Coastal Wind Energy Study

1
Coastal Wind Energy Study

• In summer 2008, the North Carolina General
  Assembly directed the UNC Board of Governors to
  study wind energy feasibility
• University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  designated to conduct the study (led by C.
  Elfland, AVC for Campus Services project manager
  D. McCarthy, UNC Energy Services)
• Study area
• Pamlico and Albemarle Sounds
• Off shore over waters less than 30 meters in
  depth
• Study scope
• Potential for energy production
• Benefits from reducing dependence on fossil fuel
  for electricity generation
• Siting
• Ecological impacts
• Statutory or regulatory barriers
• Feasibility and synergistic benefits of co-siting
  wind turbines and artificial oyster reefs
• Report due date - July 1, 2009

2
Coastal Wind Energy Study

• Study Components
• Wind resource evaluation, including energy
  potential
• Siting, including geology
• Turbine alternatives, including foundation
  systems
• Potential synergies of co-location with
  artificial oyster/fish reef sanctuaries
  including foundation compatibility
• Coastal environmental issues
• Coastal area statutory and regulatory issues and
  barriers
• Utility transmission infrastructure including
  collection, sound-to-shore, and interconnections
• Utility statutory and regulatory issues and
  barriers, including federal, regional, and state
• Economic feasibility

3
Coastal Wind Energy Study

• Phase 1 Tasks
• Evaluate existing wind resource models
• Migratory bird pathways, waterbird foraging
  areas, endangered species habitat
• Coastal statutory and regulatory issues
• Utility statutory and regulatory issues
• Utility transmission and interconnection capacity
• Sound bottom geology structural adequacy
  evaluation
• Preliminary assessment of compatibility of
  turbine foundation systems and artificial marine
  habitat.
• Carbon reduction potential
• Preliminary economic evaluation

4
Wind Resource Evaluation

• Led by H. Seim (Marine Sciences, UNC-CH) and G.
  Lackmann (RENCI/NCSU)
• Will evaluate existing wind power estimates from
  AWS Truewinds by analyzing available low-level
  (largely 10 meter) wind observations from eastern
  NC
• Requires extrapolation of low level winds to
  turbine height using SOW meteorological tower
  data and sodar wind profiles to examine power-law
  and log layer fits, and collect new observations
• Will initiate archive and evaluation of regional
  wind models being run by NC Climatology Office
  and RENCI

5
(No Transcript)
6
m/s
7
(No Transcript)
8
Wind Power Evaluation (cont.)

• Vertical extrapolation tricky must account
  for varying roughness of lower boundary
  (straightforward) and horizontal variations
  (internal boundary layers - more difficult)
• For NC, changes in water temperature between the
  sounds and ocean can lead to important changes in
  wind speed that may not be accounted for in
  existing wind power estimates
• Examining existing vertical wind profile
  observations to assess extrapolation techniques

9
Power-law fits to tower data
10
(No Transcript)
11
(No Transcript)
12
(No Transcript)
13
RENCI 4-km Operational WRF Model Forecasts

• Computed daily average winds as average of 24
  hourly values, the first an analysis, the next 23
  forecasts
• Computed monthly averages
• Missing data a problem 12 of model runs
  missing, usually for consecutive days when
  Ocracoke computer down
• Have sufficient vertical information (stability,
  wind at different levels) for accurate
  interpolation of winds to any level
• Utility (i) cross-check other wind maps, (ii)
  explore feasibility of high-resolution wind
  predictions (could go to 1 km grid or smaller)

14
January 2009 monthly average 10-m wind speed (m/s)
Contour interval 1 m/s, shading starts at 6 m/s
15
February 2009 monthly average 10-m wind speed
(m/s)
Contour interval 1 m/s, shading starts at 6 m/s
16
March 2009 monthly average 10-m wind speed (m/s)
Contour interval 1 m/s, shading starts at 6 m/s
17
1-12 April 2009 average 10-m wind speed (m/s)
Contour interval 1 m/s, shading starts at 6 m/s
18
Utility Statutory and Regulatory Issues

• Work completed by Energy Strategies, LLC
• Will identify utility statutory and regulatory
  barriers to construction of wind farms and the
  sale of wind energy
• Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act
  (PURPA) mandates that utilities must purchase
  power from renewable energy projects at utilitys
  avoided cost, but also sets maximize size for
  renewable energy projects at 80 MW.
• North Carolina Renewable Energy Portfolio
  Standard (REPS) sets targets for renewable energy
  for utilities (e.g., 6 by 2015, 12.5 by 2021.)
• No maximum size limitation under REPS, but
  pricing tied to PURPA avoided cost, which may not
  be sufficient to support offshore wind.
• Examine ways to address the barriers

19
Utility Transmission and Interconnection Capacity
20
Utility Transmission and Interconnection Capacity
21
Utility Transmission and Interconnection Capacity

• Assess capacity of existing transmission
  facilities adjacent to the Albemarle and Pamlico
  Sounds and offshore to carry additional load.
• No transmission lines greater than 230 kV located
  on coast.

22
Sound Bottom Geology Structural adequacy

• Work Completed by Ramboll
• Headquarters in Denmark
• Provides multidisciplinary consultancy services
  in all areas of wind farm projects from
  development to commissioning
• Internationally recognized for developing new
  foundation concepts and the design of offshore
  wind turbines

23
Foundation Options

• Two feasible options
• Monopile Foundations
• Gravity Based Structures (GBS)
• Decision based on soil and rock types in the
  selected locations
• Some areas may not be suitable for either system
  based on soil conditions

24
Outer Banks Soil Conditions

• Inside the Outer Banks
• Deep layer of soft sediment on top of bedrock
• Mostly shallow, less than 6 m deep
• Outside the Outer Banks
• Significant areas of hardbottom sandstone or
  limestone
• Occasional steep cliffs nearly 10 meters high

25
Off Shore Depths

• The shallow depth of the area inside the Outer
  Banks could make turbine installation difficult
  or impossible

26
Monopile Foundations

• Monopiles typically driven to depth of 30 35 m
  with a weight of 200 300 metric ton
• Most suitable for installation in areas inside
  the Outer Banks, if a suitable site can be
  identified
• Drilling may be required for localized rock
  sections
• Transition piece
• Extends above sea level, height dependent on
  waves and wave run-up
• Includes boat landing and platforms for
  maintenance
• Majority of offshore turbines in use today

27
Monopile Foundations
Transition Piece
Monopile foundation with transition piece
approximately 20 m above sea level
28
Gravity Based Structures (GBS)

• Best for use on hard soil and rock
• Relies on its mass for stability no drilling
• Concrete bottom is attached to tapered cavities
  filled with ballast
• Top part of the cavities extend above water
• Interface with turbine power bottom
• Base for ladder/platform mounting
• Best for areas outside Outer Banks

29
Gravity Based Structures
Open structure without ballast
Closed conical structure
30
Wind Over Water Energy Environmental and Use
Conflicts

• Charles H. Peterson, Stephen R. Fegley, and Joan
  M. Meiners
• UNC Institute of Marine Sciences

Middelgruden Wind Farm, Denmark Picture from
Washington Times
31
Considerations

• Potential wind farm layout
• Bathymetry Installation depth constraints
• Bottom character sandy sediments preferred, not
  rock
• Military exclusion zones air space and radar
  interference
• Cultural resources
• Bird and bat risk distribution
• Critical fish habitats, fishing uses, and
  navigation corridors
• Sea turtles and marine mammals
• Synergies provision of oyster and offshore reef
  habitat
• Hurricane risk
• Recommended procedure for further progress

32
Potential wind farm layout

• Dimensions
• 1) 700 m between wind mills
• MMS leases are 3 mi by 3 mi
• 49 mills per lease
• The space between wind mills is a function of
  wind mill size, larger mills need more space
  (between mill distance 7.6 x rotor diameter).
  The numbers presented here are for mills with 90
  m rotors.

Courtesy of G. Hagerman
The consequences of bringing the power produced
by wind mills to land (laying of cables,
construction of substations, etc.) need to be
considered. Avoiding critical habitats and
mitigating unavoidable SAV and wetland injury
will be required. Any additional land-based
transmission towers and lines also increase risk
to birds.
33
Bathymetry Constraints

• Lower limit 4m water depth required to float
  barge needed for installation of monopile
• Excludes wide near-shore margins of the sounds
• Sound access through inlets is challenging
• Upper limit about 30 m water depth dictated by
  technological and financial constraints
  associated with installation

34
Bottom Character

• Pamlico and Albemarle Sounds
• Sandy sediments widespread, but muddy areas exist
• Coastal Ocean
• Extensive sandy areas from Cape Lookout
  northwards
• Rock increasingly dominates south of Cape Lookout
• Enhances expense of monopile installation,
  perhaps prohibitively
• Alternative foundations exist, but at higher cost
• Locating wind mills in the limited sand bottom
  would preclude sand extraction for beach
  nourishment applications
• Large areas of continuous sand bottom at
  sufficient buffer distance (500 m) from live
  bottom habitat are rare

35
Military Use Exclusions

• Marine Corps
• Air space conflicts with tall structures
• Interference with radar
• Amphibious training and live fire
• Navy
• Oceana air space and radar conflicts
• Army (US Army Corps of EngineersDuck)

36
Cultural resources (shipwrecks, etc.)
Approx. western edge of Gulf Stream
37
Procedure for estimating risk
Estimation of risk - examine accumulated
information for patterns and specific concerns
- use general ecological data and paradigms to
reduce uncertainty - consult with experts
again on preliminary assessments
38
Bird and Bat Risk Distribution

• Risk assessment combines abundance and behavior
• Mortality risk from encounter with blades
• Turbine avoidance increases fitness risks from
  loss of foraging habitat or by inducing longer
  flight paths (especially for overwintering
  ducks)
• Birds at risk
• Passerines during nocturnal, seasonal migrations
  (songbirds)
• Threatened and Endangered, plus declining,
  species (piping plover, red knot, other migrating
  shorebird species, and roseate tern) during
  fall/spring migrations and summer residence
• Large-bodied, low-flying, slow fliers (pelicans?)
• True pelagic seabirds (albatross?) Gulf Stream
  risks
• Bats at risk migrating insectivorous species

39
Behavioral responses (an example)
Compilation of radar tracks for common eiders and
geese flying near and through an offshore,
Danish wind mill farm (individual mills are
represented by red dots Desholm and Kahlert
2005). These results are controversial the wind
mills interfere with the radar used to document
flight paths.
Aerial photograph of a flock (a raft) of 20,000
common eiders photograph by Simon Perkins,
Mass Audubon
40
Bird and bird habitat conflicts
Approx. western edge of Gulf Stream
41
USMC Air Operations
42
Measures to Reduce Risk to Birds and Bats

• Do not use continuous lighting
• Flashing lights attract fewer migrating birds
• Red lights may be less attractive than white
  lights
• Reduce or eliminate perches
• The absence of perches, nesting, and roosting
  sites decreases the frequency birds and bats
  closely approach wind mills
• Avoid white colors. Paint wind mill vanes in
  high contrast patterns.
• White attracts insects increased insect
  abundances attracts bats
• Tests show that kestrels avoid moving wind mill
  vanes more readily if they have patterns painted
  on them
• Pilot studies and impact studies after
  installation and operation of the first wind farm
  will demonstrate whether other mitigation
  procedures are needed

43
Critical Fish Habitats, Fishing Uses, and
Navigation Corridors

• Primary, secondary nurseries, migration paths,
  SAV, shell bottom, oyster reefs (sounds), and
  live reefs (ocean)
• Larval fish and blue crab migration corridors
  (may require seasonal constraint on construction)
• Intense fishing uses
• Trawling limited and made more dangerous (shrimp,
  crabs, flounder)
• Dredging incompatible (scallops, oysters)
• Long hauling incompatible (various fishes)
• Navigation corridors
• All marked navigation channels with 1 km buffer
  on each side
• High productivity regions
• Gulf Stream, three Capes, all inlets, the Point
• All inlets with 5 mile radius from centerpoint

44
Fish habitat and fishery use conflicts
Approx. western edge of Gulf Stream
45
Sea Turtles and Marine Mammals

• Protected under Endangered Species Act and/or
  Marine Mammal Protection Act
• Risk during installation noise and injury from
  bottom disturbance
• Right and humpback whales winter in ocean
• Loggerhead, Kemps Ridley, green summer/fall in
  ocean and sound
• Bottle-nosed dolphin all year in ocean and
  sound
• Manatee summer/fall in sound
• Risk during operation noise and electromagnetic
  fields unknown and area of current research
  interest

Juan Cuetos/ Oceana
Hugh Powell, Cornell U.
46
Synergies Positive Interactions

• A stone, scour apron surrounds the monopile base
  (12-m radius with stones rising 2-3 m above
  bottom)
• Excellent foundation for artificial oyster reef
  in Pamlico Sound (Albemarle Sound is too fresh
  for oysters) restores oysters and their
  ecosystem services
• Excellent foundation for live-bottom reef in
  coastal ocean
• Restores reef fish, including aiding recovery of
  overfished snapper/grouper species complex
• Requires excluding fishermen to avoid
  overexploitation
• The apron and monopile may also serve as
  substrate for blue mussels north of Cape
  Hatteras. These would provide food for scoters
  and could be harvested.
• Wind mill farms may induce upwelling downstream
• In the sounds this could mitigate seasonal
  hypoxia and anoxia events
• In the coastal ocean this could enhance local
  primary production

47
Synergies Positive Interactions
Oyster reefs (green)
48
Hurricane Risk

• Windmills engineered to withstand category 3
  hurricane
• Hurricane risk in NC is high
• Landfalls and storm tracks of large hurricanes
  (Category 3, 4, or 5) show that the ocean well
  north of Cape Hatteras represents a region that
  receives some protection from the projecting cape
  to the south

Hurricane (category 3 or greater) tracks since
1950 yellow category 2
red category 3 brown category 4
49
Potential Means for Reducing Uncertainty on
Environmental Impacts and Use Conflicts

• Conduct field assessment of one or more pilot
  project sites
• Use the pilot project as a testing ground to
  reduce uncertainties about feasibility and
  impacts
• Solicit broader public and agency review and input

50
Acknowledgements
INTERVIEWS - Jeremy Braddy, waterman (birds) Mike
Bryant, USFWS(birds, habitats) Rich Carpenter,
NCDMF (fish, fisheries) Mary Clark, NC State
Natural History Museum (bats) David Cobb, NCWRC
(birds, fish) B.J. Copeland, NCMFC (fish,
fisheries) Barry Costa-Pierce, Rhode I. Sea
Grant, URI (synergies) Louis Daniel, NCDMF (fish,
fisheries) Ann Denton, NCDMF (fish,
fisheries) Wendy Dow, DUML (marine mammals, sea
turtles) John Fussell III, author (birds) David
Gaskill, waterman (birds, fishing) Walker Golder,
NC Audubon Vice-director (birds) Nathan Hall,
waterman (birds) J. Christopher Haney, Defenders
of Wildlife (birds) Craig Hardy, NCDMF (fish,
fisheries) Jess Hawkins, NCMFC (fish,
fisheries) Herb Hendrickson, Professor Emeritus
UNCG (birds) Eileen Hoffman, Old Dominion Univ.
(synergies) Richard W. Lawrence, NC Dept of
Cultural Resources (wrecks) David S. Lee, retired
from NC State Natural History Museum (birds) Mike
Marshall, NCDMF (fish, fisheries) Catherine
McClellan, DUML (marine mammals, sea turtles) Red
Munden, NCDMF (birds, fish, fisheries) Francis
OBeirn, Marine Inst, Galway, Ireland
(synergies) James Parnell, UNCW (birds) Brian
Patteson, offshore bird and fishing cruise leader
(birds, fish) David Plummer, USMC (military air
space) Andrew Read, DUML (marine mammals, sea
turtles) Steve Ross, UNCW (fish) Paul Spitzer,
Cooperative Oxford Laboratory (birds) David
Taylor, NCDMF (fish, fisheries) Paul Thompson,
Univ. of Aberdeen (marine mammals) Danielle
Waples, DUML (marine mammals, sea turtles) Katy
West, NCDMF (fish, fisheries) Mark Wilde-Ramsing,
NC Dept of Cultural Resources (wrecks) Lynne
Williams, DUML (marine mammals, sea turtles) Sara
Winslow, NCDMF (fish, fisheries) Jerry Wright,
former Chair of the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission (birds)
GATHERING LITERATURE- Richard Barber, DUML Denene
Blackwood, IMS Laura Bradley, IE student,
UNC Dean Carpenter, NC APNEP David Carr,
SELC David Cobb, NCWRC (birds, fish) Robert Dunn,
IE student, UNC Carolyn Elfland, UNC Jill Fegley,
NOAA NERRS Scott Gies, DENR George Hagerman,
VCERC Andrea Hale, IE student, UNC Joseph Kalo,
UNC Wilson Laney, USFWS David S. Lee, retired
from NC State Natural History Museum
(birds) David McCarthy, UNC Stephanie
Miscovich Rachel Noble, IMS Emily Nurminen, IE
student, UNC David Plummer, USMC (military air
space) Walt Rogers, IE student, UNC Harvey Seim,
UNC Robert Vogt, IE student, UNC Steve Wall,
DENR Brianna Young, IE student, UNC
51
Coastal Wind Energy for NCs FutureLaw and
Policy IssuesJoseph Kalo and Lisa Schiavinato,
Co-DirectorsNC Coastal Resources Law, Planning
and Policy Center
52
Law and Policy Portion of Study

• Research and analysis on the Federal and State
  permits that may be required for a wind energy
  project in NCs estuarine and coastal waters and
  for projects sited in Federal waters that would
  affect NC.
• Identification of gaps in State law

53
Applicable Federal Laws and Regulations

• Rivers and Harbors Act
• Clean Water Act Sections 401 and 404 and NPDES
• Coastal Zone Management Act
• National Historic Preservation Act
• Endangered Species, Marine Mammal Protection,
  Migratory Bird Treaty, and Magnuson Stevens Acts
• Marine Sanctuaries Act

54
Applicable Federal Laws and Regulations (cont.)

• Federal Aviation Administration regulations
• Coast Guard regulations
• Minerals Management Service regulations
• Military base issues

55
Minerals Management Service

• MMS is developing regulations to lease Federal
  waters along the Outer Continental Shelf for
  alternative energy projects.
• MMS leasing process includes site identification,
  lease issuance, site assessment plan,
  construction and operations, and decommissioning.

56
CZMA Consistency Provision

• Wind energy projects in Federal waters would be
  subject to the Consistency provision of the
  Coastal Zone Management Act, which would allow NC
  to protect its interests in the event such a
  project would affect its coast.
• The Federal project would need to be consistent
  to the maximum extent practicable with the
  enforceable policies of NCs coastal management
  plan.

57
CRC, EMC and Utilities Commission

• What will be the roles of the CRC, EMC, and
  Utilities Commission in the permitting of
  water-based wind energy facilities?

58
CRC and Coastal Area Management Act

• Water-based wind turbines and transmission lines
  subject to CAMA, unless they fall within the
  exception created by N.C. Gen. Stat. Section
  113A-118(5)(b)(3) for
• work by any utility and other persons for the
  purpose of construction of facilities for the
  development, generation and transmission of
  energy to the extent that such activities are
  regulated by other law or by present or future
  rules of the State Utilities Commission

59
NC Utilities Commission

• Certificate of public convenience and necessity
  for energy facilities.
• Certificate of necessity and environmental
  compatibility for transmission lines.
• Presently, Utilities Commission defers to CRC for
  projects located in AECs.
• Will the General Assembly vest authority within
  the CRC for water-based projects?

60
Environmental Management Commission

• May establish a procedure for evaluating
  renewable energy technologies that are, or are
  proposed to be, employed as part of a renewable
  energy facility, as defined in N.C. Gen. Stat.
  Section 62-133.7.
• May establish standards to ensure that renewable
  energy technologies do not harm the environment,
  natural resources, cultural resources or public
  health, safety or welfare of the State.
• To the extent that there is not an environmental
  regulatory program, establish such program to
  implement these protective standards.

61
How Will H.B. 809 Affect the EMC and CRC?

• H.B. 809 was filed in March 2009.
• Sets environmental standards for permitting wind
  energy facilities.
• Divides authority over wind energy permitting
  between the CRC (coastal counties) and DENR (rest
  of the state).

62
Wind Turbines and Water Dependency

• Wind turbines are deemed non-water dependent
  structures by the CRC, rendering them
  impermissible in State coastal waters.
• Proposed legislation declares a wind energy
  facility in coastal waters is a water dependent
  use.

63
Transmission Lines in Ocean Waters Crossing
Shorelines

• Existing CRC rules would prohibit transmission
  lines from offshore wind facilities from crossing
  ocean waters and coastal shorelines.
• Amend rules to permit such activities under
  specific conditions. Proposed legislation does
  not address transmission lines crossing the beach.

64
Existing Submerged Lands Leasing Statutes
Inadequate

• The right to occupy specific areas of State-owned
  submerged lands.
• The right to occupy the associated water column.
• The right to occupy the air space above the water
  surface.

65
North Carolinas Future?