MONOPILES ARE TOUGH ON THE ENVIRONMENT

Click here to view large image Forcing a wind turbine monopile foundation into the seabed requires a large hydraulic hammer. Noise is generated as the hydraulic hammer hits the top of the monopile, often with a blow energy of 2300 kJ. !hoto" #iffgat $ffshore %ind !ark&

Underwater noise from monopile installations is an inherent problem linked to the choice of substructure. Much research and many proposals have been made with limited effect. Several reports show that underwater noise from hydraulic hammering of monopiles into the sea floor can be harmful to the wildlife of the ocean if not restricted. Many whales such as the harbor porpoise depend on their hearing when they navigate and hunt for food, therefore deafened whales cannot hunt. Harbor porpoises are common in coastal areas where offshore wind farms are being erected. This problem is well understood and several research pro ects have tried to mitigate the noise with different kinds of e!perimental sound barriers. However, the banging noises from the hydraulic hammers are so intense that it has been very difficult to dampen it, because sound propagates very effectively in water even over long distances, due to the physical properties of water, i.e. high density and low compressibility.

Extreme sound waves "ccording to a report from #elft University of Technology $%&&, commissioned by the 'orth Sea (oundation, the sound e!posure in the water close to a si! meter monopile being installed is around $)* d+ re & ,-a. The threshold of pain for a human ear in atmospheric air is &.% d+ re $% ,-a, the same level as a et engine at &%% feet distance. -ermanent hearing damage occurs at &$% d+. To compare the sound pressures above and below water one needs to add $/ d+ to the 0re $% ,-a1 level to get a comparable 0re & ,-a1 level. To compare sound intensity an additional ./ d+ has to be added due to the difference in the characteristic impedance of air and water. However, the d+ scale is logarithmic, which means that $)* d+ under water is still a very loud sound wave. The sound wave attenuates under water as a function of distance. However, the sound is reflected both by the seabed and by the sea surface. "t a distance of 2%% meter the sound e!posure level from a large hydraulic hammer is still &*) d+ re & ,-a, according to the report. " single event of this magnitude could cause temporary hearing loss for marine mammals such as harbor porpoises and seals. 3epeated e!posure can cause permanent damage according to the report. Installation met od needs re!examination This noise problem is closely connected to the use of monopiles and ackets as substructures for wind turbines. Monopiles are the common choice for most of the offshore wind farms globally. "s wind turbines grow in si4e so do their substructures and conse5uently the need for even bigger hydraulic hammers. However, the 'orth Sea (oundation report states that6 0The wind energy represents a green and environmental friendly future while the use of monopiles with current installation techni5ues is contradictory to the whole wind energy philosophy and needs to be re7e!amined.1 The noise is generated as the hydraulic hammer hits the top of the monopile, often with a blow energy of $.%% k8. This creates a longitudinal wave in the monopile, a wave that travels along the monopile to the seafloor and back, while creating a sound wave in the surrounding water. Some of the noise propagates from the air above the hammer and some from the vibrating seabed. "urrent solutions to underwater noise are #ew -roposals for mitigating the noise has been many6 specially designed in ection7style tips for the monopiles, contact damping between hammer and monopile, prolonged contact time via ad ustment of the hammer, bubble curtains, confined bubble curtains, air pillow systems and finally a noise mitigation system with a double7walled isolating sleeve combined with a confined bubble curtain. The 'orth Sea (oundation report also mentions a substitution of the hydraulic impact hammer with a less noisy vibratory hammer, as tested by Menck at the +ard & wind farm installation. "nother idea is to drill down a concrete monopile, an unproven concept.

9eaving the monopile substructure in e!change for guyed structures, suction buckets, gravity based structures or floating structures could be future solutions. However, this could increase the cost of wind energy which must come down to be competitive.