By Cynthia Yin
Abstract
One of the main obstacles to overcome in the development and implementation of wind turbines is social opposition, which can be categorized into three concerns: environmental, financial, and quality of life. Environmental concerns are those relating to the effects of wind turbines on wildlife. Financial concerns are those relating to the cost, risk, and return on investment of wind turbines. Quality of life concerns are those relating to general annoyances caused by wind turbines, such as residual noise and visual impacts (ie shadow flicker). In addition, some causes of opposition arise due to the need to share the ocean, such as with marine traffic. Opposition to offshore wind farms can be mitigated in a variety of ways. In fact, many of the most common concerns with offshore wind farms have either been shown to be myths or have already been solved.
Environmental Concerns
Proper research prior to planning and development of offshore wind turbines can mitigate environmental concerns.
Regarding avian populations, common worries include death by collision and behavioral changes due to the presence of wind turbines. According to NYSERDA’s Pre-Development Assessment of Avian Species, most birds in the proposed area become habituated to wind turbines and thus the effect of wind turbines on these populations is temporary. However, some avian populations are more sensitive to and exhibit higher avoidance of wind turbines and related structures; this could lead to higher daily energy expenditures for highly sensitive avian populations. (9) Regarding chiropteran populations, wind turbines cause changes in air pressure around the blades, which causes barotrauma (6).
These are legitimate concerns, in that they are not untrue, but the effect of wind turbines on avian and chiropteran populations is miniscule compared to the effects of other human activities and structures on these populations.
Figure 1 – Image Courtesy of US Forest Services
Improved choices with sites and recent developments in turbine technologies have already dramatically reduced danger to these populations. In addition, avian and chiropteran density and activity decreases significantly with distance from the shore. The Marine Environmental Monitoring Programme (MEMP)—an ongoing ecological study by renewable energy consultant Natural Power—has found that Robin Rigg, an offshore wind farm in the UK, has an insignificant impact on marine life (birds, fish, sea mammals, and benthic organisms). The MEMP confirms a 2011 compilation study of the ecological effects of an offshore wind farm in the Dutch coastal zone, which actually found unintended positive effects of offshore wind farms due to novel marine environments around turbine bases. (5) Of course, each location has a different biological dynamic, but the lack of offshore wind farms off the coast of the US means there is no data on the ecological effects yet.
There are several environmental groups that believe wind farms can successfully coexist with wildlife and support the creation of wind farms so long as environmental concerns are taken into account. For example, the American Bird Conservancy has a written Policy Statement on Wind Energy and a set of Bird-Smart Wind Guidelines (1). Another group, the American Wind Wildlife Institute, is a collaboration between the wind industry, wildlife management agencies, and science and environmental organizations which works to “facilitate timely and responsible development of wind energy while protecting wildlife and wildlife habitat” (2). The existence of these types of groups shows a shift in the way environmental groups perceive wind farms and is an important step toward public acceptance of offshore wind farms.
Should the need arise, there are additional measures that could be taken to reduce the impact of offshore wind farms on wildlife. One measure is to use ultrasonic acoustics; Bat Conservation International and Deaton Engineering have developed ultrasonic emitters that deter bats from flying into wind farms by creating an area of unpleasant acoustic activity (not perceivable by humans). Ultrasonic emitters could very easily be installed in wind turbines. (7) If the turbines constructed for Phase 1 are shown to have a significantly negative impact on marine life, then another measure is to use floating wind turbines for Phase 2 to reduce the volume of material placed in the water. Floating wind turbines are still in development, but the timeline for our project should allow enough time for significant improvements upon floating turbines if and when Phase 2 begins.
Financial Concerns
Performing economic impact assessments and educating people about the long-term cost benefits of offshore wind turbines can mitigate financial concerns. As is the case with most new technologies and innovations, private investors are reasonably skeptical of the success of offshore wind turbines (wind turbines themselves are not new, but an offshore wind farm of this size in the US is new). Thus, our proposed project is placed under the authority of the New York Power Authority. An economic impact assessment has already been performed for the Long Island New York City Offshore Wind Project, and since our proposed project is similar in size, it can be expected that the economic impact of our proposed project will be similar. An economic impact assessment will reassure the public of the economic benefit of such a project by giving an estimate of the number of jobs created for construction, installation, operation, and maintenance of a wind farm of this size. The LI-NYC Offshore Wind Project predicts the creation of more than 2000 jobs (temporary and permanent) for an offshore wind farm of capacity 350 MW. (3) One legitimate concern about the benefit of jobs created for projects such as this is that the majority of jobs created are only temporary jobs; however, temporary jobs are still more beneficial than no jobs. It is worth noting that the cost of projects such as offshore wind farms will decrease as more offshore wind farms are built; the initial cost is usually the most expensive. In addition, subsequent costs (operation and maintenance of the farm) are much lower and can be at least partially paid for by revenue. Revenue should be stable because oceanic wind is such a reliable resource. (11)
Quality of Life Concerns
Quality of life concerns are often the strongest cause of opposition. Opponents of wind farms claim that living near a wind farm causes stress (due to shadow flicker, residual noise, decreased property values). Due to the great distance from the shore to the proposed location of this offshore wind farm, the wind turbines will be invisible from Long Island because they are beyond the horizon line. Shadow flicker will not be a problem either because shadow flicker occurs in areas up to 10 rotor diameters from a turbine (10). The rotor diameter of the Siemens 3.6MW model is 107m, so 10 rotor diameters will be 1070m, while the distance from the closest wind turbine to shore is over 46,000m (12). Noise pollution will also not be a concern for residents of Long Island or New Jersey because of the distance. Another common concern is that wind farms cause nearby property values to decrease. A joint study done in Massachusetts has shown that wind farms have no measurable impact on property values of nearby houses. (4) Thus, because of the proposed location, there will not be an effect on quality of life.
Marine Traffic
Harmonizing the uses of the ocean with other industries is an important consideration. To successfully coexist with marine traffic, we must take into account shipping lanes and fishing. The fear is that an offshore wind farm could interfere with navigation. A past proposal for an offshore wind farm failed to move forward, partly because the proposed site was too close to Long Island for public acceptance. This past proposal had selected as a location a wedge-shaped site between two major shipping lanes. By extrapolating the shipping lanes from their graphs, our project site is also a wedge-shaped site between two shipping lanes. In addition to mitigating opposition due to quality of life concerns, the new location also has higher wind speeds. Regarding fishing, fishermen are traditionally opposed to offshore wind farms because they fear a decrease in the number of fish caught due to physical interference by turbine towers. The proposed offshore wind farm will avoid building turbines in major fisheries. Fishermen’s Energy—comprised of commercial fishermen from New Jersey—is an offshore wind energy developer that has successfully built a wind farm off the shore of Atlantic City. (8) Fishermen’s Energy is a group that goes against the traditional pattern of opposition, and thus can serve as an example of the successful combination of interests between fishermen and offshore wind farms.
The proposed site is large enough to accommodate over 500 wind turbines if each turbine is placed half a mile apart. However, the project will only need enough space for 300 wind turbines; and this is only if Phase 2 moves forward, otherwise the project will only need enough space for 100 wind turbines. Part of the reason our proposed site is larger than necessary is to accommodate possible issues with wildlife and marine traffic. Another part of the reason is to allow for the potential expansion of the offshore wind farm.
Finally, it is imperative that the public is aware of the need for and benefits of an offshore wind farm. To establish trust with the public, it must be easy for them to access information about this project because transparency is necessary for trust.
References:
(1) “American Bird Conservancy’s Policy Statement on Wind Energy.” American Bird Conservancy. N.p., 2013. Web. 1 May 2014. <http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/collisions/wind_policy.html>.
(2) American Wind Wildlife Institute | Power of Science with the Voice of Collaboration. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 May 2014. <http://awwi.org/#section–span-classsquarespan-span-classtextnamegroundbreaking-collaborationspan->.
(3) AWS True Power, LLC. Camoin Associates, Inc. Economic Impact Assessment. 1 November 2010.
(4) Atikinson-Palombo, Carol. Hoen, Ben. “Relationship between Wind Turbines and Residential Property Values in Massachusetts.” Electricity Market and Policy Group. 9 January 2014. Web. 31 April 2014. <http://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-6371e_0.pdf>.
(5) Bayar, Tildy. “Marine Life Unhindered by Offshore Wind Farm, Study Says.” Renewable Energy World, 31 May 2013. Web. 31 April 2014. <http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/05/offshore-wind-farm-has-lack-of-significant-impact-on-marine-life-study-finds>.
(6) Cell Press. “Why Wind Turbines Can Mean Death For Bats.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 26 August 2008. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080825132107.htm>.
(7) Drouin, Roger. “For the birds (and the bats): 8 ways wind power companies are trying to prevent deadly collisions.” Grist. N.p., 3 January 2014. Web. 1 May 2014. <http://grist.org/climate-energy/for-the-birds-and-the-bats-8-ways-wind-power-companies-are-trying-to-prevent-deadly-collisions/>.
(8) “Fishermen’s Energy Atlantic City Windfarm.” Fishermen’s Energy. Web. 1 May 2014. <http://www.fishermensenergy.com/atlantic-city-windfarm.php>.
(9) New York State Research and Development Authority. “Pre-Development Assessment of Avian Species for the Proposed Long Island-New York City Offshores Wind Project Area.” October 2010.
(10) “Shadow Flicker.” Massachusetts Clean Energy Center. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 May 2014. <http://www.masscec.com/content/shadow-flicker>.
(11) Romm, Joe. “Offshore Wind Energy: The Benefits and the Barriers.” ThinkProgress. N.p., 1 June 2011. Web. 2 May 2014. <http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/06/01/232901/offshore-wind-energy/>.
(12) “Wind Turbine SWT-3.6-107.” Siemens. N.p., n.d. Web. 4 May 2014. <http://www.energy.siemens.com/hq/en/renewable-energy/wind-power/platforms/g4-platform/wind-turbine-swt-3-6-107.htm>.
