siting of wind farms in ri coastal waters: wind resources and technology development index-...

Siting of Wind Farms in RI Coastal Waters:

Wind Resources and Technology Development Index

Malcolm L. SpauldingOcean Engineering, University of Rhode Island

Workshop Applying Coastal Marine Spatial

Planning to Energy Siting

May 23-25, 2011

Goal: Develop and implement an open, transparent , objective procedure for selecting the location of an offshore renewable energy facility that maximizes power production, and minimizes cost and environmental and human use impacts.

Multi-Stage Screening Process Using Marine Spatial Planning Tools

1 st Tier – Hard constraints (irreconcilable difference in uses) System optimization: power production vs technical challenge (cost).

2 nd Tier – Ecological and human use impacts

Tier #1 Screening (Hard Constraints)Wind ResourceAdequate Wind Resources ( greater than 7 m/sec at 80 m, hub height)

or similar for other ocean energy sources (≥1.5 m/sec currents, ≥ 10 kW/m waves)

Exclusions Navigation areas -regulated ( shipping lanes, precautionary areas,

preferred routes)Vessel tracks ( AIS data)Ferry routesRegulated areas ( disposal site, military areas, unexploded ordnance,

marine protected areas)Airport buffer zonesCoastal buffer zone ( 1 km)Cable Areas (?)

Tier #1 Screening (cont’d)Technology Development ChallengeWater depth range, dependent on technologyMono-piles - 5 to 25 to 30 m Lattice jacket/tripod -30 to 60 mFloating – 60 to 1000 m

Wind Resource Map, Southern New England

Estimates of 80 m wind speeds AWS TrueWinds data

Wind Roses, Southern NE

Wind Power Roses, Southern NE

RAM Meteorological Modeling Domains

RAM Meteorological Model Prediction, NW winds

Comparison of Model Predictions to Observations

Technology Development IndexObjective: Develop a metric based on

technical challenge to power production potential to screen for sites.

TDI = TCI/PPPwhere TDI –Technology Development Index

TCI- Technical Challenge IndexPPP- Power Production Potential

Presented in form of dimensionless values (predicted TDI divided by lowest TDI possible in area of interest)

Schafer and Hartshorn, 1965; Sirkin, 1982

End Moraines of Southeastern New England

Mohegan Bluffs, BI – Complex Stratigraphy

-

Boothroyd and Sirkin, 2002

Mohegan Bluffs, BI – Complex Stratigraphy

Technology challenge for lattice jacket structures (Jonas, 2010)

AIS SERIES

Visualization Series

TDI- In stream tidal current

Threshold - 1 m/sec

Threshold – 1.3 m/sec

Block Island Topography and Land Cover

Observed Wind Speed and Power Roses

NW wind case – October 30, 2008

SW Wind case –July 8, 2008

Model predicted average wind speed at 10 and 80 m

Extreme Waves in Vicinity of Block Island

Bathymetry

Wave rose

Extreme Wave AmplitudeOnce in 100 yrs

High Resolution Technology Development Index- Block Island

High Resolution Application of TDI Block Island (state waters)

OCEANOGRAPHIC REGIONS Oceanographic variables

SST

STRATIFICATION

FALL SPRING

12.5 m27.5 m

GEOMORPHOLOGIC VARIABLES

BOTTOM ROUGHNESS (J.King)

GRAIN SIZE : PHI MEDIAN

SLOPEDEPTH

-71.8 -71.7 -71.6 -71.5 -71.4 -71.3 -71.2 -71.1 -71 -70.9

40.9

41

41.1

41.2

41.3

41.4

41.5

0 16 32 48 64Km

Roughest, Cold, Mixed

"BIS"

Rough, Warm, Mixed

"Littoral"

Smooth, Silty , Warm, Stratified

"RIS"

Deep, Smooth, Sandy, Warm, Stratified

"Deep"

Smooth, Sandy,

Intermediate temperature

and stratification

"Intermediate"

-71.8 -71.7 -71.6 -71.5 -71.4 -71.3 -71.2 -71.1 -71 -70.9

40.9

41

41.1

41.2

41.3

41.4

41.5

0 16 32 48 64

High Biodiversity

"Littoral" assemblage

High Biodiversity

"RIS assemblageMedium Biodiversity

"Rocky" assemblage

Low Biodiversity

"Deep" water Assemblage

-71.8 -71.7 -71.6 -71.5 -71.4 -71.3 -71.2 -71.1 -71 -70.9

40.9

41

41.1

41.2

41.3

41.4

41.5

0 16 32 48 64

Medium Biodiversity

"Littoral" assemblage

Highest Biodiversity

"RIS2" assemblage

Medium Biodiversity

"Rocky" assemblageMedium Biodiversity

"RIS assemblage

Medium Biodiversity

"Deep water" assemblage

FALL SPRINGOceanographicEcological

FALL TYPOLOGY

-71.8 -71.7 -71.6 -71.5 -71.4 -71.3 -71.2 -71.1 -71 -70.9

40.9

41

41.1

41.2

41.3

41.4

41.5

0 16 32 48 64

High Biodiversity

"Littoral" assemblage

High Biodiversity

"RIS assemblageMedium Biodiversity

"Rocky" assemblage

Low Biodiversity

"Deep" water Assemblage

Clusterfall

Biodiversity Index

RichnessIndex

Dominant group

Sakonnet 10 7.1 DemersalSkate&squid

Deep 5.7 5.7 Medium game Mammals

Rocky 7.5 7.1 DemersalRIS 9.5 8.6 Demersal

MammalsLittoral 9.5 10 Demersal, skate&Lobster

SPRING TYPOLOGY

-71.8 -71.7 -71.6 -71.5 -71.4 -71.3 -71.2 -71.1 -71 -70.9

40.9

41

41.1

41.2

41.3

41.4

41.5

0 16 32 48 64

Medium Biodiversity

"Littoral" assemblage

Highest Biodiversity

"RIS2" assemblage

Medium Biodiversity

"Rocky" assemblageMedium Biodiversity

"RIS assemblage

Medium Biodiversity

"Deep water" assemblage

Cluster Biodiversity Index

RichnessIndex

Dominant group

Deep 6.5 8.4 Mammals (Demersal & Herring)

RIS2 10 10 Demersal & Herring

Rocky/BIS 6 8.4 Demersal & Mammals

RIS 6 6.8 Herring & Mammals

Littoral 5.7 6.3 Demersal& Lobster

Conclusions• Ocean SAMP very effective approach to planning for and

siting offshore renewable energy facilities: comprehensive, inclusive, cost effective, and consistent with state and federal regulatory framework.

• Marine spatial planning (MSP) powerful tool to assist in siting decisions and assessing tradeoffs (new tools: technology development index, ecosystem valuation approaches(in progress))