1 / 54

Offshore Wind in the Great Lakes

Offshore Wind in the Great Lakes . NAME Great Lakes Wind Collaborative DATE. Technical Details. Turbine Size. 2.5MW Turbine: 75-100m (246-328ft) hub height 3MW: 100-120m (328-394ft) hub height. Compared to onshore, offshore turbines…. Tend to be larger, but shorter.

eugenia
Download Presentation

Offshore Wind in the Great Lakes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Offshore Wind in the Great Lakes NAME Great Lakes Wind Collaborative DATE

  2. Technical Details

  3. Turbine Size • 2.5MW Turbine: 75-100m (246-328ft) hub height • 3MW: 100-120m (328-394ft) hub height

  4. Compared to onshore, offshore turbines… • Tend to be larger, but shorter. • Require helipads or landings for maintenance activities. • Have a designated area for maintenance workers. • Are built to withstand waves, currents, and ice formation. • Might use Conditional Monitoring Systems. • Might have more redundant systems. • House the transformer in the nacelle.

  5. 30 meters wide 130 meters long 48 meter legs can extend 5 meters into the lakebed

  6. Installation Vessels • St. Lawrence • Max draft: 26.5 ft (should be min?) • Max beam: 78 ft • Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal • Max draft: 7 ft (should be min?) • Max beam: 110 ft

  7. Foundations • 3-30 meters. • Technology based on onshore. • Three kinds: gravity, monopile, suction bucket/caisson • Loadings unique to the offshore environment: • Wave loading • Static and dynamic ice loading • Water currents • Require more analysis and modeling to understand the impact to the foundation

  8. Suction Bucket or Caisson • Tubular steel foundation installed by sealing the top of the steel bucket and creating a vacuum inside. • Hydrostatic pressure difference and the dead weight of the structure cause the bucket to penetrate the soil. • New technology. • Shallow water

  9. Gravity Base Foundations • Steel or concrete foundations • Steel is lighter and normally filled with granular material. • Concrete is heavier – handling can be difficult. • Relies on weight of structure to resist overturning • Ballast added after placement • Shallow water with proper lakebed preparation essential • conical collars (ice cones) • Might be cost prohibitive in 15+ meters

  10. Steel Gravity Foundation

  11. Monopile Foundations • Large, thick-walled, single steel pipe • 4.5 - 6 m diameter steel tube typical • Wall thickness 30 -60 mm • Driven or drilled 25 -30 m embedment • Water depth experience to 25 m • Stiff soils only (e.g. sand) • Most common type, especially in shallow water. • Minimal footprint • Large barges, specialized equipment. • Ice cones • Transition pieces can be steel, concrete, or composite.

  12. Monopile Foundation

  13. Gravity vs. Monopile

  14. Conical collars / ice cones • Conical shaped structures at water level. • Cones cause ice to bend and break up. • Ice thickness: • Nearshore Lake Michigan: 0 to 0.5 meters • Deepwater Lake Michigan: 0 to .15 meters • Lake Superior: .05 to .8 meters • Green Bay: .2 to .7 meters

  15. Transmission • Voltage is stepped up to distribution voltage (25-35 kV) using a transformer at each turbine. • Turbines are then connected to an offshore substation. • Substation steps up to transmission voltage (400-800 kV) • One cable connects to the mainland.

  16. Cables • Can be several medium voltage cables (34.5 kV), or one or more high (100-200 kW) or extra high voltage (>200 kV) cables. • Redundant cables built in in case of failure • Higher voltage cables require insulation • self-contained, fluid-filled (SCFF) cable • Fluid biodegrades in 30-60 days if there is a leek.

  17. Cables • Buried in the lake bed • 6 to 10 feet • Jet plow rolls and fluidizes the lake bottom material in a narrow path. • Sand or clay bottoms. • Laid on the lake bottom • Water jets create a trench and bottom material is allowed to sink back into the trench • Rocky bottoms at deeper depths • Issues to consider: • Overhead lake traffic • ice scouring • Disruption of lakebed and stirring up of pollution • Cable can be covered with concrete mattresses or rock. • Horizontal directional boring to pull the cable to shore.

  18. Environmental Considerations

  19. Environmental Considerations • Bird & Bat • Fish • Lakebed Alterations • Habitat Alterations • Noise

  20. Bird & Bat • Risk of collision/barotrauma • Short-term habitat loss during construction • Long-term habitat loss due to disturbance by O&M • Habitat fragmentation • Formation of barriers to migration and daily movements

  21. Fisheries Research • Research on aquatic habitat and spawning grounds focused on the nearshore. • less research on the open water. • Most research related to the effects of wind turbines is marine-focused. • Habitat disruption more likely during transmission installation. • Frac-outs: excessive pressure causes the vertical release of drilling mud through fractures. • Most commercial and recreation fishing takes place within 3 miles of shore.

  22. Fisheries Research • Foundations will likely provide additional habitat for some beneficial fishes for possibly food, shelter from predation, nursery areas and spawning. • Lake trout will spawn on artificial reefs within a few months of construction • yellow perch and smallmouth bass were observed using the artificial reefs located within the study area. • Might provide additional recreational fishing opportunities. • Might cause an increase in the species richness, abundance or biomass of the benthic community. Great Lakes Energy Development Task Force. 2008. Great Lakes Wind Energy Center Feasibility Study: Initial Ecological Assessment. Prepared by DLZ. September.

  23. Fisheries Best Practices • If turbines are built in spawning areas, foundation materials should mimic the substrate. • If not in these areas, planners should consider materials that are conductive to spawning. • Construction and maintenance should avoid spawning times. • Fishing activities in general should avoid turbines.

  24. Primary Fish Species of Commercial and Recreational Interest in LakeSuperior and Lake Michigan

  25. Habitat Fragmentation/Disruption • No evidence of any detrimental effects on coastal processes from the Danish experience. • Numerous turbines could affect direction or velocity of currents, plankton, sediment, nutrients, and fish.

  26. Noise • Noise from wind turbines will travel underwater and could disturb aquatic organisms. • Studies from existing offshore turbines note that the noise is very low frequency, and many species are actually unable to hear it. • Noise from construction activities could disrupt organisms in the short-term.

  27. Federal Issues

  28. U.S. Federal Involvement • Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10 • Prohibits the obstruction or alteration of navigable water of the U.S without a permit. • Army Corps of Engineers is the lead permitting agency (MMS is the lead on the Outer Continental Shelf) • Martin v. Waddell • states own navigable and tidal waters and their underlying land for the common use of the people of the state.

  29. U.S. Federal Involvement • Submerged Lands Act • Great Lakes states have jurisdiction up to the international boundaries. • Coastal Zone Management Act • CZM Programs should include “a planning process for energy facilities likely to be located in, or which may significantly affect, the coastal zone, including a process for anticipating the management of the impacts resulting from such facilities.”

  30. Statewide/Provincial Planning Efforts

  31. Wind Turbine Placement Favorability Analysis MapOhio Coastal Management Program

  32. Ohio Criteria • Shipping lanes, fairways, harbors • Distance from shore • Raptor nests • Important bird areas • Natural heritage observances • Fish habitat and bathymetry • Reefs and shoals • Substrates • Sand and gravel mining • Military zones • Confirmed shipwrecks • Sport fishery effort • Commercial fishery trap net lifts

  33. When? Construction 2012-13

  34. Ontario Criteria • National/Provincial Park • Protected area • Water depth 5 m <X< 30 m • Wind speed > 8.0 m/s • Airports • Radiocommunication Systems • Population density • Distance from shore • Commercial waterway and ferry route • Protected shipwreck • Submerged utility line • Shoreline • Great Lakes coastal wetland • Conservation reserve • Environmental Area of Concern • Important Birding Areas

  35. Michigan Dry Run • Examined Michigan’s current state of readiness to permit large-scale offshore wind facilities • Two different areas of the Great Lakes • nearshore Lake Huron • remote offshore Lake Michigan • Final Report published May 2008 • GLOW Council

  36. Great Lakes Offshore Wind Council • created by Executive Order No. 2009-1 • serves as an advisory body within the Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic Growth (DELEG) • Identify criteria that can be used to review applications for offshore wind development. • Identify criteria for identifying and mapping areas that should be categorically excluded from offshore wind development as well as those areas that are most favorable to such development • September 1, 2009 www.michiganglowcouncil.org/

More Related