0. Mid-Atlantic Offshore Wind Power and Fisheries
Prof. Jeremy Firestone
Alison Bates
University of Delaware
College of Earth, Ocean & Environment
August 13, 2013

1. STATE of the World Offshore Wind Industry
Figures and Tables Source: EWEA

6. Substructures Cumulative

7. European Substructures 2012

8. 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)

9. Spacing Moving toward 8x8 rotor diameters
Moving toward 1.2 km to 1.3km between wind turbines
( nautical miles)

10. Example offshore system layout from:
Søren Juel Petersen, Rambøll Wind Energy (talk at UD, 2 Oct 06)

11. Nysted Offshore Wind Farm, Denmark – Nov. 2006

12. Offshore wind in the United states planning for conflicts and compatibilities

13. The largest shallow offshore resource in US is in the Mid-Atlantic
330,000 MW
Average current use: 73,000 MW
Kempton, et al 2007

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

22. 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

23. Mid-Atlantic Vessel Traffic Density and potential Wind Energy Areas (Purple) if Ships continue status quo transits

24. Wind Energy Areas that could be developed if Ships transit further from shore

25. Redirected Traffic Route and New Wind Energy Areas

26. Cost-Benefit Considerations
Commercial Vessel
Costs
Offshore Wind Power
Benefits
Greater labor costs
Greater fuel costs
Earlier ship replacement
Greater social costs
(e.g., carbon and SO2 emissions)
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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. Noise Noise mitigation measures can reduce the impact on fish
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
Image: HYDROTECHNIK LÜBECK

31. 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)

32. 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

33. Thank you jf@udel.edu abates@udel.edu www.carbonfree.udel.edu