click here to see a detailed image

click here to see how turbines are attatched to the seabed, including floating turbine foundations

click here to see pictures of an offshore wind project being constructed

A major trend in Europe has been to move wind turbines offshore because of higher wind speeds, smoother, less turbulent airflows, larger amounts of open space and the ability to build larger turbines that are more cost effective in the ocean, offshore.   The wind offshore tends to flow at higher speeds, thus allowing turbines to produce more electricity.  The potential energy produced from the wind is directly proportional to the cube of the wind speed, meaning a few mile an hour increase in wind speed would produce a significantly larger amount of electricity.  For instance, a turbine at a site with an average wind speed of 16 mph would produce 50% more electricity than at a site with the exact same turbine with average wind speeds of 14 mph. The power of the wind is significantly less on land:  “The wind is slowed dramatically by friction as it brushes the ground and vegetation, it may not feel very windy at ground level. Yet the power in the wind may be five times greater at the height of a 40-story building (the height of the blade tip on a large, modern wind turbine) than the breeze on your face.”   Lager turbines are more economically feasible.  For instance if wind averaged 18 mph, in February of 2005, a 3 MW wind turbine would deliver electricity at a cost of $.059 per kWh while a 5 MW turbine would deliver electricity at $.036 per kWh, or 40% cheaper electricity. Offshore wind can be significantly more marketable. 

US-The U.S. Government provides an incentive program called the Federal Production Tax Credit (PCT).   This program allows a tax break for wind energy at a rate of 1.9 cents per kilowatt hour produced.  The PCT has been through a “boom and bust” cycle in which Congress lets the PCT expire before renewing the program.  The expiration of the FPC hurts the wind energy market by giving developers mixed signals as to if they will receive a tax break for their future wind projects.

Canada- The Canadian government offers wind incentives through its Eco Energy Incentive

According to a study conducted in part by the US Department of Energy about 900 GW exist off the coasts of the US.
US Offshore Potential Breakdown:

	GW by Depth (m)
Region	0-30	30-60	60-900	>900
New England	10.3	43.5	130.6	0.0
Mid-Atlantic	64.3	126.2	45.3	30.0
Great Lakes	15.5	11.6	193.6	0.0
California	0.0	0.3	47.8	168.0
Pacific Northwest	0.0	1.6	100.4	68.2
Total	90.1	183.2	517.7	266.2

Source: US DOE, NREL

California Selected Site Breakdown:

Nameplate capacity of turbines (MW) in each geographical area, depth, and wind speed cutoff, assuming a 33% exclusionary factor for each area. Turbine Nameplate Capacity (MW)
Ocean Depth	80 m Avg. Wind Speed	Northern Calif.	SF Bay Area	Southern Calif.	Total
0-20m	>=7.0 m/s	3,052	8	309	3,369
	>=7.0 m/s	746	0	0	746
20-50m	>=7.0 m/s	8,139	362	580	9,081
	>=7.0 m/s	2,713	0	0	2,713
50-200m	>=7.0 m/s	66,325	31,802	4,846	102,973
	>=7.0 m/s	14,771	6,210	0	20, 980

Source: California Offshore Wind Energy Potential, Stanford University pp. 8

The U.S. Department of Energy states that the world's winds could provide 5,800 quadrillion BTUs (quads) of energy each year. This number is over 15 times the worlds current energy demand. (1 quad= 172 million barrels of oil).

North Dakota. This state has a potential to produce 1,210 billion KWH per year. If the transmission capacity existed, this state could produce almost a quarter of the electricity needed in the U.S. through utilizing its wind resources.

*Wind Speed

*Wildlife and habitat considerations

*Proximity to the power grid-the
closer the hookup the better. Does
the grid have sufficient capacity to
accept the turbine in this location?

*Sites that can hold bigger and more
turbines are preferable since the
cost per turbine is less and the
power production is greater

*Is the location remote? Wind
turbines can be a cheaper
alternative to diesel generators in
remote locations that have no
hookups to a power grid.

*Is the site near an airport? or, if the wind turbines are offshore,
they may present a navigational hazard.

*Accessibility-How easy is it to
transport the turbine to the location
as well as perform regular
maintenance checks (O&M)?

*How great of a shadow, visual and/or auditory
impact will the turbine have on a
landscape or structure in the area?

*Is the surrounding community in
favor of a wind project?

*Soil conditions-Can the soil support
a wind turbine?

Cost is currently a major drawback of offshore wind energy. Land based projects cost significantley less and since their potential in North America is still strong, developers are currently focusing most of their efforts on onshore wind projects. Several offshore projects have signaled cost concerns including LIPA, Georgia Tech, and Gulf wind.

According to a presentation by Exeter Associates Inc, offshore wind costs between $1.95 million/MW to $2.86 million/ MW and generating costs range from $80/MWh to $150/MWh (Source: Kevin Porter- Introduction to Windpower) Developers in North America have released project costs which are much higher. BlueWater Wind estimates that its 450 MW project off the coast of Delaware would cost approx. $3.5 million/MW while FPL Energy's 144 MW project with LIPA is estimated to cost approx. $5.6 million/MW.

While each site selected is its own unique habitat to birds, studies done in offshore wind sites in Denmark show that wind turbines have little effect of birds. Denmark's National Environmental Research Institute conducted a two year study of bird life impacts from the Danish 80 turbine project Horns Rev. The study finds that "The low number of seabirds and waterfowl recorded inside the wind farm by migrating birds recorded by radar, indicate that most bird species generally exhibit an avoidance reaction to wind turbines, which reduces the probability of collision."

Projects in the United States, like those Europe, take the impact on bird life into account as part of the permitting process. Cape Wind contends that bird life has been carefully studied and that cameras and radar from projects in Europe show birds flying around wind turbines instead of into them.  The company also suggest that turbines have been constructed with bird safety in mind, that the blades move slower and the tower is more inhospitable for birds to land on. Cape wind has spent over $400,000 on avian research.  The company has hired experts to observe bird life in the sound and uses a radar system on Cape Poge to measure every bird from sea level to about 8,500 feet which records 23 attributes about each bird in order to better understand the patterns of migration in the area. Chris Miller, a climate and energy campaigner for Greenpeace International, states that average wind turbine presents less of a threat than cars, buildings and cats do to bird life. Not all environmental groups agree that turbines have little effect on bird life.

"Danish experience from the past 15 years shows that offshore wind farms, if placed right, can be engineered and operated without significant damage to the marine environment and vulnerable species. " See a 2006 study published on the impacts of danish offshore wind projects click here

"Bird kills have caused serious scientific concern at only one location in the United States: Altamont Pass in California, one of the first areas in the country to experience significant wind development. Over the past decade, the wind community has learned that wind farms and wildlife can and do coexist successfully. Wind energy development’s overall impact on birds is extremely low (<1 of 30,000) compared to other human-related causes, such as buildings, communications towers, traffic, and house cats. Birds can fly into wind turbines, as they do with other tall structures. However, conventional fuels contribute to air and water pollution that can have far greater impact on wildlife and their habitat, as well as the environment and human health."
-National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/37657.pdf)

"We have reviewed reports indicating the following estimated annual avian collision mortality in the United States:
• Vehicles: 60 million - 80 million
• Buildings and Windows: 98 million - 980 million
• Powerlines: tens of thousands - 174 million
• Communication Towers: 4 million - 50 million
• Wind Generation Facilities: 10,000 - 40,000"
- National Wind Coordinating Committee
(http://www.nationalwind.org/publications/wildlife/avian_collisions.pdf)

Many individuals think that wind turbines are actually quite beautiful. For instance, residents in the town of Hull, Massachusetts have an onshore wind turbine in which they get very few complaints about. The turbine has been so successful that the town has constructed a second turbine and is currently looking at a small offshore project. Visual impact of offshore wind turbines depends on how far offshore turbines are located. Some turbines may be miles out and be hardly visible from shore. Of course, whether a citizen likes the look of a turbine is in the eye of the beholder. However, many individuals dismiss turbines based on visual impacts without ever having seen one.

Three nautical miles is the jurisdictional limit for US states with the exception of Texas and the west coast of Florida whose jurisdictions extend to nine nautical miles. In Federal waters permitting is overseen by the Minerals Management Service of the Department of the Interior.
Source: Ocean Commission- Primer on Ocean Jurisdictions: Drawing Lines in the Water

Several companies make offshore wind turbines including GE, Siemens, Vestas, REpower, Multibrid, Enercon, BARD, and Nordex. Turbine sizes range from 3.6 - 5.2 MW in size. For more information on offshore wind turbines click here
Source: Dena