1. 4 thoughts on integrated monitoring for offshore wind farms Gerben de Boer Deltares < Rijkswaterstaat on behalf of Remi Laane EMECO, Deltares < Rijkswaterstaat Dave Mills EMECO, Cefas

2. 1) : Dutch bi-weekly monitoring Rijkswaterstaat N0 3 : < 1974 : 82 1974 – 2000: 117 > 2000: 77

3. 1) : Dutch bi-weekly monitoring Rijkswaterstaat N0 3 : < 1974 : 82 1974 – 2000: 117 > 2000: 77

4. 1) : Dutch bi-weekly monitoring 2 wind farms already! x x Rijkswaterstaat N0 3 : < 1974 : 82 1974 – 2000: 117 > 2000: 77

5. 1) 21 offshore locations 21 wind farms + requests 3 1 source: www.ecn.nl

6. 1) Monitoring strategy: national programs Huge budget cuts lie ahead due to crisis Inertia & legacy national program hampers innovation infrastructure: 2 expensive vessels & hardwired locations monitoring strategy: workflow from before modern sensors Offshore wind farms: 4 points per farm: finally distinction spatial & temporal variability automated HF replaces sub-optimal bi-weekly manual collection wire: water levels, waves ADCP or ADV string CTD rail or string Ferry box Kd: camera + particle sizer Automated processing pays off for bulk data Deltares advises this to Rijkswaterstaat time concentratie nutrients spm/chlor-a

7. 2) example: unified EU assessment difficult Dutch waters not in EEA SOER (2010) assessment were they late, not cooperating, or … anyway: unified EU integral assessment is difficult 2 wind farms already operational

8. 2) Monitoring strategy: parallel top-down flow Now: Integral EU assessment difficult variety in decentralized sources different monitoring strategies different sensors and database QC WFD/MSFD assessment: varying national implementations some or qualitative requirements (GES by 11 qualitative descriptors) Future: opportunity for parallel central approach (Mainstream’s ISIS?) one quantitative EU monitoring strategy one specification for EU sensors/databases one parallel validation of bottom-up assessments one parallel, automated, top-down reporting to members states monitoring strategy data → assessment sensors + databases monitoring strategy data → assessment sensors + databases

9. 3) fosters range of versioned tools to integrate data Any environmental assessment depends on 1.input data version 2.chosen algorithms and their 3.software implementation version EMODNET portals now provide data Wind farms yield Data Deluge (e-IRG) Need for versioned, automated tools a central tool will always have bugs foster range of versioned tools input data+ software assessment = Nature 467, 775-777 (2010) doi:10.1038/467775a

10. 3) example: EMECO assessment web service One central live database allows for live assessment queries

11. 3) example: NOAA combines grid and in situ data NOAA has model ~MyOcean/GOOS in situ ~ SDN RS ~ GMES data on central OPeNDAP servers web tool DCHART package for live working with data without local copies other tools access same live data

12. 3) example: private party wind yield + downtime tools EC: private apps (e.g. Mainstream) on public data: apps > businesses > sales tax

13. 4) Live-access next to delayed-access mode Fostering a range of live data tools/apps Not all tools can shop a copy of all data Current EMODNET portals provides easy human interface but archived data also require live access or at least ‘automatic updates’ to correct data errors but preferably full data versioning instead of CDI-record id : SDN:EDMO_code: :LOCAL_CDI_ID Foster: parallel machine readable EMODNET portal tools catalogue that work on EMODNET data “docking station” ?

14. Recap 4 thoughts on integrated monitoring for offshore wind farms Monitoring strategy 1.farms let members save on / update national programs 2.farms allow parallel EU-to-member-states info flow Data sensors + databases: data rich > information rich: 3.farms’ Data Deluge: range of live tools for integral assessment 4.… which favor live data access mode over delayed-mode question → indicator monitoring strategy system knowlegde data → assessment sensors + databases www.emeco-group.org