DeepCwind Tirelessly Developing Floating Offshore Wind

Maine plans to have 5 GW of floating offshore wind by 2030 – but how will the state reach its goal?

Meg Cichon, Associate Editor, RenewableEnergyWorld.com
June 21, 2011 | 39 Comments

Researchers at the University of Maine's DeepCwind Consortium have been working to make the goal of having 5 GW of offshore wind a reality by 2030 . With more than $1 million in grant funding provided by the Department of Energy (DOE), their first task is figuring out how to construct a cost- and energy-efficient deep offshore wind turbine.

At EnergyOcean International 2011, Dr. Christopher G. Hart, Offshore Wind manager at the DOE, expressed enthusiasm for the DeepCwind project. “We are excited at the Department of Energy to find a cost optimum system and the possibilities that deepwater offshore presents,” he said.

To determine turbine placement, researchers are conducting extensive testing at their pre-permitted deepwater offshore wind testing site, located three miles south of Monhegan Island. Here, they assess turbine platforms, wind resources, ecological resources and geophysical and wave conditions.

The DeepCwind project is organized in five phases. Phase 1 (2010-2012) involves the design and testing on a 1:3 scale a floating turbine at the Monhegan test site. Phase 2 (2011-2015) involves the design and deployment on a full-scale floating turbine prototype. And during phases 3-5, researchers hope to build 4-8 floating offshore wind farms 10-50 miles offshore with a total capacity of 4 GW. The project should be completed by 2030.

Platform Design

One of the major challenges for harnessing offshore wind is structural costs and design of the turbines. Many offshore platforms are massive and extremely expensive. With this in mind, researchers held a design competition to determine the best offshore turbine platform designs.

Three designs were chosen: buoyancy stabilized, ballast stabilized and mooring line stabilized. According to consortium, the buoyancy platform consists of a barge base with catenary mooring lines. These lines form a curved shape and raise the resistance of the anchors. Ballast platforms include a spar buoy (tall, thin buoy noted for its balance), catenary mooring, and drag-embedded anchors. Mooring line platforms consist of a tension leg platform with suction pile anchors.

Grid Connectivity

DeepCwind experts also must consider grid connectivity in relation to the placement of the offshore turbines. According to its Offshore Wind Report, “interconnection sites were evaluated based on their relative grid stiffness, general readiness to accept up to 30 MW of wind generation and their location relative to the proposed wind project areas of interest.” Researchers rejected any interconnection site more than 60 km from the proposed project site, any site with a stiffness ratio of less than 5:0 or sites that were unable to handle 30 MW. Four sites were determined viable along the Maine shore.

Researchers then studied these sites further during summer peak hours to determine viability. According to the report, “the general conclusion reached from the cursory assessment is that the interconnection of up to 30 MW at any of the sites identified above is not expected to have an adverse impact on thermal or voltage related issues on the CMP medium or high voltage transmission system.” The report also gives cabling cost estimates of around $65-75 per foot for aerial lines and $300-400 per foot for underground lines. Researchers are also investigating common connection concerns including waves, sediments and currents, along with methods that could mitigate these issues.

Environmental Concerns

Environmental experts have been involved with the project to determine risk factors. Several species that are threatened include migratory birds, bats, endangered marine animals, fish habitats and coastal wildlife. Experts have taken special care in avoiding high-risk areas for these species. Wind turbines are one of the least dangerous areas of concern for birds, accoriding to Jeff Thaler, a lawyer at Bernstein Shur. Thaler spoke bluntly at EnergyOcean: “Each year, wind turbines kill 28,500 birds, pesticides kill 67 million, cars kill 80 million, power lines kill 550 million -- and the common cat kills over 180 million birds.”

Upcoming Plans

In October 2011, a new offshore wind lab will be opening at the University of Maine. According to the lab's website, it “will include a nanocomposites laboratory, a large structural testing laboratory with a test stand capable of supporting a 70-meter wind blade, and space to accommodate faculty, staff, and graduate researchers.” The full-scale deepwater wind prototype is planned to be launched from July-October 2012 to collect new data. At EnergyOcean International, both Dr. Hart and Dr. Habib J. Dagher, P.E. Director of DeepCwind, agreed, "the key is not to be the first in the water, but the smartest." Step by step, DeepCwind slowly moves closer to that goal.

39 Comments

Cliff Goudey
July 19, 2011

Ron, at the stage deep-water wind is at in this country, the Gulf of Maine in particular, there is hardly a cogent strategy, let alone a mature management regime. The technology is not even mature in other countries and here is is clearly at the research and early demonstration phase. There is a lot to learn before it can be considered economically feasible. In the meantime, the more proven approach of poking monopiles into more shallow seabeds will prevail. That this approach has been overshadowed by the deep-water option may prove to be a setback for Maine's interest in gaining energy independence. Time will tell on that one as well as your concerns about Monhegan artists.

In a likely futile attempt to redirect your advocacy to more meaningful matters, I offer the following item: "Study: Changes to ocean expected to damage shellfish around world" http://edition.cnn.com/2011/US/07/17/ocean.acidification/

We read, "Ocean acidification, or the changing chemical make-up of seawater, has occurred since the industrial revolution as ocean waters absorbed too much carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a by-product of human industrial activities, mainly the burning of fossil fuels."

"The Woods Hole study found that many marine animals like mollusks and corals that build hard shells and skeletons are most at risk from this. ....."

The health of the Penobscot Bay ecosystem and the communities it supports would be far better served if you took on big coal or big gas - major components of the problem, rather than nascent offshore wind - the potential solution.

Ron Huber
July 13, 2011

I wish to thank everyone who has shared their knowledge and/or their reasoning and points of view on this important subject thus far. I have learned a great deal more about this topic than before. It is a privilege to learn from such a spectrum - even if the teaching methods employed are at times virual Dickensian floggings. (Not all undeserved, true.)

So who dare debate? On the air? On the net? Any venue. A battle of wit and power points. Topics: what management regime is best for introducing this new energy extractive industry into the Gulf of Maine?

Is BOEMRE's "Damn the torpedoes!" wind-rush for Statoil's ten milers the way to go? Or DeepCwind's approach: the 20+ miles offshore minimum that Dr Dagher has assured us time and time again to be an unshakeable minimum? Albeit a bit more precautionary, more willing to look hard at the "reasonably foreseeable secondary impacts" of the prototypes, which are, of course the Big 'uns.

What likely foreseeable changes in economics, ecology and power usage resulting from one or both of those two alternative deepwater wind energy sitings in the Gulf of Maine? Despite a judge's ruling and a University of Maine report, this is still not clear.

Gerry Wootton
July 12, 2011

Thank you Cliff for putting it so politely. As a scientist, I should resent the implication that I know nothing but then I'd have to admit that science is mostly about poking at what you don't know and occasionally being poked by what you don't know you don't know. As someone who does a lot of engineering. I suppose I should take exception to the comments about the sad state of my education but then, how much knowledge could they drive into an immature brain in only 6 years? If I chose to be offended, I should not lack material for the character assasination of lawyers - I'm guessing that the ratio of lawyer jokes to physicist jokes is pretty one-sided.

Okay Penbay, what does the above study have to do with the topic? Some guys took data about the feeding behavior of larvae in a small acquarium, combined that with a theoretical model of wave action and extrapolated that to feeding behavior of cod larvae - it's not clear that the authors understood that feeding happens mostly at depths of 30 to 70 m where their wave action model breaks down. Besides, how can you trust a scientist? Now consider that the ultimate goal is to locate floating wind mills in waters that are at least 300 m deep and more while avoiding any substantial fishways.(discuss)
You also make a lot of noise about energy extraction although the proposed ultimate deployment is to extract about 3.5% of the resource which is the union of space that is more than 10 miles from land and less than 50, in 300 or more meters of water and has category 6 or better winds, that resource being less than 1/10th of the total marine wind energy between the shore and international waters for a net extraction of 0.35%. This is a lick, not the massive gulp you describe.
As for current modification, the available data from n-many navigational buoys, radiosonds drilling platforms, etc does show a disturbance resulting in a definite uptick in microfauna and pelagic fish habitat. Is that a bad thing? (discuss)

Cliff Goudey
July 12, 2011

Ron, that's fine but are you suggesting that DeepCwind, or any other ocean-based renewable energy project represents a threat to microzooplankton or their availability to post-hatch cod larvae? Do you think an HAPC designation is going to slow the acidification being caused by fossil fuel combustion emissions?

Finally, regarding your link, do you know that Georges Bank is not part of the Gulf of Maine?

Ron Huber
July 12, 2011

You wrote: Ron, since you have chosen to change the subject from the relative impacts of a test wind turbine compared to the reality of ocean acidification, I am left to surmise you are unfamiliar with the problem or don't care.

I see two issues, both about anthropogenic impacts. There is a great & well deserved hubbub going on about the problem of ocean acidification & the political & economic roadblocks locally & globally to ever doing a thing about it. I have sounded off about ocean acidification for more than a decade, & over time have chosen to limit my efforts in the ocean acidification struggle to a more modest if accomplishable front: Ending nearshore waters acidification due to its impacts on fed-protected nearshore marine protozoa species' abundance and distribution.

Federally protected microbes?

Nearly the entirety of New England nearshore waters - from Mean Low Water to either 10 meters depth contour (Option 1) or twenty meters depth contour(Option 2) are on the verge of new and improved federal protection by being designated as Habitat Areas of Particular Concern for juvenile Atlantic Cod. These shallows -a part of the sea we most aggressively impact- provide the complicated 3D protective habitat and food sources for the young fish, in shoal water.

The significance of this designation is that it also protects the prey of juvenile cod; including what Woods Hole oceanographer Scott Gallager calls "the essential microbial food for age zero cod." He's shown that these cod larvae "require soft-bodied microzooplankton in the size range of 40 to 80 m at a nominal concentration of about 2 cells ml-1 in order to maximize survival through yolk-sac absorption (~10-15 days post-hatch)"
The cod's ecological micro-partners may have a chance at protection under the rule of law, once the HAPC designation is final, giving cod-huggers a regulatory leg to hop on.

DeepCwind? In light of the above, consider this: http://tinyurl.com/turbulcod

Cliff Goudey
July 11, 2011

Rupert, you wrote, 'with all due respect, please keep it civil and on topic,' yet you addressed PatDuval. That seems odd since Penbay (Ron Huber) and you have been consistent in your ad hominem attacks on DeepCwind's attorney (ineptitude) and engineers in general (poor, wearing blinders). Consider taking your own advice.

Ron, since you have chosen to change the subject from the relative impacts of a test wind turbine compared to the reality of ocean acidification, I am left to surmise you are unfamiliar with the problem or don't care.

EnviroShow, who is saying energy conservation is not important? Both supply and demand solutions are needed but without the former we remain hostage to fossil fuels and their role in AGW. All the conservation we can muster will not stop the emissions.

Don Ogden
July 11, 2011

For those asking: >>what's your better solution?<<

Did someone say energy conservation?? lifestyle change?? energy efficiency?? Those first two have not been seriously pursued by industry and government in this nation, much less in the corporate media. It's always more generation. More, more, more. A realistic education program on energy conservation and lifestyle change, across the board, would be one "solution", but Corporate America and its enablers in government want you to shop and consume. We are at cross purposes here.

Ron Huber
July 10, 2011

Thank you Rupert for your call for reasonable discussion. Ad hominem attacks are reflexiveand indicate unease with the subject under dispute. One sees crows mobbing an owl for it having the audacity to venture into _their_ wood, bringing its different raison d'etre with it;

But to the fundamental question for my ocean wind energy-coveting friends: Is there ANY upper limit to the amount of kinetic wind energy one can extract from anchored or fixed pile ocean windparks set up in the Gulf of Maine, without significantly impacting the Ekman-transported energy loads of the waters that constitute the "footprint" of such windpark(s)? Such energy load is adequate if it seasonally allows transport living and nonliving marine resources throughout the Gulf of Maine. Inadequate if not. Is there a maximum accceptable reduction in Ekman transfer of energy from air to water column, beyond which , say larvaal delivery might be delayed?

Cliff Goudey
July 4, 2011

Good morning Ron. Happy forth of July. Be careful of those fireworks, as the display over Portland Harbor may trigger a red tide in Seal Cove (if those turbines put up by Fox Island Wind hasn't done so already).

But seriously, while the waters of the Gulf of Maine are semi-enclosed, not so the air space above them. The winds do not have to squeeze between Cape Cod and Nova Scotia to have their effect. Furthermore, before you miss apply Mr. Apollonio's notions of how hierarchy theory applies to the Gulf of Maine I suggest you ask him where such a perturbation falls in the scale of things.

I suspect he could give you a list of human activities and rank them on proven and suspected impacts to the GoM ecosystem. I doubt the local and minor diminishment of surface-level winds would find its way onto his list any more than a yacht race or the re-growth of trees on a barren island.

I take it that since you have ignored my suggestion that ocean acidification might be a more important issue for you to tackle, you must either disagree or be unaware of the problem. Recently Bob Steneck gave a lecture at GMRI on on the topic and explained how carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by fossil fuel combustion is making our oceans more acidic. This in turn reduces limestone in the water, a critical building block for shellfish, risking extreme consequences for lobsters, softshell clams, northern shrimp, oysters, etc. With shellfish accounting for 90% of Maine's wild-harvested species, I again suggest you redirect your litigious fulminations towards a real problem rather than a possible solution.

Ron Huber
July 3, 2011

See, I am very impressed by the technological innovations that Team Dagher and all the other offshore wind developers around at least six of the seven seas are bringing inot existence; whether or not they turn to be cost-effective as "juice machines" the spin-offs to future marine technology will be manifold.

I only argue that the industry's boosters are, for the sake of the bottom line, promoting the preposterous idea that ocean wind extraction is not renewable, it is INEXHAUSTIBLE, and if not uniform in velocity distribution, ocean wind kinetic energy is essentially uniform in its interaction with the sea and the ecosystems within. And that regardless of the percentage of the cornucopia representing the GOM's total energy budget diverted ashore as electricity, there will be _no effect on anything_.

As Spencer Apollonio's charming System in the Sea laid out so long ago, as is writ in the ice age middens on North Haven, making changes to a small piece of a semi-enclosed ecosystem like the Gulf of Maine reverberates throughout the rest of it, include creation of feedback cycles that can amplify the new energy extractors' impacts.

But the issue may not be acknowledged; once it is granted that the laws of physics apply in the Gulf of Maine, the effects of proposed offshore wind extraction operations on historic, ongoing and future movements of GOM plankton and neuston must be considered, and fewer areas will be available for leasing.

One thinks that, as Big Energy investors own both coal and wind investments, they are thriftily using the same public relations companies to speak what are largely mirror images of the same litany out of both sides of their mouths!

Cliff Goudey
July 3, 2011

Ron Huber wrote, "... the surface wind plume trailing behind each windmill remains less than 30% of that of the surrounding air column..."

Egad! You mean wind turbines really work? So the coal lobby is right? "In The Know: Coal Lobby Warns Wind Farms May Blow Earth Off Orbit" http://www.theonion.com/video/in-the-know-coal-lobby-warns-wind-farms-may-blow-e,20876/

Ron Huber
July 3, 2011

Now I am sure it is common knowledge, but the agreement reached with Monhegan's fishermen is that the prototypes will not be in the water during Monhegan's lobstering season. The summer fisheries of Monhegan are, as you know, negligible commercially speaking. During THAT season when the turbines would be in the water, will you find Monhegan fishermen fishing? Hah! They are onshore Monhegan, extracting cash from visiting tourists in the finest Maine tradition, no?

So please explain what Monhegan's fishermen have to do with the question of windmill impacts, when their economic activity does not occur at the same time of year as the windmill prototypes operate? Beyond pizza delivery to the windtechs and some water taxi jobs, not very much, one imagines. Please enlighten. The fishermen may rent cottages to wind industry visitors, to replace the vanishing artists, who will have, as Cliff suggested, "moved their easels" to another island.

Ron Huber
July 3, 2011

GeraldR correctly noted that "Resistance to change is not rational; expect highly charged and histrionic attacks."

This has been my experience! When one challenges any of the fallacious faith tenets held by most ocean wind energy extractor wannabees, they respond, but not with equations, nor with models or maps. Rather a flurry of ad hominem attacks & histrionic declarations that those who do not hew to the Revealed Truths of Big Energy are outcaste, infidel. Best ignored and if possible, sent packing.

One must hold with Big E's fantasy that continually extracting gigawatts of energy from certain locations in an enclosed sea like the GOM will have no impact on anything; that the energy budget of that waterbody may be distorted with impunity, freely, to any degree and within any part of it we wish, for as many gigawatts as we are technologically capable of wringing from the GOM's winds.

This despite the fact* that topside, the massive gulp of power that ocean wind turbines extract in their set locations worry engineers greatly, for such precipitous kinetic energy drops occur downwind of each turbine that adjacent turbines must be rather distant; that even miles away the kinetic energy budget of the surface wind plume trailing behind each windmill remains less than 30% of that of the surrounding air column.

Reasonably enough, the investment community that is evidently moving into ownership of offshore wind extraction enterprises has no concern at all for any effects that such perturbations might have on marine Nature. One hopes that such distinguished alumni of MIT and other Ivory Windtowers that comment on this list retain some shreds of impartiality amid the mad scramble that is the price of joining the lucrative ocean windpower consulting class. But that's another story.

* Horns Rev wind shadow review (pdf)
http://tinyurl.com/hrev-wak

Cliff Goudey
July 3, 2011

Ron, I can't believe you dismiss the importance of the fishing industry in sustaining this community in favor of its fair-weather visitors. How many of your artists are there to support the community during the winter?

Do you know what the residents of Monhegan are paying for electricity? Did you know that they have decided overwhelmingly to pursue the idea of wind power to supplement their diesel-powered system in order to make island living affordable. See: http://monheganpower.com/

Art and beauty are in the eyes of the beholder. You may not like to look at wind turbines and other devices that quietly and elegantly produce energy. I'd have to disagree, as might others. For example, check out:

Wind Turbine and Clouds
http://mariesartjourney.blogspot.com/2006/10/wind-turbine-and-clouds.html

Noon Clouds and the Wind
http://mariesartjourney.blogspot.com/2008/05/noon-clouds-and-wind.html

Thunderhead Wind
http://mariesartjourney.blogspot.com/2008/11/thunderhead-wind.html

Blue Wind
http://mariesartjourney.blogspot.com/2008/06/blue-wind.html

The problem is DeepCWind's turbines would require a high-powered telescope to be seen clearly, and then only when the fog lifts.

Ron Huber
July 3, 2011

I'm sorry Cliff that you would mock the arts as inconsequential; that those whose economic input into that island's economy outstrips that of its fisheries can merely go locate "another spot to set up their easel." It is so thoroughly emblematic of the earnest but narrow engineer stereotype that I wonder that you did not blush when you wrote it.

Monhegan would be a very different community were it not a place with scenic assets of global significance. But, thanks to the overarching importance in your mind of the War on Carbon - or at least on its oxidized emission - such assets may be battered to ruination with little regret, like the great Medieval tower of the Chateau de Coucy, blown by a retreating WW1 army, in the face of pleas from those that cared for this irreplaceable architecture. Likewise Monhegan's artists, all the generations of them, may go to blazes, under your bleak philosophy. Holding such an opinion is your right, though I think you are wrong.

Thank you for the history lesson on funerals - We are proud to be part of such a tradition.

Cliff Goudey
June 30, 2011

Ron, you wrote, "I know its but test site. But the point of the test site is not idle model making. It is to build and deploy the biggies."

I am sure many involved hope the tests lead to just that. However, the tests and the economic modeling that follow will determine the practicality of any future deployments. Whether the Monhegan test site is suitable for such industrial-scale development is another matter and one that will see a lot more process than what has occurred to date.

Regarding a funeral for art on Monhegan, good luck. That happened decades ago when the first utility pole went up - and no one came. A second one occurred when the wooden lobster buoy was made illegal - and even fewer mourners came. For years artists have simply ignored aesthetic blemishes or merely found another spot to set up their easel.

If this issue is where your opposition stance has devolved to, I suggest you find a new cause; a real one, like ocean acidification.

Ron Huber
June 30, 2011

Cliff et al I know its but test site. But the point of the test site is not idle model making. It is to build and deploy the biggies. The only problems with the test site is that out of half a dozen good sites they chose the ONE location offshore that they would impinge on irreplaceables, and that of course is off Monhegan Island right off the patch of shore that more than a century of artists from around the world have immortalized. While state laws speficially forbid degradation of irreplaceable scenic assets, by a bit of legerdemesne, Maine's licensing agency was able to preted that there is no scneic assets of any quality on Monhegan. Or at least not on THAT part. It was very comical and a judge just issued a ruling two days ago, awarding me standing to protect the fishes of the inner Gulf of Maine, but also okaying DeepCwind's offshore lease from the state. So unless I pursue an appeal, then welcome to the Island-formerly-known-as-an-artists-colony. We'll be holding a funeral for Art and for a soon to be lost realm of scenic ineffability, out there if it does indeed go forward. But that is another story. For now, let's hope that Dr Dagher and his DeepCwind teams proceed forward with the cautions from the court and myself still ringing in their ears. Do it best, not first! I'm glad the good Doctor has adopted that philosophy in some form or another) Will he apply it?

Barry Monette
June 30, 2011

Canada has just sold Atomic Energy for $15 million into the private sector. Over the past 50 plus years it has accumulated a large debt - which is not included in the cost calculations for generated electricity by such players as Ontario Hydro. If the full costs of nuclear power were calculated including recovery of R&D and security related costs, this would add a few pennies to the math and make the comparison to clean-tech better.

Government subsidies, direct and indirect, have skewed the cost calculations for traditional energy. Clean-tech needs to be compared on an equitable basis.

Barry Monette
June 30, 2011

Magenn Power Inc. is developing a very light weight Savonius type rotor with a good CP for such technologies. A MARS (Magenn Air Rotor System) would be tethered to the barge and add very little weight, although it would place a sizable load onto the tether - from the device drag.

The MARS offers a good solution for off-shore, lakes, rivers, wet-lands, and so forth for wind generation. It can easily reach altitudes of 500 feet to 2000 feet to find strong winds in such locations. The device can be either helium or hydrogen filled, and brought down during storms. It's high visibility to birds, etc. make it much more friendly. It can be installed in just a few days.

The inventor also has a similar under water rotor - with the potential that they could be combined or interrelated.

www.magenn.com

Cliff Goudey
June 25, 2011

Unable to detect GeraldR's sarcasm, PenBay [a.k.a. Ron Huber] says, "How is it "okay" to alter those thermal profiles? The ecosystem of those altered waters is completely different from what was there before."

It's not OK, and that's the point. Ron, in you frantic attempts to find fault with offshore renewables, you are blind to the benefits. The ocean is being turned into an acid bath from absorbed CO2. You apparently prefer that to a few wind turbines on your horizon?

The point you are missing Ron, is that this is research and not the commercial deployment of a massive wind farm. A lot has to be learned before that can happen in those depths, environmental impacts, user conflicts, and most important, the economics. Just because the wind is stronger further offshore does not mean it's logical to site there. I worry that more economical wind power opportunities are being overlooked due to a misguided concern over aesthetics.

Glen Edward Cook
June 24, 2011

Hydrogen is the most powerful fuel for it's weight. That is why it is used to power our rockets into space. Batteries are one of the heaviest.

Glen Edward Cook
Inventor

richard Annett
June 24, 2011

Thank you Glen,
This is exactly the approach I have been following for the last 8 years. At least a few are on board with the idea. Shame the UK gov is too blinded by Nuclear to see.
Time will tell.

Glen Edward Cook
June 24, 2011

The storing of great amounts of electric power should not be done with batteries but by converting the electricity into hydrogen, then back into water as it is used. Only large reusable tanks are needed. These tanks could be large hydrogen tankers that could transport the hydrogen to coal, oil and nuclear power plants where hydrogen burners could replace the coal, oil or nuclear "burners" that now power the plants. The real problem is producing electricity and converting it to hydrogen at a cost equal to or less than coal.

Glen Edward Cook
Inventor

Steve Poppitz
June 24, 2011

a little off track ... the article is about LARGE FLOATING WIND MILL SYSTEMS

Ron Huber
June 24, 2011

It is conclusions like these that demonstrate the need for citizen oversight - and litigation as needed:

"Since altering the thermal profile of bodies of by dumping vast amounts of cooling water from thermal and nuclear plants has been going on for quite a while, that's okay too."

How is it "okay" to alter those thermal profiles? The ecosystem of those altered waters is completely different from what was there before. Those changes then force change throughout the riverine or coastal ecosystem. It is "okay" to some because they have no concern for those ecosystems. Indeed, wearing blinders is a good thing in the engineering profession; it is the undistracted nose that adheres best to the grindstone. But one should humblingly admit that a specialist outside of his or her profession is an amateur, and their observations are typically of little value. Though not always.

Gerry Wootton
June 24, 2011

Green energy promoters need to stop making rational arguments against detractors. Resistance to change is not rational; expect highly charged and histrionic attacks. There is always strong oppostion to anything that differs from the way things were at birth. Change is a deep level threat - they will clamber up Maslow's pyramid adding a capstone of apparent logic often supported by pure conjecture / facts not in evidence. The negative impact on new technology is that they become burdened by excess regulation and other constraints while incumbents get a free pass even on well known deficiencies. Here we see some strident 'compassion' for the birds killed by wind power but none whatsoever for the many humans injured and killed by coal mining and coal fired power generation (don't waste time arguing this: anyone is free to read AMA or Harvard studies, data compiled by northern New England states, etc. - they won't). Since crashing into smokestacks has been a risk to birds for many years, that's okay. Since altering the thermal profile of bodies of by dumping vast amounts of cooling water from thermal and nuclear plants has been going on for quite a while, that's okay too. Certainly, there's no such thing as a human activity that has no impact on the environment (if there were,archaeologists would be unemployed). Relativism is rational; absolutism is not. Sadly, we must expect a good deal of willful vandalism. As a number of commentators have said, what's your better solution? Don't expect one as the prime motivator is resistance to change.
The other factor that frequently plays is NIMBYism. One sure symptom is the demand for studies of more alternatives, more venues, etc. This is one of NIMBY's favorite smokescreens. Unfortunately, it's easy to claim lack of dilligence on the proponents part while doing none yourself. Sadly, most engineering is vulnerable. One never has the time to do exhaustive studies of every conceivable alternative - you start with a short list.

shamil ayntrazi
June 23, 2011

Gentlemen
Please keep it technical, precise and concise

Steve Poppitz
June 23, 2011

Dear gedwardcook,
Well put! And also how many people will not get sick, will not go to a resource war, will not pollute their environment,will not send their energy money to foreign lands, etc.,etc.

Glen Edward Cook
June 23, 2011

"Ask not how many birds will die, ask how many will be saved" Wind, solar, wave and other renewable energy replaces coal and oil burning plants that pollute the air and water. To compare how many will be killed without stating how many will be saved is pointless!

Glen Edward Cook
Inventor
g@gedwardcook.com

Anumakonda Jagadeesh
June 22, 2011

Excellent.

There is an Energy Island Concept designed by Dominic Michaelis.

FOR LARGE SCALE PRODUCTION OF ELECTRICITY, HYDROGEN AND DESALINATED WATER.

The Energy Island, a joint venture lead by Dominic Michaelis, draws on the broad range of research activities being conducted across the University of Southampton in a number of specialist research groups. A virtual team, collaborating with industry and academics internationally is working towards the goal of a floating energy island capable of delivering gigawatt levels of energy from renewable sources. The modular structure of the Energy Island permits scaling and adaptation to suit a variety of different locations, climates and demands while facilitating economic feasibility through shared infrastructure, volume production and low operating costs. The flexibility of siting offered by a floating platform also offers a critical advantage to the more densely populated countries such as the United Kingdom where obtaining environmentally and socially acceptable locations for the siting of large renewable energy capture installations is a major hurdle for any new development.

Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India
Wind Energy Expert
E-mail: anumakonda.jagadeesh@gmail.com

rupert denham
June 22, 2011

PatDuval - with all due respect, please keep it civil and on topic - I'm referring to your personal comments towards Penbay. Unnecessary and adds nothing to the conversation.
RE an earlier comment about why aren't people complaining about the damage that cats do to birds, etc....well, people (and agencies, and organizations) do complain and have developed public education programs and nuisance animal policies (see American Bird Conservancy's Cats Indoors! program), but they are discusses in more detail elsewhere. Most people don't equate cat-killing with wind farm issues. FYI...
Anyway, although it is clear people feel strongly about all of these complex issues related to renewable energy and the environment, I think we have to be careful about making sweeping comments and derogatory remarks about stereotypes of people. My earlier comments about the lawyer were about his incorrect statements, and professional lack of knowledge about ocean environments and differences between land-based and offshore wind issues. They did not touch on his lifestyle and personal demeanor. We're all in this together, whether we like it or not!

Pat Duval
June 22, 2011

Penbay – Let me guess? You do not work, you live in your deceased parent's house, and you live off a trust fund.

Ron Huber
June 22, 2011

Poor engineers! These modern grads: never exposed to such pernicious theories as the laws of thermodynamics. They would joyously max the energy withdrawal from the water column within the bootprint of every ocean windfarm. After all nature (be sure to sneer when you hear this "n" word, lads) Nature has no need for that energy. Even if it does, the industrialists note, too bad. There's money to be made. Go migrate your little larvae somewhere else, Aphrodite!

richard Annett
June 22, 2011

The number of bird hiuts by vehicles driving around the states is so huge. Every one accepts it as a necessary evil of trying to get from A to B.
So it must be with wind. It will take a few generations but birds will learn not to fly into them.
In europe I think they are using radar such that any large mass of migrating birds is recognised and sends a signal to turbines to shut down until they are gone.
Good luck from someone developing their own floating wind turbine in the UK; Far Offshore Renewables.

Steve Poppitz
June 22, 2011

My guess is that this bird and bat 'bad rap' was created to slow the acceptance of wind energy.(maybe we should examine the origin of these complaints) House cats and automobiles kill many times more birds than wind mills and do. Do you hear the same people calling for reconsideration of cats and cars? Small issue. Let's get to THE SUBJECT. Floating wind mills get way out to sea, where the really great wind potential is. Almost all offshore wind to date has been developed in less than 30 meters deep.And there isn't much great wind in very shallow water around the world. The 'Ballast Stabilized Platforms' are what are being tested in Norway now.(research Hywind) For my limited knowledge of floating dynamic objects, I'm guessing that that is the way to go. Reguardless, best of luck with a quick R&D and right into production for this highly needed design work. What I found missing from the article: no mention that floating wind mills is where the MEGA-MILLS are envisioned.Instead of the current 2-5MW mills being built, HyWind and other offshore inovators are projecting 10MW,12MW and even larger wind-mills.This could be a real game changer.

Pat Duval
June 22, 2011

Fireofenergy - I could not agree more. I'm so sick of these environmentalists complaining about anything and everything in order to throw monkey wrenches into wind energy development. I am an engineer by trade and beng from MA have followed the Cape Wind offshore wind project. I have heard every excuse from opponents not to move forward with the project. Never do these people offer technical solutions it's always negative comments and negative points of views and then developers and engineers have to jump through a series of hoops and spend millions more on BS studies to prove these people wrong. Look at Cape Wind and all the BS it's gone through even though extensive studies and EIS have been approved by state and federal regulators and yet nothing has been done. It's so easy to find negativity in anything without a solution. Hypocrites is all.

rupert denham
June 22, 2011

Dear fireofenergy - I didn't say I was against wind energy, just pointing out the lawyer's sweeping irresponsible statements about possible impacts. Please don't read what you want to into posts like this. It is good to not go into any new area blindly. We need to raise questions and be certain we are getting things right - creating a balance. By the way - humans are 'animals', and whether we like it or not, humans cause most of the problems we're experiencing, and we're subject to the same consequences as other animals. You can't isolate the human species above what is going on in our environment. I've yet to see any non-human animals cause the risk of extinction of humans..but, rather, humans appear to be bent on killing off a huge number of other species for some reason. I find something wrong with that.

rupert denham
June 21, 2011

While we may acknowledge the need to explore ocean energy possibilities, one would think that the DeepCwind Consortium would have a better informed lawyer representing them. As previously pointed out by another commenter, ranking alone does not minimize the impact of a problem. Consider if we supported research on only the 1st or 2nd ranked cause of human disease - a heck of a lot of people would die. The argument is not logical. Thaler cites a decade-old study that long ago lost its punch and he provides two major indicators of his ineptitude: 1) the number of turbines are increasing on the planet and, thus, so will their impact on birds and bats - Why do we want to further compound the continued demise of our wildlife populations?, and 2) if Thaler knew anything about the Gulf of Maine he'd realize that the only 'cats' offshore are 'catfish', which, last time I looked, don't occur in this Gulf. In the offshore environment, turbines are likely to pose the greatest risk to all sorts of ocean-going wildlife. One can't apply the purported risks of land-based wind projects to offshore wind projects. I hope Thaler isn't representative of the expertise on the DeepCwind project. He clearly needs to read up on the major issues relative to the ocean environment.

Ron Huber
June 21, 2011

Attorney Jeff Thaler's silly non-point about birds (as illogical as saying that while nuclear weapons can kill millions at a time and are deadly, machine guns kill only hundreds at a time and thus are harmless)aside, the article's thin coverage of environmental impacts suggests that Thaler neglected to illuminate Ms. Cichon as to many of the questions his clients DeepCwind and the University of Maine face. Among statements that are certainly not true:
"Experts have taken special care in avoiding high-risk areas for these species." The state's ornithology experts would tell you a very different story. If anything, the most recent radar assessments have shown a far far greater number of birds island-hopping their way up and down the Maine coast during their migrations than ever imagined. The Maine Coastal Islands National Wildlife Refuge manager would tell you they haven't the slightest idea whether the proposed DeepCwind study site is directly within the Atlantic Puffins' migration path. UMaine oceanographer Peter Jumars, a DeepCwind researcher, acknowledges that ocean windfarms distort ocean currents as a natural side effect of this form of energy extraction, and that this could have harrowing effects on lobster larvae migrating to Midcoast Maine on the Maine Coastal Current, but is willing to risk that industry's future.
DeepCwind's strategy for dealing w/ these issues: convince Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Hjelm NOT to hear the case Huber v BPL, but to dismiss it without hearing on a tenuous standing argument. That's DeepCwind's "science" at work. Shame!

As the case record shows, the decision to locate the project off Monhegan Island was predetermined, with the alternative sites never given any serious consideration. Regrettably this has led to data (particularly on birds) to be tortuously bent or omitted to enable this project to receive fastracked state approvals under a credulous Baldacci administration.
Details http://www.penbay.org

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

Meg Cichon

As associate editor of RenewableEnergyWorld.com, I coordinate and edit feature stories, contributed articles, news stories, opinion pieces and blogs. I also research and write content for RenewableEnergyWorld.com and REW magazine. I manage...