Fourth Meeting Summary

Thursday, December 12, 2002

Convenor: Massachusetts Technology Collaborative

Facilitators: Dr. Jonathan Raab, Raab Associates, Ltd. and Suzanne Orenstein

73 people attended the meeting, which began at 10 am and concluded at 4 pm. See the attached attendance list.

II. Introduction / Agenda Review

Jonathan Raab welcomed the attendees and reviewed the agenda for the day. The attendees then went around the room and introduced themselves. Dr. Raab then briefly reviewed the meeting summary from Meeting #3 and noted that a redlined version of the summary and a list of edits made will be posted on the website.

III. Visual Impacts

Unfortunately, due to travel problems and the inclement weather, Prof. Rick Smardon was unable to join the meeting in person. Because he had sent his presentation in advance, Colin Rule was able to step through the slides and offer some of his comments. The presentation is available here.

Next Michael Prybyla from Earth Tech walked attendees through the creation of visual simulations prepared for the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound. His presentation is available here. When the images depicting the actual visual impact were projected at the front of the room many of the attendees came up to the front to get a closer look. Mr. Prybyla explained that a common rule of thumb for viewing simulations is that the view distance should be the diagonal of the image. One stakeholder observed that being too close to the image, or even zooming in on a portion of it, would be the equivalent of looking through binoculars.

During and immediately after Mr. Prybyla’s presentation, several stakeholders asked clarifying questions. These questions and the responses offered are presented below.

Would the turbines look as bright as they do in the simulation even if they were painted gray?

If the sun was shining on them, yes. For this simulation the windmills were light gray, which was the color mentioned in the original filing. Light blue has also been used on other projects. The goal is to minimize the contrast between the turbines and the sky.

What were the weather conditions the day the photos were taken?

The days were clear; aside from that no other weather measurements were recorded.

Can other weather conditions be modeled into the simulation, such as hazy days or high wave days?

It is possible to model haze or high waves into the software, but the accuracy is questionable. 

Is the model accurate based on resolution in the photograph? It appears that the pixels are blocky, implying low resolution.

The original simulation was rendered at 4800 dots per inch, which is extremely high resolution. To put the image into a powerpoint presentation the resolution must be reduced, and then it is reduced again to be displayed on an LCD projector. The original rendering, however, was done at a very detailed level, and that information is available.

Is it possible to generate simulations of the night views as well?

Accurately showing night views is very difficult because of the way the eye perceives light. Projected light in a dark environment is much different than a flat photograph or rendering; odds are the result would just look like dots on a black background. Accurate representation of light intensity in dark environments is very difficult.

The next presentation was from John Hecklau of EDR, who generated visual simulations for Cape Wind. Len Fagan of Cape Wind Associates was also available during the presentation to answer questions focused more on Cape Wind’s actions and plans. Mr. Hecklau’s presentation is available here.

During and immediately after Mr. Hecklau’s presentation, several stakeholders asked clarifying questions. These questions and the responses offered are presented below.

How did EDR handle the different types of light at different times of day?

EDR took photos at different times of day (dawn, noon, afternoon, etc.) and recorded the weather and lighting as it existed at the time of the photo. The modelers also attempted to ensure that the ambient lighting on the turbines matched the ambient lighting in the photograph.

Are there significant methodological differences between the EDR and Earthtech simulations?

The basic methodology used was very similar. It is inevitable that there will be some variability between two firms doing the same exercise, but overall both firms used the same techniques and generated similar results.

What finish for the turbines was modeled into the software modeling program? Was there any reflectivity or glossiness on the monopoles and blades?

EDR utilized a semi-gloss type paint at the precise color specified by Cape Wind in the filing. If there was any reflectivity to the surface there could be a glint, but the model did not include any shiny reflectivity (the assumption being that the finish on the turbines would be more rough than smooth) so no glint appeared in the simulation. Earthtech also clarified that they did not specify any glossy surface on the turbines in their model.

It is also important to note that at such a long distance color won’t make much of a difference. If the towers are painted grey or white or blue the effect of the atmosphere is to de-saturate colors, so all three colors would likely look quite similar. Difference in color in the simulation is due much more to lighting than to the color of the paint on the turbines.

Have or will any simulations be conducted from a viewpoint in the water?

Cape Wind and the Corps of Engineers are currently in the process of establishing the actual viewsheds that will be used in the EIS. Karen Adams from the Corps of Engineers added that the Corps has discussed using historical sites as key viewpoints from which the visual impact can be assessed. The issue of key viewpoints is currently being scoped out and it will probably be decided in the next month or so.

Have the panelists seen anything that they feel has been misleading (such as in the press coverage)?

Mr. Hecklau noted that several elements of the Earthtech simulation might be somewhat misleading (as detailed in his powerpoint): the location of the turbine bases below the horizon line, the common alignment of blades among all of the wind turbines, and lighting issues (where, for example, the turbines appear front lit while items in the reference photograph show that the turbines should be backlit). It was also underscored that people need to view the photographs from an appropriate distance. Often pictures are zoomed in to emphasize details that would not be clearly visible.

One attendee from Cape Wind noted that some materials circulated by a prior Alliance consultant (and subsequently reproduced in the newspaper) showed painted turbines that were out of scale compared to the later computer simulations.

One participant asked about Dr. Smardon’s affiliation and the possibility of his return at a future meeting. It was clarified that he has no professional relationship with any of the organizations involved with the wind project. He provided a bibliography for the sources cited in his presentation (which is available here) and the facilitation team said that they would consider trying to bring him back in should time come available to discuss visual impacts further. In the meantime, attendees were given the opportunity to pose questions to Prof. Smardon by writing them on cards, and he will respond in written form with the answers posted to the website.

The last presentation on the morning panel was from Bruce Bailey of AWS, who has been involved with some of the visual simulation research being conducted on Long Island for a proposed wind development down there. Dr. Bailey’s presentation is available here, and more information on the Long Island project is available at www.lioffshorewindenergy.org.

How far apart are the windmills in the final image?

The windmills in the final image of the presentation are 500 meters apart.

What about barges and cranes that will be out maintaining the turbines?

Most modern turbines have cranes built into them, so no crane is necessary for routine maintenance. And these turbines are designed for reliability over decades, so there should be very little call for repair barges to be out among the turbines.

There was a study that concluded that any project with more than 100 turbines would require a permanent floating crane, but that study was completed in 1996, before all the new turbines had cranes built into them. In fact, many new towers erect themselves during construction, so a crane is not even required for the initial assembly.

Will there be hazy days where the turbines are not visible?

Yes.

How can these photo simulations be made so as to most closely replicate the vision of the human eye?

A 50mm lens is considered the lens closest to the actual functioning of the human eye. When simulations are generated with this type of lens and computer imaging technology it is often impossible to tell which image is the simulation and which is the actual project. Software has become much more powerful and the resulting images much more realistic.

What is NYSERDA?

NYSERDA is the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. It co-funded phase I of the Long Island wind project with LIPA (the Long Island Power Authority). Now they’re wrapping up phase II.

The project has been proposed along a very long stretch of the south shore of Long Island. They quickly ruled out Long Island Sound and now they’re focusing more on eastern areas. Phase II has focused on finding specific spots where a project could work.

Are these studies peer reviewed?

Yes, a large stakeholder organization is involved with this program, so all those stakeholders oversee the studies. Regulatory groups also gather every few months to review the progress that has been made and monitor study methodology.

What is known about turbine orientation? Will most of the turbines be pointing in the same direction or in different directions?

Frequency of the wind from different directions dictate orientations. Wind in Nantucket Sound is more or less constant from the southwest. Blades are less visible when they are facing sideways as opposed to head on. In a steady wind most of the turbines would turn into the wind, but it is unlikely that all the turbines will be aligned all the time.

Shouldn’t the visual impacts be determined from the locations that have the most heavy traffic, like the Ocean Street Docks in Hyannis?

Choosing viewer locations can be done in a variety of different ways. The Corps, for instance, is focusing on historic sites. LIPA chose to do the simulation from the standpoint of the most popular beach in North America – Jones Beach.

At this point, questions moved from focusing on Dr. Bailey’s presentation to addressing the panel more broadly.

How can we best simulate nighttime lighting?

There has already been a nighttime study of the measurement tower. Some simulations can be conducted with existing towers in other locations, such as in Lake Ontario. Some daytime photos can also be altered to simulate nighttime visual impacts.

Len Fagan from Cape Wind clarified that a lighting scheme has already been submitted to the FAA for approval, and a red flashing light is currently on the data tower. Once the scheme is approved it will be possible to do a simulation.

Another possibility is to mount visibility sensors on the turbines that adjust light intensity based on the surrounding conditions, so on clearer days the light intensity goes down.

Trying to capture nighttime photos is also difficult, because detail can emerge based on how long the shutter for the camera is open. One possibility is to capture a series of exposures, each with different exposure settings. Then the photographer can determine which exposure most resembles what he saw with his own eyes.

The consensus among the presenters seemed to be that getting a night simulation will likely be difficult and much more subjective.

What is the siting criteria for Long Island Sound?

The wind resource is the most important criteria. An average 18 mph wind speed is essential, with a water depth of 50 feet or shallower. Proximity to shore is also important, as LIPA wants to install a power line that’s less than 3 miles long.

The amount of contiguous water area is also important. LIPA began by selecting an area 5 miles wide and 80 miles long. The second phase eliminated much of that area by tightening water depth constraints. It’s also important for the location to be easily accessible with minor environmental impacts. Bird and fishing impacts were also considered. Using these criteria LIPA was able to eliminate 85-90 percent of the initial area. LIPA will ask developers to provide a proposal considering archaeological factors, habitats, and other concerns. 

What is the importance of wave height? Will developers always aim for lower wave conditions?

Given a choice of sites, relatively shallow water and benign wave heights are preferable. Breaking waves have a lot of power, and building these structures in high wave conditions has not yet been done.

For the LIPA project, wave conditions are being considered more as a baseline, as studies haven’t found significant differences between the proposed sites (at least not significant enough to make wave height an important siting criterion.)

Has LIPA discussed offshore mitigation of visual impacts?

There have been some discussions about the possibility of getting rid of land power lines. Any new power lines involved with the LIPA project will be installed underground. Aside from that there have not been many discussions about mitigation.

One mitigation measure being discussed is painting the windmills slightly different colors. This variability might reduce visual impacts. Also some wind farms in Europe have arranged the turbines in a line (such as Middlegrunden, where they are in an arc) because it is considered more aesthetically pleasing. Possible modifications to the arrangement, including more setback, has been discussed for the Cape Wind project, but most mitigation options being considered are slight differences not major changes.

Will the camouflage being discussed for the Cape Wind turbines create more problems for boats, airplanes, and birds?

The Cape Wind lighting proposal meets FAA air safety requirements, and the turbines will also have a lighting scheme for boats. In fact, the turbines are being classified by the Coast Guard as private aids for navigation. Each turbine will be properly marked and identified. Studies into avian impacts will also consider how the proposed lighting will effect bird populations.

If the turbines will have different orientations at any given time, what impact will that have on the viewer?

As long as the turbines are fully operational they are likely to have the same orientation (e.g., facing southwest). If a machine goes down it may just be feathering into the wind, meaning it will not stay aligned and reactive to wind shifts. Different wind conditions in the same project may also lead to multiple orientations. But in moderate to strong winds all the turbines will be within 10-15% of each other. If winds go above 55mph the system’s logic turns machines off so they won’t be damaged.

What will happen to boaters and fishermen in fog, etc.

All turbines will have yellow flashing lights per the requirements of the Coast Guard. These lights are fog activated, so they will only be on when they are needed. There will also be fog-warning devices in locations determined by the Coast Guard. Some attendees registered concern about how these sound devices will affect people on land. The current audio warning device on the met tower is designed for a half mile. As the turbines will be separated by at least half a mile, boats should easily be able to navigate through the area.

What about larger vessels?

All large vessel traffic stays in the channels, and ferryboats don’t cut through the shoals because it is too shallow.

One attendee noted that there are serious negative visual impacts from traditional power generation options, such as oil spills, ozone induced haze, and algae blooms from nitrogen deposits. These should be weighed against any impacts from the turbines.

The attendees then broke for lunch. Two videos of wind farms in Europe were screened over lunch as an optional activity for attendees.

IV. Alternative Sites

After lunch Greg Watson from the MTC introduced Bruce Bailey and detailed some of the wind mapping efforts MTC has been involved with. Dr. Bailey then delivered his presentation, which is available here.

Immediately following Dr. Bailey’s presentation Len Fagan from Cape Wind gave his presentation on the alternative sites analyzed by Cape Wind. His presentation is available here.

After Dr. Bailey and Mr. Fagan’s presentations several attendees asked clarifying questions. These questions and the responses offered are presented below.

The sea bottom in different areas dictates the type of anchoring required for the towers. If the bottom is rock then a gravity anchor must be used (which is much more expensive) while sand allows for poles to be implanted. Will future mapping efforts identify the sea bottom structure in different areas?

Such identification will not be conducted as part of this project. The goal of this project is to analyze big picture, first order screening issues for different sites. Once wind and depth are determined there are many other questions that will require analysis.

What are some of the other conflicting watersheet uses and the limitations they might pose to siting?

Cape Wind did an analysis of which locations would be viable based on other uses of the watersheet. As a first priority they wanted to be outside of any water traffic, so that they could stay out of the way of commercial boating. Airports and air traffic were also an important concern. Cape Wind met with cruise ship companies and the Steamway Authority to gather this information before deciding on these proposed sites.

What avian information went into the screening process?

So far the only locations that has been analyzed for avian effects was the Horseshoe Shoal location. Avian impact studies are currently being conducted in that area.

Have there been studies of towers with regard to ice floe impacts?

Studies have been conducted that have examined ice floes, ice collisions, and ice buildup on towers. It can be assumed that at various points in the life of the towers they will have at least six inches of ice on the tower base with 1.5 inches of ice on the blades. The towers are constructed to withstand those conditions.

What about the risk of collisions with boats?

The towers are designed to withstand the impact of a large vessel drifting on the current out of control. The impact speed for such a collision is assumed to be very slow, such as a knot and a half. If a boat was to impact a tower at a faster speed the effect would be less certain.

The third presentation on the panel came from Bob Link, the Permit Compliance Officer for Winergy. He did not have a powerpoint presentation to accompany his remarks.

In summary, he gave some background on the efforts of his company and their receipt of an open ocean water column lease for mariculture. Eventually the company moved into proposing various wind energy sites. They have analyzed a wide variety of possible wind development locations and eventually identified 24 that seemed promising. Depth was an important criteria for selection of these sites. Fishing data was collected from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as well as sediment and sea bed information. They also looked at interconnection options. Eventually, based on all this information, they limited the number of sites.

As to visual impacts, some sites they are considering are 18 miles offshore, so they won’t be seen, and others are much closer in. The average site is about 5 mi offshore. Winergy acknowledged that they will never get all the sites permitted, but they’re hoping to get at least 4 or 5 up and down the coast, each in a different load pocket.

According to Link, getting a permit is a complex process that requires a lot of money, time, and discussions with regulators. The process will likely take 2-5 years. There’s no way to conduct enough studies to answer all the questions that such projects raise, but it is important to try to estimate likely impacts on the environment.

The sites Winergy has proposed include Provincetown (1 mi offshore), Buzzards Bay (1 mi offshore), Essex (1 mi offshore), Davis Banks and three other sites (southeast of Nantucket), Plum Island (New York, fully permitted 200 acres for mariculuture, Link hopes to also house 3-4 turbines there in the next two years), the Hamptons (on Dune Road), Smith Point (off of Fire Island), Jones Beach (1 mi offshore), Asbury Park (4 miles offshore New Jersey), three sites at Five Fathoms Bank (southern New Jersey), Indian River (Delaware), Isle of Wight (near Ocean City), and Smith Island (off of Virginia). Full information on all of these sites is available on the web at www.winergyllc.com.

After Mr. Link’s presentation several attendees asked questions of the entire panel. These questions and the responses offered are presented below.

The LIPA process is a public process and the Cape Wind process is a private process. Could a private developer take out an application on LIPA’s site?

Someone could, but it wouldn’t achieve anything. Just because LIPA is doing the legwork it doesn’t exclude others from identifying the site. LIPA wants to encourage wind development, and either option would be acceptable. LIPA hasn’t even filed an application yet. The eventual goal is to have a private developer develop the site.

Mr. Link noted that Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) rules allow developers to apply for a site and get rights to it for seven years. Ms. Adams from the Corps of Engineers (COE) clarified that nothing in a Corps permitting process grants property rights to one area over another, so there could be more than one applicant applying for rights in a particular area. COE permits do not allow for exclusive use and nothing says the first applicant gets it. Any process would have to apply common sense and fairness.

There are also important distinctions between state and federal waters. Lack of rights is one of the issues. Anybody can apply for a permit on any property anywhere

What has actually been filed by Winergy with COE in the Northeast District?

Ms. Adams explained that an application has been filed by Winergy but it is not complete because it is not accompanied by complete plans. Until the application is complete the Corps is not required to respond.

At this point, the discussion moved from questions and answers to various points made by stakeholders, agencies and other resources, members of the public, and panelists. The points made are listed below.

One stakeholder noted that in his opinion the process had reached a critical point, as he felt it was clear from the presentations that the only currently viable locations for wind power in the Northeast is in Nantucket Sound or maybe southeast of Nantucket. An equivalent amount of on-land generation would require 40 miles of ridgeline. In his mind, he explained, there is no longer an alternative sites issue to be discussed.

Choosing sites is a technical decision based on many parameters, and there will always be a first option, a second option, and so on. Any developer would want the most optimum site, but eventual site selection will most likely boil down to a discussion of probable project impacts in different locations.

There are those that consider Nantucket Sound a national resource where nothing should be done because of its beauty. Some feel that the view off of the Falmouth beach is equally pristine and it should also be a preserve. Other people in Gloucester consider their view pristine. Who is to decide which site will be chosen based only on visual appeal? We must all take social/environmental justice concerns into account, and we can’t prohibit wind farms in one area as opposed to another area for purely visual reasons.

Economics/market concerns dictate that the sites we look at need to be the best sites, which means the windiest sites. We don’t have the same options as Denmark.

Local state and Fed regulations apply within 3 miles, but within three miles issuance of permits has to come from the local and state governments. There is no process for anything beyond the three mile limit.

We should keep an eye on how this project informs us about the larger picture as well. We may be limited now by technology, but we will be looking at deep water areas eventually. Cape Wind has done a service in helping us focus on the issues that need to be considered in the future.

Tidal, wind, wave, other energy technologies are becoming viable. How can we now step back from that reality? What happens if this project doesn’t go forward? Let’s use this process and this project as a way to inform ourselves about how to think about these longer term issues.

With regard to the outer continental shelf the most relevant piece of legislation is the Ocean Thermal Energy Act. Any developer could identify a site and file a permit with the Army Corps much like Cape Wind is doing with these turbines. For instance, there is no policy for communications towers in federal waters, and electric transmission lines have no specific regulations either. They have gone through a permitting process like Cape Wind’s and they have been approved like any structures in navigable waters. 

Many people here have thought maybe we should go to the Department of the Interior and ask them to look at regulating this issue. The Bureau of Land Management has come out with a policy for the siting of wind farms on public lands, and it could be argued that their process is analogous to the Cape Wind project. For instance, there is no policy where the federal government tells you where to site an on-land power plant. Cape Wind differs in that there isn’t a policy governing this application. A myriad of agencies are scrutinizing every aspect of this project.

Like many new technologies, we must evolve our understanding through practical experience. We’re now in a real life situation and we’re learning as we go along.

The jurisdiction issue is on our agenda for the next meeting

Wind resource maps have put Nantucket Sound at the epicenter of U.S. wind potential. As one attendee put it, “For any significant wind power development for today’s marketplace, Nantucket Sound is the only viable location in New England.”

The notion that the permitting of the Cape Wind project will lead to easy permitting for other projects (Casinos and liquid natural gas terminals) is “fear mongering.” Those projects would have to go through a rigorous permitting process as well.

The alternatives analysis done so far does narrow viable sites to Nantucket Sound. It is the one place in the Northeast where wind power at this scale is feasible. Does this mean there will be more proposals for Nantucket Sound? The Corps is looking at different scales of projects as well as different locations.

Our decisions here will have an effect on the viability of wind power in the future.

This could lead to a heavy administrative burden, as many applications could soon be received, all of which need to be reviewed as individual projects.

All these projects cumulatively will have a significant environmental impact. Each individual application will say that its impact is small, but cumulatively the impact could be huge.

“Best available data” has allowed negative impacts in the past (such as dumping).

MTC is also looking at community projects – 2 to 25MW. They are examining the full menu of options and exploring the feasibility of smaller scales.

Other sites will be developed. Cape Wind has a good site, but it is not the only site. It is the most optimum spot for current technology and economics, but there is also a second most optimum site which could be built at not as generous a profit. This is not the only site that can get done, though maybe it is at the size they propose.

Where sites go is dependent on market conditions. Private developers need to make the decision to take on the risk of new projects.

People recognize the inherent benefits of wind power (air quality, energy security, economic development, etc.) Wind is fastest growing energy technology worldwide in the last 13 years.

LIPA has committed to pay for transmission and 100% of power for 10 years. This co-investment guarantees them a market for 10 years. LIPA will take care of those risks, and that makes the LIPA proposal a very doable project. It is hard to find another entity in the US willing to make that kind of co-investment.

The federal government needs to weigh in on this issue. Bush’s actions on the National Environmental Policy act and his push to restrict it to three nautical miles indicate some of what the federal attitude might be.

The data tower is an indication of the scale of the likely visual impacts. From Craigville Beach you might be able to see something silvery that looks like a little blip. The two big rocks in the Sound dwarf it. The view is not a problem. It should be put in perspective with other hazards, like motorboat oil.

Possibilities for smaller projects should be explored. How much is accounted for by Nantucket Sound and offshore wind, and how much could be produced by smaller sites around Massachusetts? We should get an order of magnitude estimate for a larger number of smaller sites (like Hull) and whether it would be worth the impacts to develop them. Are we talking 200mw or 2000mw?

V. Wrap Up

Dr. Raab then explained that the remaining three topics would be addressed at the next meeting: jurisdiction, economic impacts, and potential climate change impacts on the Cape and Islands. We will also begin to think together about what would be a useful public forum, and how to funnel all these topics for broader public accessibility.

Any questions or edits to the meeting summary should be emailed to rule@raabassociates.org by January 3, 2003. The presentations became available on the website the day after the meeting.

The facilitators and convenors agreed to move the meeting on 1/9/03 to 1/30/03. It will take place in the same room at the Cape Codder resort.