country: Denmark Location: West Coast Total Capacity: 160 MW Number of Turbines: 80 Distance to Shore: 14-20 km Depth: 6-12 m Capital Costs: 270 million Euro Manufacturer: Vestas Total Capacity: 2 MW Turbine-type: V80 - 80m diameter Hub-height: 70-m Mean Windspeed: 9.7 m/s Annual Energy output: 600 GWh Selected Danish Studies ISSUE Avian SELECTED METHODS AND TECHNOLOGIES •Bird towers •Radar echoes to detect numbers of migrating birds •Airplanes for bird counts & resting birds •Transect lines and development of spatial modeling software •Video/thermal cameras •Infrared cameras or microphone for detecting collisions •Web cameras to detect species Benthic Flora •Study areas size & transect lines and Fauna •Distribution of Benthic Communities at the Wind Farm and along the Cable •Video Cameras Selected Danish Studies ISSUE MONITORING METHODOLOGIES Sea mammals-Porpoises •Stationary & towed porpoise detectors (PODs) •Lab experiments for frequency ranges/sensory physiology •Telemetry complimented by ship monitoring in coastal waters •Airborne surveys Sea mammals-Seals •Satellite tracking •Video camera on mast •Airborne surveys Selected Danish Studies ISSUE MONITORING METHODOLOGIES STUDIES Fisheries Laboratory tests of noise impacts Interviews with fishermen Sand eel catches Hardbottom Communities (artificial reefs) Substrate surveys Noise/ Vibration/ Electromagnetic Fields Vibrations from foundation construction Movement of fish across electrical cable Visual Observations – Radar Ref: Jette Gaarde, Elsam Engineering, Denmark Ref: Jette Gaarde, Elsam Engineering, Denmark Nysted Migrating Birds Operation (2003): Response distance: day = c. 3000m night = c. 1000m Nysted Avian Collisions Assessment spring 2004 Hours of monitoring Number of birds Vertical view 11,284 0 45º view 12,932 3 Assessing Disturbance and Displacement of Seals Ref: Jette Gaarde, Elsam Engineering, Denmark No Significant Impacts during Construction Phase Ref: Jette Gaarde, Elsam Engineering, Denmark High transit activity and less foraging Ref: Jette Gaarde, Elsam Engineering, Denmark Research with the Netherlands/Germany Ref: Jette Gaarde, Elsam Engineering, Denmark Learning From the Europeans Demonstration projects, R&D, and testing are critical Streamlined approval/permitting process is central to timely deployments National governments funding environmental studies • Denmark’s five year program • U.K.’s Strategic Environmental Assessment No significant environmental effects identified to date • Scientifically rigorous results • Before-After-Control-Impact methodologies • Study design and results must be peer reviewed • Preliminary conclusions across sites are lacking Recommendations for State Agencies Verify Offshore Wind Resource Conduct Feasibility Studies Designate development zones & map exclusion areas Set-up Interagency Strategic Team Establish One-stop Shop for Permitting Leverage Resources for Baseline Studies & Support Facilities (testing, R&D) Involve Stakeholders Early Consider Costs and Benefits References Horns Rev and Nysted Ecological Studies (Denmark) http://www.hornsrev.dk/Engelk/default_ie.htm http://uk.nystedhavmoellepark.dk/frames.asp?Page_ID=44&Page_R ef=44&Templates_ID=1 U.K.’s Strategic Environmental Assessment http://www.og.dti.gov.uk/offshore-wind-sea/process/envreport.htm Overview of the UK Offshore Wind Program http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/34_wind_farms_04_02_07.htm Information on offshore activities in the UK http://www.bwea.com/offshore UK’s COWRIE: Collaborative Offshore Wind Research into the Environment http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/15_our_portfolio_04_02_16/39_th e_marine_estate_04_02_06/33_energy_and_telecoms_04_02_09/34 _wind_farms_04_02_07/35_cowrie_04_02_07.htm German government offshore wind strategy (http://www.offshorewind.de/media/article000352/offshore%20strategy%20of%20federa l%20government.pdf) References Germanischer Lloyd WindEnergie GmbH (GL Wind) Research Platform in the North Sea http://www.fino-offshore.com/ German Government/Industry ecological assessment projects http://www.minos-info.org/ European offshore resources with environmental database (COD) http://www.offshorewindenergy.org/ Listing of planned & operational offshore wind farms in Europe http://home.wxs.nl/~windsh/offshoreplans.html Council of Europe – Summary of bird studies http://www.coe.int/t/e/Cultural_Cooperation/Environment/Nature_and_biological_diversity/Nature_prot ection/sc23_inf12e.pdf?L=E National Wind Coordinating Committee meeting on Offshore Wind Developments in the U.S. http://www.nationalwind.org/events/offshore/030701/default.htm NREL Avian Library (Land-based, peer reviewed studies) www.nrel.gov/wind/avian_lit.html References Long Island Offshore Wind Initiative (NGO) http://lioffshorewindenergy.org/ Cape Wind Associates http://www.capewind.org Cape and Islands Offshore Wind Initiative (State energy office) http://www.mtpc.org/offshore/index.htm NJ Offshore Wind Energy Initiative http://www.bpu.state.nj.us/cleanEnergy/FinalNewJerseyDEP.pdf Ocean Renewables Jurisdiction cases with FERC for wave and tidal power http://www.oceanrenewable.com European Wave Energy Thematic Network http://wave-energy.net/ Practical Ocean Management Energy Systems http://www.poemsinc.org/ EPRI series on wave power http://www.e2i.org/ THANK YOU Is This Our Future?