Offshore Wind Updates

AT: Environment Turns

US regulatory system means OSW development wont hurt the
environment or species
COPPING et al 14 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory [Andrea Copping1 , Luke
Hanna1, Brie Van Cleve1, Kara Blake1 and Richard M. Anderson2, Environmental Risk
Evaluation Systeman Approach to Ranking Risk of Ocean Energy Development on Coastal and
Estuarine Environments, Journal of the Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation,
10.1007/s12237-014-9816-3]
The US regulatory system and the environmental protections afforded to key species is a
genuine hurdle for any project developer in US waters; similar hurdles are unfolding in other
nations as well. The regulatory power of the Endangered Species Act no take provision, especially if
combined with the Marine Mammal Protection Act or the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, ensures that all threatened and
endangered turtles, marine mammals, and migratory birds will rank as the greatest risk from a
regulatory perspective, regardless of whether they are the most vulnerable biological receptors to each
specific stressor. European habitat and species directives will similarly drive the siting and permitting processes for tidal, wave, and
offshore wind development.

The development of ocean energy has the potential to supply low carbon energy for electricity to
the national grids of many nations energy. Human populations tend to live in relative proximity
to the coast (NOAA 2013); harvesting energy from the oceans simplifies the transmission of power to
coastal areas and provides additional energy security to isolated coastal locations. Responsible deployment of ocean
devices requires compliance with all applicable laws and regulations ; at the same time, the regulatory
burden should not overwhelm the beneficial value of providing reliable renewable energy to
meet the needs of the nation. By determining the highest-priority stressors from ocean energy
devices that may affect vulnerable receptors in the marine enviro nment, project proponents,
regulators, and stakeholders can engage in the most efficient and effective siting and permitting
pathways. By increasing the number of deployments in estuarine and coastal waters, the research
community will have increased opportunities to gather data and better inform the discussion of
potential effects. ERES can assist with setting priorities for siting and permitting of ocean energy projects and provide a
structured framework for transitioning to more standard risk assessment and risk management actions. That transition must
include developing a template for risk calculation that can be easily incorporated into future ocean energy projects as an informed
point of departure for developers and regulators. The

risk calculations can also provide early feedback to

developers to improve siting, engineering design, and operational methods that minimize
damage to the marine environment and inform effective mitigation strategies .
No wildlife impact planning & better than the alt
SHAFIULLAH et al 13 All are Academics at the School of Engineering and Technology,
Higher Education Division, Central Queensland University, Australia [G.M. Shafiullah,
Amanullah M.T. Oo, A.B.M. Shawkat Ali, Peter Wolfs, Potential challenges of integrating largescale wind energy into the power gridA review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
Volume 20, April 2013, Pages 306321, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.11.057]
Large-scale wind energy generation plants are harmful to wildlife; however the impacts are
smaller compared to other sources of energy. Sovacool estimated that fossil fuelled power
stations killed twenty times more birds than wind turbines per GWh [39]. The direct impact is the
death from collision with the wind hub and blades as well as during wind plant installation

activity. Avoidance, habitat disruption and displacement cause indirect impacts [40]. Turbines with
lower hub heights and shorter rotor diameter cause the blades to spin at high RPM, and combined with tighter turbine spacing's
compared to typical newer wind turbines, have the potential to kill a larger number of birds [40]. As birds are the largest victim
groups, it is an issue of concern to many bird lovers today. However, this

effect is minor as the local birds can easily

cope with and avoid the obstacles [41]. Research shows that birds killed by wind turbines are a negligible proportion
compared to deaths of birds caused by other human activities such as urbanisation [25]. In a study, it was found that number of
birds killed in a year is 20, 1500 and 2000 respectively from wind turbines, hunters and collision with vehicles and electricity
transmission [15]. However, to

increase wind energy penetration it is essential to reduce the negative

impacts on wildlife due to wind turbines. It is possible to reduce the impacts on wildlife through
proper design and planning [42]. The newly developed turbines with tubular steel towers that have smooth exteriors
(rather than lattice towers) can prevent the nesting of birds [15]. Vertical shaft turbines are safer and produce twice the energy of
prop-style turbine [43]. Avian

radars are used in a project in Texas to detect birds in an area which is

on their migration path. If there is any possible risk to passing birds, the system will
immediately stop the wind turbines and start again when the birds cross the wind farm safely
[44]. In order to understand the breeding and feeding behaviours of birds, professional wildlife surveys may be carried out to
identify actions that minimise the risk imposed on the birds [45].

Planning solves environmental impact - Most recent study proves

Bergstrm et al 14 [Bergstrm, Lena; Kautsky, Lena; Malm, Torleif; Rosenberg, Rutger;
Wahlberg, Magnus; strand Capetillo, Nastassja; Wilhelmsson, Dan, Effects of offshore wind
farms on marine wildlifea generalized impact assessment, Environmental Research Letters,
Volume 9, Issue 3, article id. 034012 (2014).]

Marine management plans over the world express high expectations to the development of offshore
wind energy. This would obviously contribute to renewable energy production, but potential
conflicts with other usages of the marine landscape , as well as conservation interests, are evident. The
present study synthesizes the current state of understanding on the effects of offshore wind farms on marine
wildlife, in order to identify general versus local conclusions in published studies. The results were translated into a
generalized impact assessment for coastal waters in Sweden, which covers a range of salinity conditions from marine to
nearly fresh waters. Hence, the conclusions are potentially applicable to marine planning situations
in various aquatic ecosystems. The assessment considered impact with respect to temporal and spatial extent of the
pressure, effect within each ecosystem component, and level of certainty. Research on the environmental effects of offshore wind
farms has gone through a rapid maturation and learning process, with the bulk of knowledge being developed within the past ten
years. The

studies showed a high level of consensus with respect to the construction phase , indicating
impacts during
the operational phase were more locally variable, and could be either negative or positive
depending on biological conditions as well as prevailing management goals . There was paucity in studies
that potential impacts on marine life should be carefully considered in marine spatial planning. Potential

on cumulative impacts and long-term effects on the food web, as well as on combined effects with other human activities, such as the
fisheries. These aspects remain key open issues for a sustainable marine spatial planning.

AT: Birds
No Birds link displaces, doesnt cause collisions
ATTRILL 12 Director, Plymouth University Marine Institute [Martin Attrill, Marine
Renewable Energy: necessary for safeguarding the marine environment?. November 2012,
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefing_notes/marine_renewable_energy.pdf]

Collision and displacement

The potential of organisms to collide with MRE devices, in particular wind turbines, probably has the
highest profile with the public and media of all the environmental issues associated with MRE, beyond aesthetics. Certainly
birds and bats are killed by onshore turbines where evidence is most detailed, and can include important
conservation species such as raptors. The American Bird Conservatory estimates up to 40,000 birds are killed each year in the US by
wind turbines, although it is important to put this mortality in context. Erickson et alxiii analysed unnatural bird mortality in the
US, reporting that 4.5 million birds are killed by flying into communication towers, 100 million by domestic cats and approximately
500 million from flying into buildings. Nevertheless, poor location of a wind turbine can have an impact on the population of certain
species, particularly large birds of prey of conservation value such as eagles and vultures, which is why choosing the correct locations
is important. Offshore

there is less evidence of significant levels of bird collisions , although collecting data
fly low over the water and so would not encounter blades of large turbines;
whilst certain species such as large gulls may be more vulnerable, but data are lacking. There is some
evidence that some species avoid wind turbines, or even whole wind farms, but also that some
species may be attracted. For example, Marsden et al.xiv demonstrated that 200,000 migrating eider ducks changed course
is more difficult. Many species

to avoid the Nysted wind farm between Denmark and Sweden, adding a trivial 500 m to a 1400 km migration. However, such

avoidance appears to be species specific, with some species showing no change in abundance following wind farm
construction, whilst others such as swans and some geese are displaced xv. Lindeboom et alxvi found similar varied results in a
Dutch wind farm, with bird numbers decreasing (e.g. pelagic seabirds), static or increasing (e.g. gulls and terns) within the farm
depending on species. Overall, in general the

main issue associated with birds and offshore wind farms

appears to be one of displacement rather than collision impacts at a scale that significantly affects populations,
although evidence for this is sparse and a poorly-located wind farm near colonies of species with low populations and slow breeding
rates could potentially have negative impacts at a population scale. The consequences

of displacement is as yet

poorly understood and needs further research, although over 10 years of monitoring from some European wind
farms has not evidenced any major impact.

Multiple studies confirm offshore wind benefits marine ecology trawling,

reefs, and shelter
CASEY 12 EWEA Staff Writer, Citing International and Swedish funded studies [Zo Casey, Offshore wind farms benefit
sealife, says study, http://www.ewea.org/blog/2012/12/offshore-wind-farms-benefit-sealife-says-study/]

Offshore wind farms can create a host of benefits for the local marine environment, as well as combatting
climate change, a new study by the Marine Institute at Plymouth University has found. The Marine Institute found that

wind farms provide shelter to fish species since sea bottom trawling is often forbidden inside a
wind farm, and it found that turbine support structures can create artificial reefs for some species. A separate
study at the Nysted offshore wind farm in Denmark confirmed this finding by saying that artificial reefs
provided favourable growth conditions for blue mussels and crab species. A study on the Thanet offshore wind farm in
the UK found that some species like cod shelter inside the wind farm. One high-profile issue covered by
the Marine Institute study was that of organisms colliding with offshore wind turbines. The study, backed-up by a
number of previous studies, found that many bird species fly low over the water, avoiding collision with
wind turbine blades. It also found that some species, such as Eider ducks, do modify their courses slightly to avoid offshore
turbines. When it comes to noise, the study found no significant impact on behaviour or populations. It noted that a
separate study in the Netherlands found more porpoise clicks inside a Dutch wind farm than outside it perhaps exploiting

the higher fish densities found. The study also said that offshore wind power and other marine renewable energies should
be rolled out rapidly in order to combat the threats to marine biodiversity, food production and economies posed by climate
change. It is necessary to rapidly deploy large quantities of marine renewable energy to reduce the carbon emissions from
fossil fuel burning which are leading to ocean acidification, global warming and climatic changes, the study published said.
EWEA forecasts that 40 GW of offshore wind capacity will be online in European seas by 2020 which will offset 102 million
tonnes of CO2 every year. By 2030, the expected 150 GW of offshore capacity will offset 315 million tonnes of CO2 annually
thats a significant contribution to the effort to cut carbon. It is clear that the marine environment is already being
damaged by the increasingly apparent impacts of climate change; however it is not too late to make a difference to avoid

studies together they all point to a similar

conclusion: offshore wind farms have a positive impact on the marine environment in several
ways, said Angeliki Koulouri, Research Officer at EWEA. First they contribute to a reduction in CO2
emissions, the major threat to biodiversity, second, they provide regeneration areas for fish and benthic
populations, she added.
more extreme impacts, the study said. If you bring all these

AT: Jobs Turns

Offshore wind insures massive growth
Sargent, 9/13/12 [Rob Sargent, U.S. Poised to Join the Race on Offshore Wind: Lawmakers
Must Commit to More Pollution-Free Energy,
http://www.environmentamerica.org/news/ame/us-poised-join-race-offshore-wind]

The Turning Point for Atlantic Offshore Wind Energy includes details on the key milestones each Atlantic Coast state and along with
the wind potential and the economic benefits. Among the highlights of the report: Offshore

wind energy will be an

economic powerhouse for America. Harnessing the 52 gigawatts of already-identified available Atlantic offshore
wind energy just 4 percent of the estimated generation potential of this massive resource could generate
$200 billion in economic activity, create 300,000 jobs, and sustain power for about 14 million
homes. (Europe already produces enough energy from offshore wind right now to power 4 million homes.) America is
closer than ever to bringing offshore wind energy ashore. Efforts are underway in 10 Atlantic Coast states, with
over 2,000 square nautical miles of federal waters already designated for wind energy development off of Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. Environmental reviews finding no significant impacts have been completed,
and leases are expected to be issued for some of these areas by the end of the year. Despite

this progress, leadership

is urgently needed at both the state and federal level to ensure offshore wind energy becomes a
reality in America: President Obama should set a clear national goal for offshore wind energy
development, and each Atlantic state governor should also a set goal for offshore wind development off their shores. These
goals must be supported by policies that prioritize offshore wind energy and other efforts to secure
buyers for this new source of reliable, clean energy.

Solves dependency creates jobs

SCHROEDER 10 J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2010. M.E.M., Yale
School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, 2004; B.A., Yale University, 2003 [Erica
Schroeder, COMMENT: Turning Offshore Wind On, October, 2010, California Law Review, 98
Calif. L. Rev. 1631]

Many of the most compelling benefits of offshore wind are similar to those of onshore wind, though offshore wind has its own
unique set of benefits. To start, wind

power generation can help meet the growing energy demand in the United
grow to
5.8 billion MWh in 2030, a 39 percent increase from 2005. n58 The more that wind power can help to
meet this demand, the more diversified the United States' energy portfolio will be, and the less
susceptible the nation will be to dependency on foreign fuel sources and to price
fluctuations in traditional fuels. n59 In addition, wind power [*1639] benefits the United States by
creating a substantial number of jobs for building and operating the domestic wind energy facilities.
States. The U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts that the demand for electricity in the United States will

n60 In an April 2009 speech at the Trinity Structural Towers Manufacturing Plant in Iowa, President Obama predicted that if the
United States "fully pursues our potential for wind energy on land and offshore," wind

power could create 250,000

jobs by 2030. n61

Too early to know costs of OSW
KALDELLIS & KAPSALI 13 both work at the Lab of Soft Energy Applications &
Environmental Protection, TEI of Piraeus Greece [J.K. Kaldellis, M. Kapsali, Shifting

towards offshore wind energyRecent activity and future development, Energy Policy, Volume
53, February 2013, Pages 136148

Concluding, it should be noted that due

to the limited number of offshore wind power projects currently

being installed, accurate statistical trends of associated costs of development and operation, as is
the case of onshore counterparts, are difficult to be extracted yet. Water depth, distance from the shore,
foundations, grid connection issues, infrastructure required and O&M are apparently
determinant factors for the total energy cost during lifetime. Nevertheless, offshore wind energy is still
under evolution and requires special R&D efforts in terms of developing cost-efficient O&M
strategies, high reliability, site access solutions, innovative components and improved and fully integrated wind turbine-support
structure concepts.

AT: States
Grouped state action doesnt fix the lack of federal commitment to warming only
federal preemption works
GLICKSMAN & LEVY 08 Professors of Law at the University of Kansas [Robert
Glicksman and Richard Levy. A COLLECTIVE ACTION PERSPECTIVE ON CEILING
PREEMPTION BY FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION: THE CASE OF
GLOBALCLIMATE CHANGE. Northwestern University Law Review. Vol 102 No. 2.
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v102/n2/579/LR102n2Glicksman&Levy.pdf]

We also doubt that unilateral state regulation would so undermine the international bargaining position of the United States as to
warrant a congressional decision to adopt express ceiling preemption. The

United States is responsible for an

estimated twenty to twenty-five percent of the worlds GHG emissions.204 An effective global solution
to the climate change problem therefore depends on U.S. participation. As long as the United States refuses
to unilaterally reduce its GHG emissions, the federal government can hold out U.S. participation in an
international climate change regime as the carrot to induce other nations to make concessions. Theoretically, the
decision by a state or group of states to require reductions before the EPA does so weakens the impact of the
Presidents threat of continued noncooperation . But the defection of a state (even a large one such
as Califor nia)205 or group of states from the united, antiregulatory front presented by the federal government is
unlikely to put a significant dent in the clout that federal negotiators have in dealing with the
environmental policymakers of foreign nations. Many other factors are likely to have a far more substantial impact
on negotiations.206