Renewable Energy Solutions for Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard

Allison Maynard, Rhianna Sommers, Conor Pecor, Sydney Eberth, Greg Daniel

Background● Site location● Reasoning for site choice● Proposed renewable energy projects● Approach● Site specific data for both● Stressors and Receptors

Muskeget Tidal Project

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1258/html/imagepages/ofr2012-1258_Figure1.html

Muskeget Tidal Project

http://archive.nefmc.org/habitat/cte_mtg_docs/120124-25/muskeget%20channel%20materials/Muskeget_Tidal_FERC_license_app.pdf

Proposed Cape Wind Site

http://www.capewind.org/where/maps

Cape Wind Project

● Large wind resource in Atlantic ocean on continental shelf

● 130 large, 40 story tall wind turbines ● Provide 420 MW at market prices- enough electricity for

all of Cape Cod ● Located in federal waters off Cape Cod, on Horseshoe

Shoal in Nantucket Sound● Highly controversial ● Current status: financing and final commercial

contracting stage

Wildlife in the Muskeget Channel● Shallow waters provide a rich and productive habitat for fish and seabird populations● The greatest concentration of oldsquaws (Clangula hyemalis) in the western Atlantic● Muskeget Island - largest gray seal pupping colony in the US● Habitat for many endangered species of marine mammals

o Fin whaleo Humpback whaleo Sei whaleo North Atlantic right whale

< 450 individualshttp://www.lloydspitalnikphotos.com/v/waterfowl/long-tailed_duck/

http://10000birds.com/favorite-unused-pics-from-california.htm

http://blog.nwf.org/2013/07/climate-change-fueled-heat-stresses-nuclear-plant-may-threaten-cape-cod-bay-wildlife/

Threatened and Endangered Species● North Atlantic right whales

o Cape Cod Bay and Great South Channel - winter and spring

● Several rare avian species inhabit the Muskeget and Tuckernuck Islands: Piping Plover, Common Tern, Short-eared Owl

http://www.yachtingmagazine.com/slow-down-and-save-whales

http://ibc.lynxeds.com/photo/piping-plover-charadrius-melodus/piping-plover-winter-plummage-banding

Sea Turtles ● Four species of sea turtles - all are federally endangered● Ranges restricted to the east coast ● Their habitat in the Muskeget Channel area supports forty marine

megavertebrate and fish species, and borders the proposed construction area of the project

http://www.nps.gov/pais/learn/nature/leatherback.htm

Ecological Effects?● Increased vessel traffic

o Increased collisions with ships● Cables

o Entanglement risk to foraging right whales, other marine mammalso Installation - horizontal directional drilling would minimize sediment

disturbance

http://www.nodig-construction.com/News/Company-Paasch-installs-cable-through-a-nature-reserve-to-a-tide-gauge-141.html

Invertebrates

● Tidal turbines did not significantly affect zooplankton mortality (Schlezinger et al 2013)

● Predicted a still negligible effect of a larger scale project

Installation Effects

● Drillingo Could alter seabed structure, disturb sedimento Noise pollution

Echolocation Can disrupt communication, foraging efficiency, group

coherence Reduces overall fitness of populations Anthropogenic noise thought to negatively affect sea

turtle behavior and ecology

http://www.hgenergy.com/Tidal_003_MA_Site_Survey_Report_REV_1.pdf

Post-Installation Effects

● Tidal turbines significantly reduce net flow of water o May affect distribution of certain prey species

● Tidal stream speed found to affect porpoise habitat

● Collision risks?o Fraenkel (2006): collisions between tidal turbines and wildlife

unlikely - even if they did occur, unlikely to be fatal due to blade speed and smooth structure

Economic Effects: Muskeget Channel Site Qualifications

● Geology & Bathymetry● Current Depth/ Flow Velocity● Energy Potential● Supportive Infrastructure● Grid Connectivity

Geology & Bathymetry● Average Area: 14,000 m2

● Channel Depth: 25 m2

● Seafloor Properties: Sand and gravelly sediments

● SeaGen technology compatible

http://www.hgenergy.com/Tidal_003_MA_Site_Survey_Report_REV_1.pdf

Velocity and Energy Potential● Average Current Velocity: 3.8

knots flood, 3.3 knots ebb● Site Energy Potential: 13.3MW● 15% energy extractability● Spring/Fall Energy Potential:

1KW/m2 of channel ● SeaGen unit energy Capacity:

1610 MWh

http://oceanenergy.epri.com/attachments/streamenergy/reports/006_MA_RB_06-10-06.pdf

Supportive Infrastructure/ Grid Connectivity

Costs

● SeaGen Marine Current Turbine Unit (9 dual rotor turbines): $5.6M● Maintenance and Testing: $570,000● Grid Upgrade: $200,000● SeaGen Utility generated cost: 8.6-9.9 Cents/kWh● Total investment costs for utility generated plant: $16.9M

Proposed Cape Wind Site

http://www.capewind.org/where/maps

Ecological Effects

● Construction Phase○ Acoustic disturbance ○ Increased sediment dispersal

● Operational Phase ○ Habitat gain ○ Fisheries exclusion ○ Acoustic disturbance ○ Electromagnetic fields

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/3/034012/article#erl492511tab2

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/3/034012/article#erl492511tab2

Ecological Effects

● Species affected ○ Marine mammals- Danish study ○ Fish ○ Birds

Impacts of Marine Mammals● Many cetaceans use echolocation to find food● Very sensitive to hearing● Hearing loss for porpoises could extend to 1.8 km away

from the source● Pile driving would be audible for at least 80 km

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Environment/Pix/columnists/2012/9/4/1346772666047/Finless-porpoise-in-the-a-007.jpg

http://www.liveanimalslist.com/mammals/images/dolphin-in-water.jpg

Impacts on Fish

● Sensitive to loud sounds (pile-driving) so may be displaced ● High variability ● Sensitive to electric and magnetic fields caused by underwater

cables● Positive impact: habitat gain &

fisheries exclusion

https://www.worldwildlife.org/species/yellowfin-tuna

Impacts On Birds

● Mortality by collision● Fatality rate depends

on site specific factors● Pose as barriers to birds

http://www.surfbirds.com/media/gallery_photos/20060922024832.jpg

http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/wp-content/blogs.dir/471/files/2012/04/i-72e987304a9f5c1901c6c7f705d4bef5-Alan_Wilson_wikipedia_gannet.jpg

Economic Effects

● Cost of offshore wind energy varies depending on project, however….

● Generally more costly than land-based wind projects

● Offshore is usually more productive

Costly

● Studies indicate offshore to be significantly more expensive than land-based turbines

● Offshore environment is more uncertain and difficult than onshore, thus making it more costly and risky

http://cnyenergychallenge.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/offshore-wind2.jpghttp://www.weatherstock.com/ocean-storms-gallery/slides/L-52.JPG

Productivity

● Winds are generally stronger and more constant than onshore winds

● Operate at their maximum capacity for larger percent of time

● Possible 150% increase in electricity production

Recommendations

● Cape Wind implemented as proposed ● Tidal project eventually expanded ● Costs and ecological impacts

Acknowledgements

● Jennie Stephens, Associate Professor & Blittersdorf Professor of Sustainability Science and Policy at UVM

Questions?

http://www.turtlehurtled.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/fin-whale.jpg