Extreme Weather Impacts on Offshore
Wind Turbines: Lessons Learned
Kimberly E. Diamond
D
ue to more intense weather conditions than originally
anticipated, hundreds of offshore wind turbines in
Europe are undergoing extensive repair. Many of these
repairs are attributable to the turbines’ designs, which
were not engineered to withstand the force and duration of certain metocean (meteorological and oceanographic) conditions
and extreme weather to which they unexpectedly have been
exposed. Miscalculations relating to violent, extended storms of
greater intensity and stronger winds than predicted have caused
more extensive damage than envisioned as a result of these
storms’ impacts on wave height, wave force, and an active shifting seabed in the form of scour and migrating sandwaves. As
a result, costly repairs to rectify turbine foundation issues and
undersea transmission cable exposure are underway. Also, these
weather events and the navigational risk mitigation measures
implemented to address them have caused vessels navigating
around wind farms to encounter breach of contract risks.
As the United States endeavors to launch its offshore wind
industry, consideration should be accorded to these and other
extreme weather-related potential risks to future domestic offshore turbines in the short and long terms. To protect against
these risks, it is important to understand wind, wave, and tidal
conditions, as well as shifts in air and sea temperature projected to occur over and beyond the next two decades—during
an offshore turbine’s approximately twenty-year operational
life cycle. Addressing these risks at an early stage will help
inform policy and enable stakeholders to take adequate precautions to mitigate these risks where possible. This article
will examine (1) issues impacting offshore wind turbines in the
North Sea; (2) how these issues and other extreme weather
conditions, including hurricanes, could impact turbines placed
in the Gulf of Mexico or in Wind Energy Areas along the
East Coast in the future; and (3) what, if any, risk mitigation
measures can be taken from a policy and legal perspective to
address these risks going forward.
The North Sea experience illustrates how weather conditions factor heavily into timing for offshore wind farm
construction and general operations and maintenance procedures. Seas need to be as calm as possible for turbine
foundation installations. Mean wind speeds vary seasonally.
Generally, the spring and summer months are the only months
during which the North Sea is relatively calm, turbines may be
installed, and vessels can perform ordinary course turbine operations and maintenance procedures. However, during fierce
storms, severe sea states arise, thereby increasing the health
and safety risk that workers will slip on or fall off turbine platforms or the slick decks of installation or maintenance vessels,
Ms. Diamond is Counsel at Lowenstein Sandler PC, in the firm’s New
York City office. She may be reached at [email protected].
1
causing worker injuries or fatalities. Weather-related worker
accidents and injuries must be minimized. Also, severe sea
state waves may hold adverse consequences for turbines themselves. Whereas wind force impacts turbine blades, wave force
impacts turbines’ lower to bottom areas, such as their platforms, foundations, and cables transmitting the wind energy
generated to the transformer station. From a property risk perspective, wave heights surpassing 15 meters can significantly
damage an offshore wind turbine’s platform. Although weather
conditions are closely monitored so wind farm construction
planners can prepare timing of operations and arrange back-up
plans, incorrect estimates for extreme weather’s arrival time,
intensity, and duration can result in unanticipated breaks during turbine installation and maintenance.
Currently, it is unclear how North Sea offshore turbines will
withstand repeated exposure to extreme winds. Onshore turbines in the UK, for instance, generally are not designed to
withstand sudden onslaughts of extreme winds. In December
2011, 150 mph winds hit Scotland and northern England, causing one onshore turbine to burst into flames. Extreme winds
cause large vibrations and loads, creating significant fatigue on
turbine blades even when they are not spinning and have automatically shut off when wind speeds (or other factors) reach
certain maximum threshold levels, which will vary depending on the location of the turbine. This fatigue has resulted in
smaller onshore turbines experiencing blade throws—having
their blades torn off and hurled toward surrounding objects. In
an offshore turbine context, where turbine blades are generally longer and heavier than onshore turbine blades, a falling
blade can seriously damage or sink a vessel and injure or kill
crew members. While RenewableUK, the trade and professional
body for the UK’s wind and marine renewable industry, characterized extreme onshore winds as “freak weather,” with changes
in global weather patterns, it is difficult to predict whether
similar extreme wind anomalies will occur more frequently in
the future, either onshore or offshore. Extreme winds, therefore, carry with them increased risk of turbine damage and the
accompanying cost of turbine repair and replacement.
While it is obvious that bouts of increased extreme winds,
wave heights, and wave force can result in increased financial risk associated with damaged turbines, what is less obvious
are the other related risks these occurrences bring to vessels
navigating around wind farms. During a severe sea state, brutal storms and their high mean wind speeds are correlated with
significant wave heights. These factors can increase navigational risks. High waves can be dangerous to smaller vessels,
causing them to become disoriented, lose stability, or capsize due to cargo shift. Vessel damage can contribute to vessel
control loss, loss of emergency power, damaged or lost cargo,
loss of shipping gear, increased collision risk with other vessels or turbines, and loss of investment (financial loss). Drift is
NR&E Fall 2012
Published in Natural Resources & Environment Volume 27, Number 2, Fall 2012. © 2012 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion
thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.
also a serious issue that has plagued vessels navigating around
North Sea wind farms. This is because violent storms can
cause vessels traveling in a shipping lane or at the edge of the
“safety zone” boundary area outside a wind farm’s perimeter to
become disabled due to engine failure. Rough currents, turbulent waves, and extreme winds can thrust such disabled craft
into other objects, including offshore turbines. To reduce drift
risk during such weather conditions, vessels are often rerouted.
The new course a vessel takes, though, may increase breach
of contract risk associated with that vessel’s failure to deliver
its goods on time. These breaches can result in payment of
liquidated or other damages to the recipient party to whom
the goods are owed. Such vessels’ owners would likely also
incur additional charges, including carrying, fuel, and docking
charges, if a vessel is forced to dock at an unanticipated location further away from its originally charted course.
The lack of a historical track
record and the uncertain
effectiveness of these
technological design advances
may be a risk that wind farm
investors and developers may
be willing, or may need, to take.
Extreme weather conditions have also caused about fourfifths of all North Sea offshore turbines to sustain failing
grouted connections. Most of these turbines possess a monopile foundation. In a monopile turbine, the turbine’s blades are
connected to one pole, or monopile, which fits into another
slightly larger-in-diameter, tubelike outer vertical transmission piece just above the water’s surface. This double-tube
structure continues through the water into the ocean floor,
where it is anchored. Cement grout is inserted to fill the gap
between the turbine’s inner monopile pipe and its outer vertical transmission piece, all of which constitute the turbine’s
foundation. While grout sets to a strength generally similar to
that of stone, it also needs to withstand the turbine’s weight,
as well as the lateral force of the wind. As context for the size
and weight of a monopile turbine, in the Scira Sheringham
Shoal offshore wind farm (Sheringham Shoal) located in the
Greater Wash off England’s North Norfolk coast, each of the
ninety monopiles are an average of approximately fifty meters
long, five meters in diameter, and 450 tons and have been pile
driven between twenty-three and thirty-seven meters into the
seabed. Violent storms and their accompanying extreme winds
and waves have caused North Sea monopile turbines to experience bending movement between the monopile and the
transition piece (an extension of the turbine’s tower), causing
some of these turbines to tip and no longer stand vertically.
Moreover, dissolved or cracked grouting has caused these
NR&E Fall 2012
turbines to shift on their foundations. See Monopile Worries
Mount: Grouted Joint Doubts Linger, Wind Energy Update
(Apr. 10, 2012). Hundreds of millions of dollars in repairs
are associated with rectifying this grouting issue. Measures
are being taken to address this matter, although their effectiveness remains to be seen. One such measure includes
DNV KEMA’s modifying its industry guidelines to lower
the acceptable load threshold that can be placed on grouted
connections. See DNV KEMA, Offshore Standard DNVOS-J101: Design of Offshore Wind Turbine Structures,
Sec. 9 (Sept. 2011). A second measure, adapted from the oil
and gas sector and used at Sheringham Shoal, uses steel and
rubber spring bearings to reduce stress on the grouted connections. A third measure is a design modification based on
recent industry research: using conical grouted connections.
Conical grouted connections, made from well-defined steel
cones, replace cylindrical grouted connections between the
concentric monopile and vertical transmission piece. The
grout in the cone-angled section adds pressure to reduce sliding motion between such two pieces. Id. at 140. Conical
connections are now the new industry standard for offshore
wind farms. Design defects associated with this new technology may not become apparent until after several seasons of
harsh weather. Notably, the London Array wind farm, which
will be the largest wind farm ever built, plans to employ this
new technology. The lack of a historical track record and
the uncertain effectiveness of these technological design
advances may be a risk that wind farm investors and developers may be willing, or may need, to take.
Additionally, seafloor conditions such as scour and
sand dune migration are often underappreciated risks, as
are extreme weather impacts on such conditions. Seafloor
dynamics, including wave conditions, tides, currents, water
flow velocity, marine growth, terrain, and ice formation, can
create chronic scour, or the depletion of seabed sediment.
Scour can cause erosion around offshore turbine bases located
in sandy soils, making such turbines’ foundation anchoring
less sturdy and reducing the turbines’ stability. A five megawatt (MW) offshore turbine costs about £6 million (about
$9.5 million), with its foundation costing approximately £3
million, (about $4.7 million) depending on water depth.
See BVG Associates, The Crown Estate: A Guide to an
Offshore Wind Farm (2011). Because foundation costs
constitute a substantial part of a turbine’s overall cost, scour
is a major concern for monopile offshore wind turbines’ foundation design.
Moreover, many North Sea offshore turbines are located
in seabeds of mobile sediments. Research shows that these
turbines’ foundations are more susceptible to scour impacts
than originally predicted. Extreme weather causing seafloor
sediment to be more mobile than anticipated could result in
higher scour incidents than previously thought, potentially
causing cable exposure. An offshore turbine’s transmission
cable generally runs down the turbine’s shaft and is anchored
near its base. If the seafloor erodes at the turbine’s base, this
cable can become exposed and will need to be reburied.
Traditional scour protection measures have not always been
successful. For example, a 2005 study indicated that the scour protection for certain turbines in the Horns Rev I wind farm, located
in the North Sea off Denmark’s west coast, had sunk unexpectedly as much as 1.5 meters adjacent to the turbines’ foundations,
causing cable exposure. See Long Lasting Scour Protection for
2
Published in Natural Resources & Environment Volume 27, Number 2, Fall 2012. © 2012 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion
thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.
Offshore Wind Farms (Mar. 2, 2012) at www.dhigroup.com/
News/2012/03/02/LongLastingScourProtectionForOffshoreWindFarms.aspx. To prevent further cable damage and further turbine
sinking, the developer was responsible for filling the scour holes
with stones and placing additional stones in between these turbines’ foundations and the seafloor. A developer’s financial ability
to shoulder costs related to addressing more frequently occurring,
underrated risks such as scour needs to be considered.
Similar to scour, sand wave migration can cause cable exposure. Sand waves typically occur in shallow seas, with tides
largely impacting their migration. Sand wave migration rate can
have adverse consequences for turbine cable installations. This
is because if a cable was originally buried under a sand crest on
the ocean floor, it can become exposed if the crest migrates and
leaves a trough in its place. Because sediments can be highly
mobile, and because sea floor topography—particularly ridges—
can accelerate water flow, cable burial assessments need to be
conducted to plan both how deep cables need to be buried and
how high sediment transport areas can be avoided.
Cable exposure is an expensive and difficult problem to fix.
Few installation vessels available globally can lay subsea cables
or conduct cable repairs. High demand and global competition
for these vessels make such vessels available at a cost premium.
Also, installers may downplay weather risks and underestimate
the time it will take them to complete cable installation. This
could be problematic, as the cable-laying permit the installer
obtains could be of insufficient duration. The installer may be
unable to complete its job within the permitted timeframe,
and the job could go unfinished. These delays may increase the
project developer’s time and costs for completing cable installation and repairs.
Additional Risks That Climate Change,
Nor’easters, and Hurricanes Pose to
Offshore Turbines in U.S. Waters
Anticipated global temperature increases and elevated sea
levels associated with climate change may impact offshore
wind turbines scheduled to be located in U.S. waters. According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO),
2001–2010 was the warmest decade in recorded history. See
World Meteorological Organization, Press Release No. 943,
at www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_943_
en.html. The WMO has found that Arctic sea ice in recent
years has declined due to higher global temperatures and in
2011 was 35 percent below the 1979–2000 average. Id. A
decrease in sea ice translates into sea-level rise. This could significantly impact the offshore wind industry’s supply chain in
the long term. A sea-level rise of only a few meters may cause
ports and highways to become flooded or completely submerged. Significant infrastructure repair may be needed due to
flooded or submerged ports, resulting in vessels being rerouted
to other ports. This could be a logistical nightmare if only one
port servicing offshore wind farms is built on the East Coast.
For instance, the Department of Interior (DOI) has designated
a number of Wind Energy Areas (WEAs) as target areas for
offshore wind farm development on the Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS), off the respective coasts of Virginia, Maryland,
Delaware, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts as part
of its November 2010 “Smart from the Start” initiative. See
Salazar Launches “Smart from the Start” Initiative to Speed Offshore Wind Energy Development Off the Atlantic Coast, Press
3
Release (Nov. 23, 2010) at www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/
Salazar-Launches-Smart-from-the-Start-Initiative-to-SpeedOffshore-Wind-Energy-Development-off-the-Atlantic-Coast.
cfm. Barges carrying 5 MW–9 MW offshore turbines that need
to be partially preassembled portside, and vessels engaged
in these wind farms’ construction and maintenance would
dock at this port. The following illustrates what could occur
if only one major East Coast port is capable of servicing offshore wind farms. As part of New Jersey’s 2010 Offshore Wind
Economic Development Act, the Port of New York and New
Jersey is designated as a wind energy zone for qualified wind
energy facilities, where wind manufacturers will receive special tax and other financial incentives to build their facilities.
If the sea level rises a few meters, projections show that large
areas around Newark Bay and Arthur Kill, including the Port
of New York and New Jersey and any manufacturing facility
located there, would be flooded or submerged, as would certain New Jersey and Manhattan roadways. Vessels servicing
East Coast offshore wind farms would have to dock elsewhere,
although such other facility may not exist on the East Coast.
While port flood risk may be remote at this time, it has the
downstream potential to have significant future consequences.
Because hurricane intensity and
frequency may be correlated
to climate change impacts, the
risk probability of a “black swan
hurricane” event has real cost
implications in terms of the
damage it could cause to an
offshore wind farm.
Also, nor’easters and hurricanes pose unique risks to offshore
turbines. Historical data gathered from North Sea offshore turbines cannot address these risks, as nor’easters and hurricanes
are not found in the North Sea. These two events may have
serious implications in terms of turbine design, satisfaction of
energy production requirements, and turbine repair or replacement costs for turbines located along the East Coast or in the
Gulf of Mexico. Nor’easters, storms that travel along the East
Coast, are cyclones that generally occur in winter and have hurricane-force winds accompanied by heavy snow and rain. These
storms cause pounding surf and wave swells. Although wave
height depends on wind direction, air temperature, and water
temperature, it is difficult to predict how warmer waters and air
from climate change will impact waves higher up the Atlantic Coast. While twenty-year records of wave data are available
for certain areas along the Atlantic OCS, insufficient wave data
has been collected to sufficiently understand storm impacts on
waves and currents throughout this area.
NR&E Fall 2012
Published in Natural Resources & Environment Volume 27, Number 2, Fall 2012. © 2012 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion
thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.
Atlantic hurricanes are tropical cyclones that form in the
Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea. Because
they are fueled by warm, moist air, a rise in air and ocean temperatures further up the East Coast than has been the case historically
could mean that hurricanes could last longer and travel farther up
the East Coast in the future. Wind farms in WEAs, consequently,
may be at increased hurricane risk. This is cause for concern.
According to NASA’s website, hurricanes are the most violent
storms on Earth. See http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/hurricanes/. The
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s)
National Hurricane Center uses the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane
Wind Scale (SSHWS), which assigns hurricanes a Category
1–5 rating, based on each hurricane’s intensity. Hurricanes wield
destructive power in the form of extreme winds and storm surges
(an abnormal rise in sea level, over and above the predicted
tides). A Category 2 hurricane, with wind speeds of 96–100 mph
and storm surges of 6–8 feet above normal, can cause moderate
damage at landfall, while a major hurricane of Category 3 level,
with wind speeds of 111–130 mph and storm surges of 9–12 feet
above normal, can cause extensive damage at landfall. Offshore
wind turbine damage at sea, where hurricanes draw their fuel from
the heat of the water and water evaporating from the water’s surface, may be more severe.
Current wind turbine
design technology may be
walking a narrow line between
engineers creating a defective
product and engineers creating
a product that is currently a
technological impossibility.
Because hurricane intensity and frequency may be correlated to climate change impacts, the risk probability of a
“black swan hurricane” event—a low probability, hard to
predict event with disproportionately high or catastrophic
damage consequences—has real cost implications in terms
of the damage it could cause to an offshore wind farm. A
warmer atmosphere holds more moisture and is expected to
generate more extreme weather, including more powerful
hurricanes, potentially increasing the probability of a black
swan hurricane.
To protect against black swan hurricane risk, improvements
in offshore wind turbine design are needed. An increase in frequency of Category 2 or higher hurricanes could have severe
implications. Offshore turbines need to be able to survive
the combination of fierce winds, increased wave heights, and
intense wave force accompanying Category 2 and potentially
Category 3 or higher hurricanes without sustaining damage.
At a minimum, offshore turbines for U.S. waters need to be
designed so that their blades and gears can withstand the wear
NR&E Fall 2012
and tear that potential increased frequency of Category 1 hurricanes may cause. Carnegie Mellon University researchers
found that turbines placed in U.S. waters may be vulnerable
to hurricane-force extreme winds because offshore turbines
currently on the market are only designed to withstand Category 1 hurricane wind speeds. See Carnegie Mellon Team
Finds Hurricanes Pose Potential Risks to Offshore Wind Turbines,
Press Release (Feb. 14, 2012) at www.cmu.edu/news/stories/
archives/2012/february/feb14_windturbinesatrisk.html. Despite
such findings, industry executives and engineers maintain that
a Class 1 turbine (designed with current technology) should be
able to withstand a Category 3 hurricane. However, whether a
particular turbine design can handle the load from these hurricanes and what level of incremental damage blades and gears
will sustain after repeated exposure to such conditions at a particular location remains unknown.
Rating agency criteria for offshore turbine hurricane risk
is currently unavailable. Investors, such as investment banks,
need to be comfortable quantifying risk and damage probabilities involved in a potential investment as certainty makes
projects financeable. To gauge long-term project performance
and return on investment, such investors may look at rating
agency criteria, methodologies, and factors a rating agency
considers during its rating and surveillance process for certain asset classes, including renewable energy project types.
This, however, is not an option with respect to offshore wind
projects. While Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating
Organizations (NRSROs), such as Fitch Ratings, have established ratings criteria for onshore wind farms, they do not have
established ratings criteria for offshore wind farms; because no
U.S. offshore wind farms exist, it is impossible for any NRSRO
to gather historical U.S. offshore turbine data on which projections and ratings may be based. U.S. wind farms that will be
located in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico inherently
carry with them risks that do not apply to onshore turbines:
risks associated with hurricanes in open waters, wave damage,
and a shifting seabed. Lack of rating agency criteria and lack
of history on which such criteria can be based may provide
insufficient comfort to risk-adverse investors. Hurricane risk,
therefore, may deter certain investors from financing a U.S.
offshore wind project.
According to a March 2012 J.P. Morgan report, hurricane risks in the Gulf of Mexico are substantial and difficult
to insure on a cost-effective basis. See J.P. Morgan, Eye on the
Market (Mar. 22, 2012). This market report indicates that if
an oil platform sustains serious hurricane damage, there may
be insufficient value remaining in the oil well to substantiate
its repair costs. Id. Similarly, there needs to be an economic
justification for repairing or replacing an offshore wind turbine. If such a turbine sustains serious structural damage from
a hurricane, depending on when the damage occurs during
the turbine’s approximately twenty-year life, repair costs may
exceed either the amount of future revenue that would be generated during the remainder of the mended turbine’s life or the
amount of damages that would need to be paid to the applicable utility for failure to deliver the contractually agreed-upon
amount of electricity. Replacing a severely damaged turbine
also may not be cost effective, given the turbine’s age or the
timing for decommissioning or replacing other turbines in
the same array. Consider what may happen if numerous turbines in an offshore wind farm simultaneously experience
severe damage. Moreover, nor’easters and hurricanes may have
4
Published in Natural Resources & Environment Volume 27, Number 2, Fall 2012. © 2012 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion
thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.
unknown, adverse implications with respect to subsea cable
damage, which also could need to be repaired or replaced if
a turbine falls or if seabed conditions change more quickly
than anticipated. This makes offshore turbines highly leveraged investments, insofar as they are leveraged with respect to
replacement costs.
Hurricanes that occur more frequently or are of greater magnitude than originally anticipated may be difficult weather risks
to insure. Property insurance needs to be in place to cover turbines that experience catastrophic damages past their warranty
period. Business interruption insurance needs to be in place to
mitigate risks associated with failure to deliver the contractedfor amount of energy, as well as the time it takes to conduct
turbine and/or cable repair or replacement for energy transmission purposes. Added to the difficulty of quantifying and setting
insurance coverage for nor’easter and hurricane risk is that few
insurers currently insure offshore wind projects globally.
Lessons Learned: What Steps Can Be
Taken to Mitigate Extreme Weather Risks
If we as a country are committed to launching a domestic
offshore wind industry, we must have long-term policies and
programs in place to identify risk mitigation measures that
can be implemented to address extreme weather-related offshore turbine risks. Grout, scour, and sand wave migration
issues have caused North Sea offshore monopile turbines to
experience foundation instability, structural issues, and cable
exposure, due to inaccurate estimates for extreme weather
conditions. As experience with these turbines illustrates, current wind turbine design technology may be at a crossroads,
walking a narrow line between engineers creating a defective product and engineers creating a product that is currently
a technological impossibility. Regardless, offshore turbine
designs will need to undergo specialized improvements to withstand hurricane risks in U.S. waters.
One way to accomplish this goal is to implement federal
legislation or institute federally funded, government entitysponsored initiatives for ongoing research and development
studies tailored to improving offshore wind turbine designs.
The Department of Energy (DOE) has already taken several
steps in this direction. First, in September 2011, it awarded
$43 million to forty-one research projects across twenty states
for purposes of jumpstarting the U.S. offshore wind industry.
See DOE Awards $43 Million to Spur Offshore Wind Energy,
EERE News (Sept. 14, 2011) at http://apps1.eere.energy.
gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=17722. These studies,
however, lack permanence, as each is only scheduled to last
several years on average. As a policy matter, long-term, ongoing studies in collaboration with colleges, universities, and
private companies need to be established to evidence a firm
federal commitment to the development and evolution of a
U.S. offshore wind industry. Second, DOE Secretary Steven
Chu announced on March 1, 2012, a six-year, $180 million
program to fund four innovative offshore wind installations
across the United States, as part of an initiative to diversify
the nation’s energy portfolio and launch the nation’s offshore wind industry. See Energy Department Announces $180
Million for Ambitious Deploy U.S. Offshore Wind Projects”
EERE News (Mar. 1, 2012) at www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/
news_detail.html?news_id=18134. While there is a $20 million initial commitment in fiscal year 2012, this initiative is
5
subject to congressional appropriations. Initiatives such as
this must be definitively funded and last for a longer period of
years, thereby evidencing a more permanent federal commitment to offshore wind development. Third, policy measures
encouraging global collaboration for research and development purposes, and for data sharing, need to be adopted and
supported, particularly in the area of technological innovations. Secretary Chu realized the importance of such
collaboration, as indicated by his meeting with UK Energy
Secretary Edward Davey in April 2012, during which they
discussed accelerating the transition to clean energy technologies and entered into a new Memorandum of Understanding
on “Collaboration in Energy Related Fields.” See Davey to
Host International Clean Energy Talks (Apr. 23, 2012) at www.
decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/pn12_049/pn12_049.aspx.
As a result, the UK and United States will be collaborating
on and jointly funding the development of floating wind turbines for deep waters. Id. Floating turbine technology means
not having to repair turbine foundations on the seabed. High
visibility government officials, in addition to the general public, must encourage and publicly support these multicountry
collaborative efforts promoting technological developments.
Moreover, the federal government’s investing in demonstration projects showcasing new offshore wind technologies,
such as floating turbines, may be the needed first step for
supporting the “test case” from which data on resilience to
certain weather conditions may be extracted. Such demonstration projects’ success may encourage investors to gain
confidence in financing offshore wind projects.
Increased interagency cooperation among federal agencies and publicity for such efforts are also needed for purposes
of pooling and publicly sharing knowledge and scientific data.
Cross-agency collaboration and data pooling among agencies such as NOAA, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), DOI, DOE, and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is necessary to reduce redundancy and expedite
the siting, permitting, and approval processes for offshore
wind farms and their turbines. It will also reveal more quickly
whether the North Sea’s seabed, wave, and other metocean
conditions are similar enough to those off the Atlantic Coast
or in the Gulf of Mexico for purposes of predicting sediment
transport, as well as scour and sand wave migration risk in U.S.
waters for nonfloating turbines.
Finally, it is important that state and federal policymakers
involved in the offshore wind farm developer selection process
are adequately informed of the potential expenditures needed
to cover potential risks, so that a developer’s financial strength
and ability to cover both expected and unforeseen costs may
be accorded due weight. Having a developer go bankrupt during the wind farm development process because of its inability
to finance costs associated with unanticipated damages from
weather conditions is undesirable and presents a situation
against which precautions should be taken.
Adequately addressing extreme weather risks for offshore
wind turbines is indeed challenging. To advance and successfully launch the infant U.S. offshore wind industry,
innovations in offshore turbine design are necessary. With
proper federal policies, initiatives, and monetary support to
enhance collaborative scientific research and development
efforts, advances in turbine design have a greater likelihood of
occurring more rapidly and have the ability to help the U.S.
wind industry get off to a positive start.
NR&E Fall 2012
Published in Natural Resources & Environment Volume 27, Number 2, Fall 2012. © 2012 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion
thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.