Offshore Wind Updates

AT: Environment Turns

US regulatory system means OSW development won’t hurt the environment or species

COPPING et al 14 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory [Andrea Copping1 , Luke Hanna1, Brie Van Cleve1, Kara Blake1 and Richard M. Anderson2, Environmental Risk Evaluation System—an Approach to Ranking Risk of Ocean Energy Development on Coastal and Estuarine Environments, Journal of the Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation, 10.1007/s12237-014-9816-3]

The US regulatory system and the environmental protections afforded to key species is a genuine hurdle for any project developer in US waters; similar hurdles are unfolding in other nations as well. The regulatory power of the Endangered Species Act “no take” provision, especially if combined with the Marine Mammal Protection Act or the

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, ensures that all threatened and endangered turtles, marine mammals, and migratory birds will rank as the greatest risk from a regulatory perspective, regardless of whether they are the most vulnerable biological receptors to each specific stressor. European habitat and species directives will similarly drive the siting and permitting processes for tidal, wave, and offshore wind development.

The development of ocean energy has the potential to supply low carbon energy for electricity to the national grids of many nations’ energy. Human populations tend to live in relative proximity to the coast (NOAA 2013); harvesting energy from the oceans simplifies the transmission of power to coastal areas and provides additional energy

security to isolated coastal locations. Responsible deployment of ocean devices requires compliance with all applicable laws and regulations; at the same time, the regulatory burden should not overwhelm the beneficial value of providing reliable renewable energy to meet the needs of the nation. By determining the highest-priority stressors from ocean energy devices that may affect vulnerable receptors in the marine enviro nment, project proponents, regulators, and stakeholders can engage in the most efficient and effective siting and permitting pathways. By increasing the number of deployments in estuarine and coastal waters, the research community will have increased opportunities to gather data and better inform the discussion of potential effects. ERES can assist with setting priorities for siting and permitting of ocean energy projects and provide a structured framework for transitioning to more standard risk assessment and risk management actions. That transition must include developing a template for risk calculation that can be easily incorporated into future ocean energy projects as an informed point of departure for developers and regulators.

The risk calculations can also provide early feedback to developers to improve siting, engineering design, and operational methods that minimize damage to the marine environment and inform effective mitigation strategies.

No wildlife impact – planning & better than the alt

SHAFIULLAH et al 13 All are Academics at the School of Engineering and Technology, Higher Education Division, Central Queensland University, Australia [G.M. Shafiullah, Amanullah M.T. Oo, A.B.M. Shawkat Ali, Peter Wolfs, Potential challenges of integrating large-scale wind energy into the power grid–A review,

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 20, April 2013, Pages 306–321, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.11.057]

Large-scale wind energy generation plants are harmful to wildlife; however the impacts are smaller compared to other sources of energy. Sovacool estimated that fossil fuelled power stations killed twenty times more birds than wind turbines per

GWh [39]. The direct impact is the death from collision with the wind hub and blades as well as during wind plant installation activity. Avoidance, habitat disruption and displacement cause indirect impacts [40]. Turbines with lower hub heights and shorter rotor diameter cause the blades to spin at high RPM, and combined with tighter turbine spacing's compared to typical newer wind turbines, have the potential to kill a larger number of birds [40]. As birds are the largest victim

groups, it is an issue of concern to many bird lovers today. However, this effect is minor as the local birds can easily cope with and avoid the obstacles [41]. Research shows that birds killed by wind turbines are a negligible proportion compared to deaths of birds caused by other human activities such as urbanisation [25]. In a study, it was found that number of birds killed in a year is 20, 1500 and 2000 respectively

from wind turbines, hunters and collision with vehicles and electricity transmission [15]. However, to increase wind energy penetration it is essential to reduce the negative impacts on wildlife due to wind turbines. It is possible to reduce the impacts on wildlife through proper design and planning [42]. The newly developed turbines with tubular steel towers that have smooth exteriors (rather than lattice towers) can prevent the nesting of birds [15]. Vertical shaft turbines are safer and

produce twice the energy of prop-style turbine [43]. Avian radars are used in a project in Texas to detect birds in an area which is on their migration path. If there is any possible risk to passing birds, the system will immediately stop the wind turbines and start again when the birds cross the wind farm safely [44]. In order to understand the breeding and feeding behaviours of birds, professional wildlife surveys may be carried out to identify actions that minimise the risk imposed on the birds [45].

Planning solves environmental impact - Most recent study proves

Bergström et al 14 [Bergström, Lena; Kautsky, Lena; Malm, Torleif; Rosenberg, Rutger; Wahlberg, Magnus; Åstrand Capetillo, Nastassja; Wilhelmsson, Dan, Effects of offshore wind farms on marine wildlife—a generalized impact assessment, Environmental Research Letters, Volume 9, Issue 3, article id. 034012 (2014).]

Marine management plans over the world express high expectations to the development of offshore wind energy. This would obviously contribute to renewable energy production, but potential conflicts with other usages of the marine landscape, as well as conservation interests, are evident. The present study synthesizes the current state of understanding on the effects of offshore wind farms on marine wildlife, in order to

identify general versus local conclusions in published studies. The results were translated into a generalized impact assessment for coastal waters in Sweden, which covers a range of salinity

conditions from marine to nearly fresh waters. Hence, the conclusions are potentially applicable to marine planning situations in various aquatic ecosystems. The assessment considered impact with respect to temporal and spatial extent of the pressure, effect within each ecosystem component, and level of certainty. Research on the environmental effects of offshore wind farms has gone through a rapid

maturation and learning process, with the bulk of knowledge being developed within the past ten years. The studies showed a high level of consensus with respect to the construction phase, indicating that potential impacts on marine life should be carefully considered in marine spatial planning.

Potential impacts during the operational phase were more locally variable, and could be either negative or positive depending on biological conditions as well as prevailing management goals. There was paucity in studies on cumulative impacts and long-term effects on the food web, as well as on combined effects with other human activities, such as the fisheries. These aspects remain key open issues for a sustainable marine spatial planning.

AT: BirdsNo Birds link – displaces, doesn’t cause collisions

ATTRILL 12 Director, Plymouth University Marine Institute [Martin Attrill, Marine Renewable Energy: necessary for safeguarding the marine environment?. November 2012, http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefing_notes/marine_renewable_energy.pdf]

Collision and displacement

The potential of organisms to collide with MRE devices, in particular wind turbines,

probably has the highest profile with the public and media of all the environmental issues associated

with MRE, beyond aesthetics. Certainly birds and bats are killed by onshore turbines where evidence is most detailed, and can include important conservation species such as raptors. The American Bird Conservatory estimates up to 40,000 birds are killed each year in the US by wind turbines, although it is important to put this mortality in context. Erickson et alxiii analysed unnatural bird mortality in the US, reporting that 4.5 million birds are killed by flying into communication towers, 100 million by domestic cats and approximately 500 million from flying into buildings. Nevertheless, poor location of a wind turbine can have an impact on the population of certain species, particularly large birds of prey of conservation value such as eagles

and vultures, which is why choosing the correct locations is important. Offshore there is less evidence of significant levels of bird collisions, although collecting data is more difficult. Many species fly low over the water and so would not encounter blades of large turbines; whilst certain species such as large gulls may be more vulnerable, but data are lacking. There is some evidence that some species avoid wind turbines, or even whole wind farms, but also that some species may be attracted. For example, Marsden et al.xiv demonstrated that 200,000 migrating eider ducks changed course to avoid the Nysted wind farm between Denmark and Sweden,

adding a “trivial” 500 m to a 1400 km migration. However, such avoidance appears to be species specific, with some species showing no change in abundance following wind farm construction, whilst others such as swans and some geese are displaced xv. Lindeboom et alxvi found similar varied results in a Dutch wind farm, with bird numbers decreasing (e.g. pelagic seabirds), static or increasing (e.g. gulls and terns) within the

farm depending on species. Overall, in general the main issue associated with birds and offshore wind farms appears to be one of displacement rather than collision impacts at a scale that significantly affects populations, although evidence for this is sparse and a poorly-located wind farm near colonies of species with low populations and slow breeding rates could potentially have negative

impacts at a population scale. The consequences of displacement is as yet poorly understood and needs further research, although over 10 years of monitoring from some European wind farms has not evidenced any major impact.

Multiple studies confirm – offshore wind benefits marine ecology – trawling, reefs, and shelter

CASEY 12 EWEA Staff Writer, Citing International and Swedish funded studies [Zoë Casey, Offshore wind farms benefit sealife, says study, http://www.ewea.org/blog/2012/12/offshore-wind-farms-benefit-sealife-says-study/]

Offshore wind farms can create a host of benefits for the local marine environment , as well as combatting climate change, a new study by the Marine Institute at Plymouth University has found.

The Marine Institute found that wind farms provide shelter to fish species since sea bottom

trawling is often forbidden inside a wind farm , and it found that turbine support structures

can create artificial reefs for some species. A separate study at the Nysted offshore wind farm in Denmark confirmed this finding by saying that artificial reefs provided favourable

growth conditions for blue mussels and crab species. A study on the Thanet offshore wind farm in the

UK found that some species like cod shelter inside the wind farm. One high-profile issue

covered by the Marine Institute study was that of organisms colliding with offshore wind turbines. The study, backed-up by a number of previous studies, found that many bird species fly low over

the water, avoiding collision with wind turbine blades. It also found that some species, such as Eider ducks, do modify their courses slightly to avoid offshore turbines. When it comes to noise, the study found “no significant impact on behaviour or populations.” It noted that a separate study in the Netherlands found more porpoise clicks inside a Dutch wind farm than outside it “perhaps exploiting the higher fish densities found”. The study also said that offshore wind power and other marine renewable energies should be rolled out rapidly in order to combat the threats to marine biodiversity, food production and economies posed by climate change. “It is necessary to rapidly deploy large quantities of marine renewable energy to reduce the carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning which are leading to ocean acidification, global warming and climatic changes,” the study published said. EWEA forecasts that 40 GW of offshore wind capacity will be online in European seas by 2020 which will offset 102 million tonnes of CO2 every year. By 2030, the expected 150 GW of offshore capacity will offset 315 million tonnes of CO2 annually – that’s a significant contribution to the effort to cut carbon. “It is clear that the marine environment is already being damaged by the increasingly apparent impacts of climate change; however it is not too late to make a

difference to avoid more extreme impacts,” the study said. “If you bring all these studies together they

all point to a similar conclusion: offshore wind farms have a positive impact on the marine environment in several ways,” said Angeliki Koulouri, Research Officer at EWEA. “First they contribute to a reduction in CO2 emissions, the major threat to biodiversity, second,

they provide regeneration areas for fish and benthic populations ,” she added.

AT: Jobs Turns

Offshore wind insures massive growth

Sargent, 9/13/12 [Rob Sargent, U.S. Poised to Join the Race on Offshore Wind: Lawmakers Must Commit to More Pollution-Free Energy”, http://www.environmentamerica.org/news/ame/us-poised-join-race-offshore-wind]

The Turning Point for Atlantic Offshore Wind Energy includes details on the key milestones each Atlantic Coast state and along with the wind potential and the economic benefits. Among the highlights of the report:

Offshore wind energy will be an economic powerhouse for America. Harnessing the

52 gigawatts of already-identified available Atlantic offshore wind energy – just 4 percent of the estimated generation potential of this massive resource – could generate $200 billion in economic activity, create 300,000 jobs, and sustain power for about 14 million homes. (Europe already produces enough energy from offshore wind right now to power 4 million homes.) America is closer than ever to bringing offshore wind energy ashore. Efforts are underway in 10 Atlantic Coast states, with over 2,000 square nautical miles of federal waters already designated for wind energy development off of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. Environmental reviews finding no significant impacts have been completed, and leases are expected to be issued for some of

these areas by the end of the year. Despite this progress, leadership is urgently needed at both the state and federal level to ensure offshore wind energy becomes a reality in

America: President Obama should set a clear national goal for offshore wind energy

development, and each Atlantic state governor should also a set goal for offshore wind development off

their shores. These goals must be supported by policies that prioritize offshore wind energy and other efforts to secure buyers for this new source of reliable, clean energy.

Solves dependency – creates jobs

SCHROEDER 10 J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2010. M.E.M., Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, 2004; B.A., Yale University, 2003 [Erica Schroeder, COMMENT: Turning Offshore Wind On, October, 2010, California Law Review, 98 Calif. L. Rev. 1631]

Many of the most compelling benefits of offshore wind are similar to those of onshore wind, though offshore wind

has its own unique set of benefits. To start, wind power generation can help meet the growing energy demand in the United States. The U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts that the demand

for electricity in the United States will grow to 5.8 billion MWh in 2030, a 39 percent increase from 2005. n58 The more that wind power can help to meet this demand, the more diversified the United States' energy portfolio will be, and the less susceptible the nation will be to dependency on foreign fuel sources and to price fluctuations in

traditional fuels. n59 In addition, wind power [*1639] benefits the United States by creating a substantial number of jobs for building and operating the domestic wind energy facilities. n60 In an April 2009 speech at the Trinity Structural Towers Manufacturing Plant in Iowa, President Obama predicted that if the United States "fully pursues our potential for wind energy on land and offshore,"

wind power could create 250,000 jobs by 2030. n61

Too early to know costs of OSW

KALDELLIS & KAPSALI 13 both work at the Lab of Soft Energy Applications & Environmental Protection, TEI of Piraeus – Greece [J.K. Kaldellis, M. Kapsali, Shifting towards offshore wind energy—Recent activity and future development, Energy Policy, Volume 53, February 2013, Pages 136–148

Concluding, it should be noted that due to the limited number of offshore wind power projects currently being installed, accurate statistical trends of associated costs of development and operation, as is the case of onshore counterparts, are difficult to be extracted yet. Water depth, distance from the shore, foundations, grid connection issues, infrastructure required and O&M are apparently determinant factors for the

total energy cost during lifetime. Nevertheless, offshore wind energy is still under evolution and requires special R&D efforts in terms of developing cost-efficient O&M strategies, high reliability, site access solutions, innovative components and improved and fully integrated “wind turbine-support structure” concepts.

AT: States

Grouped state action doesn’t fix the lack of federal commitment to warming – only federal preemption works

GLICKSMAN & LEVY 08 Professors of Law at the University of Kansas [Robert Glicksman and Richard Levy. “A COLLECTIVE ACTION PERSPECTIVE ON CEILING PREEMPTION BY FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION: THE CASE OF GLOBALCLIMATE CHANGE.” Northwestern University Law Review. Vol 102 No. 2. http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v102/n2/579/LR102n2Glicksman&Levy.pdf]

We also doubt that unilateral state regulation would so undermine the international bargaining position of the

United States as to warrant a congressional decision to adopt express ceiling preemption. The United States is responsible for an estimated twenty to twenty-five percent of the world’s GHG

emissions.204 An effective global solution to the climate change problem therefore depends on U.S. participation. As long as the United States refuses to unilaterally reduce its GHG

emissions, the federal government can hold out U.S. participation in an international climate change regime as the carrot to induce other nations to make concessions. Theoretically, the decision by a state or group of states to require reductions before the EPA does so weakens the impact of the President’s threat of continued noncooperation. But the “defection” of a state (even a large one such as Califor nia)205 or group of states from the united,

antiregulatory front presented by the federal government is unlikely to put a significant dent in the clout that federal negotiators have in dealing with the environmental policymakers of foreign nations. Many other factors are likely to have a far more substantial impact on negotiations.206