Monthly Archives: February 2021

KINGSTON, R.I. February 1, 2021 A survey of recreational boaters conducted by a team of University of Rhode Island researchers found that offshore wind farms detract significantly from the boating experience.

Tracey Dalton, the URI professor of marine affairs who led the survey, said that while most respondents indicated that seeing offshore wind turbines far in the distance did not affect their experience, most preferred not to go boating close to the turbines.

There have been a lot of studies looking at the ecological impacts of offshore wind farms, but were interested in what happens when you put a new structure in place in the ocean and how it impacts people that have historically and culturally used that space, Dalton said.

More than 680 boaters with a hailing port in Rhode Island completed surveys in 2018. All owned Coast Guard-certified boats, meaning their vessels were at least 26-feet long. The research was published in December in the journal Marine Policy.

According to Dalton, the survey results were not homogenous among every category of boater. Those whose boating objective was fishing, for example, were less negatively affected by the turbines, perhaps because the turbine structures have been shown to attract sport fish. Non-fishermen and those who had never been close to the Block Island wind farm before indicated their experience was most negative.

We dont really know why they reacted that way, Dalton said. It could be because of navigational concerns or concerns about other boaters being nearby, since the structures attract other users and it can get crowded out there.

The Block Island wind farm is relatively close to shore, she added. Most wind farms that have been proposed along the East Coast are going to be much farther offshore, so its not clear if well see the same issues for those that we see here.

About 1.7 million acres off the East Coast are being considered for offshore wind development in the coming decade, so the results of the URI survey could have significant implications.

As we think about where were going to put wind farms, we have to be careful because were going to displace users, said Dalton. In this case, the boaters dont mind being far from turbines, so as long as theres not a wall of turbines stretched across the ocean, they can move away from them. But managers should be aware of the heterogeneity within the boating population. Fishermen feel differently than those not fishing; those whove been to the Block Island wind farm seem to feel differently than those who havent. The more people visit a wind farm, the more comfortable they might be around them.

If navigation concerns are driving some of the concerns expressed by the boaters, Dalton suggests that those responsible for managing the waters around wind farms consider providing additional training for boaters.

Im also interested in the social carrying capacity of offshore wind farms, Dalton said. Boaters dont want to be in places where there are a lot of other boaters, so one study I want to pursue is looking at how levels of use at wind farm sites are impacting users. Are they attracting so many users that its turning others away?

This study was funded by Rhode Island Sea Grant.

The rest is here:

URI survey finds offshore wind farms reduce value of recreational boating experience - URI Today

For the past week, weve reported on a series of weather systems that conspired to deliver solid surf to the Caribbean and the East Coast. Over the weekend, the islands saw their largest waves of the season so far, plus a reinforcing pulse keeping the surf well overhead to start the week. Our attention now shifts back to the mainland, where a large storm system is swallowing the East Coast. This same system is already helping to improve the conditions down in the Caribbean, while also dumping snow in the Northeast and brewing surf from the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of Maine.

Live Cam Streams: Snowy Northeast Barrels | Warm-water waves from Florida to Puerto Rico

No snow spotted on Saturday at Tres Palmas. Photo: Darren Muschett

On Monday, while Florida and the Southeast enjoy clean, offshore conditions set up by this large storm centered just off the Mid Atlantic coast, the system simultaneously funnels in moisture thats now precipitating as snow across Long Island and the rest of the Northeast. This is forecast to become the biggest snow event in years for this region, since the system wont really move much over the next day or two. Expect the snow to continue through Tuesday, and even into Wednesday morning across northern New England, before the system finally lifts north and exits through Canada on Wednesday. But amongst the flurries, there will be waves.

Detailed Forecast Analysis: New England |New York |Mid Atlantic | Outer Banks

This week, waves reach from the warm, blue waters of the Caribbean to the cold, snowy beaches of the Northeast. Watch more live streams from around the Northeast.

Look for a solid, well-overhead mix of southerly and easterly surf to come up in the Northeast on Monday and into Tuesday. The south-facing beaches of Long Island and Rhode Island are the prime locations on Tuesday as stiff, northerly offshores settle in for the day. Portions of the Mid Atlantic that face more south than east will be working, as well. Easing but fun surf continues on Wednesday far less challenging than the pumping, snowy surf thats on tap Tuesday. Breaks in northern New England should turn on midweek as the winds trend more northerly once the system is on its way out.

Premium Forecast Analysis: Southeast |North-Central Florida | South Florida | West Florida | Puerto Rico

As noted above, this massive system spans the length of the coast, and Northeast surfers wont be the only ones to benefit. West Florida (in the Gulf of Mexico) sees a few days of head-high and even bigger surf from strong NW flow set up by the system, while East Florida sees easing, long-period swell. Portions of South Florida will also see some quality shorter-period waves generated by the same NW winds that send waves to the Gulf.

Were also watching for a couple more systems to move off the East Coast between now and the start of next week. Stay tuned to your Regional Forecast to see how this activity will affect your surf.

Expert forecasts

More here:

Strong Winter Storm Brings Snow, Offshore Winds and Solid Surf to the East Coast - Surfline.com Surf News

By Dario Mulazzani, DAVI Product & Market Specialist Wind Energy & Heavy-Duty Division.

Located in such a dynamic and extremely powerfulelement as the sea, foundations represent one of the main elementsof any offshore wind farm, accounting for over one-fourth of the total equipmentcost. As they mustsupport the wind turbines, absorbing all the forces and loads and providing asafe and stable base, defining the right typologyof foundation can have a huge impact both on the economicand technical sides.

Offshore wind farms cantypically be placed in a few selected locations only. There are two mainconditions limiting the range of use of this type of installations:

The development of newtechnologies, manufacturing and construction procedures, the increase in thesize of wind farms and turbines together with higher societys awareness ofvisual and environmental impacts, have led to the displacement of theseinstallations further from the coastline than ever before.

Depending on thedepth of the seabed, as well as the surrounding conditions, different foundationsolutions can be used:

There is however a typologythat stands out above the others, both infrequency and range of use: the monopiles, being selected in more than 60% of the worldwide offshore windinstallations. Monopiles are deployed in the majority of depths andenvironments due to main characteristics, as follows:

Inorder to adapt to the needs of new more efficient and demanding wind farms,monopiles design has evolved over the years. Its main dimensions, diameter,thickness and length have steadily increased to be able to support higherand heavier more powerful turbines installed at greater depths.

It has been observed that both the length and the diameter of the piles have evolved proportionally to the power of the turbines, maintaining constant ratios which can be summarized as follows:

For instance, for a 6-7MW turbine (being the most mature capacity to date), monopiles are typically inthe 90-100m length range with diameters and thickness at bottom sections of 9mand 90-100mm respectively for an overall weight often exceeding 1500 ton.

Asmentioned, offshore installation allows for the deployment of larger turbines(both in terms of capacity and physical size), mostly due to constraintsrelated to onshore transportation of the relevant heavy and expansiveequipment: this is desirable as a wind farm comprised of larger turbines willnecessarily require lower investment and maintenance cost per installedcapacity, maximizing the project profitability.

It is hence likely thatoffshore wind turbines capacity will keep increasing with some manufacturersalready bringing to the market 12-14MW turbines (such as the GE Haliade-X,currently being tested onshore). Although the aforementioned ratios are expectedto decrease due to physical limitations, the so called XXL monopiles will weighup to 3000 tons with diameters and thickness at bottom sections rangingfrom 12-14m and 120-140mm respectively.

Other foundation typologies are expected to follow a similar increasing trend.

The manufacturing challenges

All types ofoff-shore foundations are comprised of large plates jointed together and rolledinto cans and cones; such workpieces are then assembled and welded into largestructures which, in the case of Monopile Foundations, can reach up to 120min length. With plates thickness often exceeding 140mm and increasinglylarge diameters (>12m) it becomes critical to minimize the amount ofcircumferential welding required to grow the overall length, often leading tothe selection of increasingly large plates (up to 4.5m in width, withweights often exceeding 150 tons each).

Thus, fabricatorsengaged in the manufacturing of such heavy-duty off-shore foundations will needto face and overcome two main manufacturing constraints, as follows:

For all these reasons, the fabrication of offshore foundations is certainly the most challenging and time-consuming rolling operation.

Stayahead of the Market with DAVI!

Fabricators are hence in need of a technology partner able to deliver high performance and reliable rolling solutions, capable of sustaining the demanding serial production characteristics of this Industry by increasing rolling accuracy, output and operators safety while decreasing downtimes, floor-to-floor processing time and manpower requirements.

Since 2007,when DAVI Wind Energy Division was created, DAVI has been leading theMarket thanks to its cutting-edge technology developed working alongthe most accredited project developers and towers and foundationsmanufacturers.

For instance, tobetter serve the Off-shore Wind Energy Sector, dedicated heavy-duty feeding andhandling equipment are continuously being developed and updated toensure that Fabricators entering the DAVI World are provided with the mostadvanced hardware allowing them to maintain competitiveness in a fastchanging and dynamic environment, requiring more and more challengingworkpieces to be manufactured every year.

To date DAVI isalready the technology partner selected by most major players, with over 300installations dedicated to the Wind Energy Industry worldwide andapproximately 60% of the overall Wind Energy rolling machines marketshare.

Dont miss out, stay ahead with DAVI!

Note:The opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Offshore WIND.

See more here:

Evolution of Offshore Foundations - Offshore WIND

It's a sharp contrast between those who see opportunity and those who feel threatened

BRISTOL, Maine On this brilliant winter day, you could stand on the rocks at Pemaquid Point with a clear view of Monhegan Island in the distance, and feel the wind coming off the water. There is often wind over the ocean, and thats why there is such interest in developing offshore wind turbines in the Gulf of Maine.

Offshore wind power is a signature goal of the Mills administration and is seen as one of the ways to fight climate change by generating electricity without carbon emissions.

Offshore wind is a really significant opportunity for the state of Maine, for our energy future and economy, Dan Burgess, Director of the Governor's Energy Office, said.

But the image of huge, floating wind turbines has many in Maines fishing industry very worried. Among them is lobsterman Gerry Cushman of Port Clyde, a leader in both the Maine Lobstermens Association and the Maine Coast Fishermens Association.

And our message to the Governor is we hope you get behind the fishermen and help us fight this. We have no option but to fight this. We have to fight this not just for now but for our kids.

It is a sharp contrast between those who see opportunity and those who feel threatened, and the Mills dministration is trying to navigate those turbulent waters.

Offshore wind has been talked about in Maine for more than a decade, starting with former Gov. John Baldacci, who embraced a research proposal from the University of Maine to develop floating offshore platforms for huge wind turbines. Europe has deployed many wind turbines along its coast and in shallow waters, but at that time only Norway had developed a floating turbine. In the U.S., Rhode Island now has a few stationary turbines in the ocean, off Block Island, and Massachusetts now has the approval to build the latter Vineyard Wind project off Marthas Vineyard, also with stationary turbines fastened to the seafloor.

Maines vision, started by the University and embraced by Gov. Mills, is the floating platforms holding huge turbines, as tall as 600 feet, which could be anchored 20 to 40 miles out to sea, where the winds are consistently stronger. The University has received multiple federal grants for the design and built a small scale test platform, which was operated successfully in the waters off Castine.

Fishermen, and especially lobstermen have been worried about floating turbines for several years, fearing the size of the platforms, and the need for significant anchor cables running to the bottom and for large, underwater cables taking the electricity to shore will take away some of their fishing ground.

Those concerns were ratcheted up in November when Mills proposed a research array of floating turbines be located in federal waters, 20 to 40 miles offshore from the southern third of the Maine coast. The Mills administration has identified a large, general area it is considering but is asking fishermen to help identify a precise, 16-square mile portion where the proposal will be focused.

Cushman said the fishermen really dont want the turbines anywhere.

The Gulf of Maine looks huge but it's not, and 99 percent is being fished, said Cushman.

"16 miles is not a little area, and maybe just the beginning, we dont know."

He predicts fishermen will lose prime ground for lobstering, which will, in turn, cost them and the economy millions of dollars.

On Monday, Mills sent a letter to fishermen, saying she understands their concerns, but that the need for fighting climate change is too important to not pursue offshore wind. And she warned that sooner or later the development will happen.

Make no mistake about it, offshore wind is coming to the Gulf of Maine, even without my support, the Governor wrote in the letter.

Dan Burgess of the Energy Office says there is significant interest in developing offshore wind, here and elsewhere.

There is such interest in offshore wind, up and down the coast, and this research array really puts Maine in the driver's seat, Burgess said.

The Governor tried to soften the blow in her letter by pledging a 10-year moratorium on wind development in state waters, inside the three-mile limit. She said wind turbines don't belong in those areas, which are heavily fished in the summer and early fall. There have been rumors of a company called Triton planning to build a large wind array in state waters, but no actual proposal has yet been revealed or submitted.

However, there is already one floating turbine project being planned in state waters, and it is not included in the moratorium. The project is known as Aqua Ventus and is planned as a full-size test of the University's floating platform design. It would be located on a test site approved ten years ago by the Maine Legislature, nearly three miles off Monhegan island. The project is now a partnership between the University and subsidiaries of two large, international offshore wind companies. Those businesses are planning to invest as much as $100 million to build and deploy the 600-foot turbine on a 350-foot wide floating platform. The goal is to test and prove the UMaine technology, with the hope it can then be used on other sites, including the proposed research array.

Our goal ultimately is to be in the water summer of 2023, said Chris Wissman of New England Aqua Ventus, the official name of the partnership.

Wissman, too, said there is lots of interest in developing offshore wind power off Maine, calling that growth inevitable.

The Mills administration said it intends to keep pushing the proposal for the research array, seeking needed federal support to begin the needed studies for permits, hoping construction could begin on the water as soon as five years.

The Governors letter to the fishing industry said Mills hopes to continue talking about the concept with the fishing industry to identify the precise area of the ocean, and also identify problems.

A coalition of fishing groups called the Responsible Offshore Development Alliance said they also support clean energy development to fight climate change but have deep concerns about offshore wind. The groups did say it will keep talking with the Governors office about the plan.

Read the original here:

Promise of offshore wind power promoted by Mills, feared by fisherman - NewsCenterMaine.com WCSH-WLBZ

The Ninth Circuit vacated U.S. Department of the Interior approvals for a proposed offshore oil drilling and production facility in Alaska after finding its EIS improperly failed to consider impacts associated with foreign oil consumption and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services Biological Opinion relied on overly vague mitigation measures and improperly failed to quantify the projects nonlethal take of polar bears. Center for Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt, 982 F.3d 723 (9th Cir. 2020).

Conservation groups challenged the Bureau of Ocean Energy Managements (BOEM) approval of the Liberty Project, which proposes to produce crude oil from Foggy Island Bay off the northern coast of Alaska, for failure to comply with procedural requirements of NEPA, the ESA, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Project proponents estimated that the Project would produce approximately 120 million barrels of crude oil over a period of fifteen to twenty years. To do so, the Project would require construction of various new facilities including an offshore gravel island, wells, a pipeline to transport the oil, a gravel mine, and additional ice roads and crossings. The Project site is characterized by its ecological diversity and for providing habitat and food sources for threatened and endangered marine mammals, including polar bears.

EIS That Failed to Address Greenhouse Gas Emissions Resulting from Foreign Oil Consumption Violated NEPA

The Ninth Circuit was persuaded by one of two arguments raised by the conservation groups concerning BOEMs compliance with NEPA. The court held that BOEM had failed to analyze indirect effects of the Project as required by NEPA by arbitrarily failing to include emissions estimates resulting from foreign oil consumption in its analysis of the Projects no-action alternative. Counterintuitively, the EIS had concluded that maintaining the status quo under the no-action alternative would result in greater air emissions of priority pollutants as compared with the Project because, BOEM said, the production gap would be filled with substitutes produced from countries with comparatively weaker environmental protection standards. However, the EIR did not quantify the purported change in foreign oil consumption. BOEM argued that it could not have summarized or estimated foreign emissions associated with changes in foreign consumption with accurate or credible scientific evidence.

The court rejected BOEMs failure to either quantify downstream greenhouse gas emissions or to thoroughly explain why such an estimate is impossible. The court specifically faulted the EIR for failing to summarize existing research addressing foreign oil emissions and for ignoring basic economics principles, including changes to equilibrium price and demand effects of the Project. Moreover, the court declined to accord deference to BOEMs economic analysis of greenhouse gas emissions, stating that BOEMs area of expertise is the management of conventional (e.g. oil and gas) and renewable energy-related functions, including activities involving resource evaluation, planning, and leasing. Based on these findings, the court found that the BOEMs failure to address global emissions constituted an impermissible failure to evaluate reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts required to be analyzed under NEPA.

Reliance on Overly Vague Mitigation Measures to Demonstrate No Adverse Modification of Polar Bear Critical Habitat Violated the ESA

The court invalidated BOEMs approval of the Project on additional grounds that it improperly relied upon a legally deficient Biological Opinion prepared by FWS to satisfy consultation and take regulations under the ESA and MMPA. The Biological Opinion recognized that polar bears, which are classified as threatened marine mammals, are present in the Project area and that denning polar bears could be disturbed by aspects of Project construction and operation including construction vibrations and vehicular noise. Nevertheless, FWS concluded that the Project would not jeopardize their continued existence or adversely modify their critical habitat.

However, with respect to FWSs habitat impact finding, the court held that the Biological Opinion impermissibly relied upon mitigation measures that the court found too vague or uncertain to be enforceable. Such impermissibly vague and unenforceable mitigation measures included (i) commitments to comply with requirements of future authorizations under the MMPA, (ii) cross-reference to other possible minimization measures that would reduce effects to polar bears, and (iii) other mitigation measures [as] may be required on a case-by-case basis. In the courts view, FWSs reliance on this mix of yet unapproved and undefined mitigation measures under the MMPA, noncommittal assurances, and examples of possible strategies respectively failed to meet its burden to rely only on mitigation measures that constitute a clear, definite commitment of resources and where performance is under agency control or otherwise reasonably certain to occur.

Failure to Quantify Nonlethal Take of Polar Bears Violated the ESA

Finally, the court held that FWS impermissibly failed to quantify the amount of nonlethal take of polar bears in its incidental take statement in violation of the ESA, which required FWS to impose a numerical cap on incidental take or to explain why no cap has been provided. In the Biological Opinion, FWS supplied numerical caps only for polar bear take in the form of death or injury, but not for nonlethal harassment, including disruption of behavioral patterns [such as] migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. As the court noted, the Biological Opinion acknowledged the potential for increased polar bear-human interactions and ground disturbing construction activities that could cause polar bears to abandon their dens. Because FWS neither attempted to quantify such harassment nor show why it could not do so, the court held that FWS had violated the ESA, and in turn, that BOEMs reliance on the Biological Opinion in issuing final Project approvals was unlawful.

[View source.]

Continue reading here:

EIS and Biological Opinion Invalidated for Offshore Alaska Oil Project - JD Supra