What Happens to the Whales? A Case Study of Anticipating the Environmental Consequences of Emerging Green Technologies

Pacific Northwest P2 Roundtable October 24, 2012 Poulsbo, WA

Scott Butner (scott.butner@pnl.gov)

Senior Research Scientist

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

2

3

4

5

“More than any other time in history, mankind

faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair

and utter hopelessness.

The other, to total extinction.

Let us pray we have the wisdom

to choose correctly.”

Woody Allen

6

The basic dilemma:

P2 is easy

Sustainability – not so much

The Scope and Scale of Sustainability Demands More than Incremental Change

Achieving any reasonable vision of sustainability will require technical and social innovation

In the products we buy

In the energy we use

In the food we eat

In every aspect of our lives

Not all of these innovations will be technological…BUT!

The technological innovations required are likely to challenge our ideas of how we deal with risk

How we define it

How we measure it

How we cope with it

7

8

“The future is here. It's just not

widely distributed yet”

William Gibson

A Brief Case Study in Emerging Technology

9

Ocean Renewable Energy - An Untapped Resource

Marine hydrokinetic: Tides, currents, waves

Offshore wind: Land-based wind on steroids

Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC): exploiting thermal gradients with depth to drive heat engine or “steam”

Algal biofuels: Largely marine micro and macroalgae used as biomass feedstock or “biodiesel”

10

Why Ocean Renewable Energy?

Large renewable energy source, with best attributes relative to demand Coastal resources far exceed total US energy demand

Higher/steadier wind speeds

Highly predictable waves and tides

High productivity

Resource is near load centers 52% of US population lives in coastal counties

28 coastal states consume 78% of nation’s electricity

Simplifies transmission requirements

Reduced environmental effects Low to no noise and visual impacts (human pops)

Few bats and birds

Reduced land/sea use conflicts

Significant economies of scale Larger devices

Larger arrays

Best or only opportunity for utility-scale renewables in parts of the country

11

Resource Base – Wave Energy

Greatest potential at higher latitudes

Deepwater (>100m) resource 1-10 TW

Well conditioned

Predictable

Consistent

Effective for remote coastal communities

WA / OR / CA

Average annual wave power 40-60 kW/m shoreline

Potential to provide over 67 GW of electrical energy, on average

Compare to total electricity generation in 2008 for WA/OR/CA of 43 GW

Wave energy data from Fugro OCEANOR, April 2010 and World Energy Council 2007

Electricity data from EIA, WA/OR/CA value from EPRI 2012

12

Resource Base – Tidal Power

Greatest potential above 45° North, Sea of Cortez, and Bay of Fundy to Nova Scotia

No international assessment as yet – but estimates range from 450 GW to 3 TW

13

cm

http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/images/data/Products/auxiliaires/m2_amp_fes9

9.jpg

Resource Base – Offshore Wind

Over 4 TW of extractable power – 4 times US generating capacity

Highest wind speeds and fewer competing uses further from shore

Best winds over water depths > 30 m (~100 ft) – Floating Platforms

NREL (2010) Assessment of Offshore Wind Energy Resources for the United States

0 200 400 600 800

California

Pacific Northwest

Great Lakes

New England

Mid Atlantic

South Atlantic

Gulf of Mexico

Hawaii

GW

0-30 m 30-60 m >60 m

94

Figure B26. Washington detailed map

14

PNW Ocean Energy – the Numbers

Offshore wind, wave, and tidal power resource potential exceeds by many times the total energy use of Washington and Oregon

5 GW tidal

15 GW wave

415 GW offshore wind

19 GW total generation from all sources in 2008

0% 500% 1000% 1500% 2000% 2500%

Offshore Wind

Wave

Tidal

2148%

77%

26%

Pacific NW Ocean Energy as % of 2008 Generation

Data from EIA, EPRI, NREL, PNNL

15

16

“All sustainability is local…”

Admiralty Inlet Tidal Energy Project : Objectives

Objective is to generate relevant data to better evaluate the technical, economic, and environmental feasibility of tidal energy generation.

Project will design, install, operate, maintain and evaluate a two-turbine, temporary, grid connected pilot plant in Admiralty Inlet.

Planning for 3-5 years of turbine operation.

FERC license will require removal of turbines at end of license term.

Admiralty Inlet Tidal Energy Project : Project Overview

Tidal Energy Turbines:

The project will install two 6-meter diameter Open Center turbines manufactured in Ireland by OpenHydro Ltd.

Turbines will be 6th or 7th generation design.

Turbines have only one moving part and utilize a permanent magnet, direct drive generator. No lubricating oils or greases are utilized.

Typical rotor speeds of 6-16 rpm – will rotate ~70% of the time.

30-40kw avg generation, 300kw peak

Admiralty Inlet Tidal Energy Project: Project Overview (continued)

Turbine Foundations:

Each foundation will weigh ~300 tons and will secure its turbine to the seabed via gravity only – no piling, pinning, or other seabed preparation is required.

Foundations are constructed of steel, filled with concrete ballast, and protected from corrosion via sacrificial anodes.

Admiralty Inlet Tidal Energy Project: Project Overview

Turbines will be installed ~1km off of Admiralty Head, Whidbey Island.

Each turbine will be connected by its own subsea cable to shore near the Keystone ferry terminal.

Each subsea cable will transmit power to shore, transmit data & control signals, and provide shore power for turbine instrumentation.

Cables will be laid directly on the seabed -- horizontal directional drilling will be utilized to install cable beneath the shoreline.

21

“A common mistake that

people make when trying to

design something

completely foolproof is to

underestimate the ingenuity

of complete fools.”

- Douglas Adams

Dev

ice

pre

sen

ce:

St

atic

eff

ect

s

Dev

ice

pre

sen

ce:

Dyn

amic

eff

ect

s

Ch

em

ical

eff

ect

s

Aco

ust

ic e

ffe

cts

Ele

ctro

mag

net

ic

effe

cts

Ene

rgy

rem

ova

l

Cu

mu

lati

ve e

ffe

cts

Physical environment: Near-field Physical environment: Far-field

Habitat

Invertebrates

Fish: Migratory

Fish: Resident

Marine mammals

Seabirds

Ecosystem interactions

Post-Installation Monitoring Prioritization

Polagye, B., B. Van Cleve, A. Copping, and K. Kirkendall (eds), (2011) Environmental effects of tidal energy development.

Commercial-Scale Interactions

Need to understand stressor-receptor interactions first

Immeasurably small at pilot-scale

Small signal-to-noise ratio at pilot scale

Low significance interaction

Dev

ice

pre

sen

ce:

St

atic

eff

ect

s

Dev

ice

pre

sen

ce:

Dyn

amic

eff

ect

s

Aco

ust

ic e

ffe

cts

Physical environment: Near-field

Habitat

Invertebrates

Fish: Migratory

Fish: Resident

Marine mammals

Seabirds

Post-Installation Monitoring Approach

Device presence: static effects — Periodic ROV surveys conducted

around slack water

Acoustic effects

— Characterize device noise

— Monitor for marine animal responsiveness to noise

Device presence: dynamic effects

— Near-turbine monitoring with stereo camera systems

Strike Analysis for Tidal Turbine on orca

The Concern:

Highly endangered Southern Resident Killer Whale (SRKW or orca): fewer than 90 individuals, iconic

NOAA has responsibility under ESA for potential for jeopardy to population from harassment

Harassment = death, injury or behavior change

NOAA also responsible for MMPA: harassment levels for noise

The Challenge:

Know little about interaction of SRKWs with machines underwater

Few studies of SRKW observations in Admiralty Inlet, especially at turbine depth

Progress towards a Solution:

Existing orca data summarized by SMRU, modeled by PNNL

(limited data) orca in Admiralty spend less than 3% of their time deeper than 30m (turbine at 55m)

24

1

SCENARIOS

EPISODIC

Likelihood/RateofOccurrence

UNCERTAINTIES

DegreeofImpact

VesselImpact EnergyRemoval

SequencesofEventswithAdverseImpacts

Environmental/EcologicalEffects

FrequencyofScenario

CHRONICINTERMITTENT

BladeStrike

Descrip onofRisk NOAA determined that probability of orca

swimming randomly into turbine is negligible

But…

NOAA wants to know the implications of a strike,

if it were to happen (consequence)

Strike Analysis of SRKW

Scenario:

Curious animal approaches the turbine head first

Adult male represents greatest mass, lowest momentum exchange, and greatest force absorbed by tissue

Analysis Process:

Determine the force from turbine blade concentrated on orca forehead

Determine the anatomy (thickness of skin, blubber, bone) and biomechanical properties (force to deform or tear tissue) of orca tissue and bone

Engineering model by Sandia National Laboratories

Biomechanical analysis by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

25

Modeled

Region of

Impact

Analysis

Numerical models to evaluate movement and force of blades under operating speeds (~1-3m/sec)

Model (mesh) of orca body for interaction with turbine blade

SRKW skin is very strong, acts to spread force across area (less damage to underlying tissue)

Little information about biomechanics of marine mammal tissue, esp. skin

Need analogue for skin = synthetic rubber

Also examined potential for materials on leading edge of blade to spread force, decrease impact

26

Spacing of blade edges and spacing between blades

Modeling Inputs and Initial Results

Relationship between impact speed and stress/strain:

Linear between 1 and 3 m/s, can extrapolate to higher speeds, assuming linear relationship

Maximum stresses/strains calculated:

3250 kPa/73% for turbine impacting stationary body

2365 kPa/93% for SRKW swimming toward turbine

Stress well below the yield stress for similar materials:

Natural rubber = 10,000 to 30,000 kPa

Strain below that known for human skin (100-300%)

Bottom Line: with the available information, using “worst case” of adult male orca:

Tissue changes in elastic region for skin and blubber

Damage from impact of blade is minor, equivalent of bruising

27

Comparison of impact forces with

speed of turbine blade

“Maximum velocity” SRKW and blade

impact scenario schematic

In Summary – what do we know, not know?

Risk to SRKW from OpenHydro turbines in Admiralty Inlet:

Ruled out probability of whale swimming full speed randomly into turbine (stated by NOAA)

Ruled out impact from turbine blades as acutely lethal (this analysis)

Ruled out tissue damage from blade strike as lethal or non-recoverable (this analysis)

Have not ruled out potential for subtler changes: behavior, changes in ability to echolocate

Have not adequately informed turbine interactions for other whales with other turbines

28

29

Defining a “green” objective function

Drawing the right box around your product/process

Failure to Fully Model the Process

Failure to Define the Search Space

Obstacles to Green Design

So. Isn’t that what Lifecycle Analysis is supposed to be for?

LCA does indeed provide a powerful tool for weighing environmental consequences

Well developed as a methodology

Increasingly sophisticated as a discipline

Too often used to answer the wrong – or at least, incomplete – questions

Data intensity of LCA poses practical impediments ($)

Still stumbles on incomplete data, system-wide impacts, and technological uncertainty

30

31

“Form follows failure”

Henry Petroski

Fixing the holes

Contemporary LCA is often divided into two categories

Attributional LCA – most simply described as a static “snapshot” of the environmental properties of a product , process or service

Consequential LCA – describes the systemic effects of changes in a product, process or service

These types are perhaps better thought of as lying on a continuum

Another “slice” through the LCA pie suggests at least one more way to view it:

Process-based LCA

EIOLCA

And of course, hybrid methods that combine parts of each…

32

An example: LCA of wind farm

Attributional LCA would inventory the environmental impacts of the wind farm itself

Material and energy flows from building, installing and maintaining the windmills

Land, habitat and ecosystem impacts from the wind mills (and possibly the service roads and power transmission lines)

Most importantly, it would probably NOT attempt to model changes that might occur as an indirect result of widespread use of wind:

Land use changes and development patterns

Changes elsewhere in the power grid

Consumer response to “green” power

33

34

“The learned man is not the

one who provides the right

answers, but the one who

asks the right questions.”

- Claude Levi-Strauss

Beyond LCA

Emerging technologies – especially those that are transformational in nature – present challenges that LCA and green design may not meet

New ways of expanding the dialog

Tools for managing the dialog

Better ways of bounding and defining risk

Ways of negotiating what is acceptable risk

36

“I'll be more enthusiastic

about encouraging

thinking outside the box

when there's evidence of

any thinking going on

inside it.”

- Terry Pratchett

Acknowledgements

Thanks to:

• US DOE Office of Wind and Water Power

• Dr. Charles Brandt (PNNL)

• Dr. Andrea Copping (PNNL)

• Craig Collar (Snohomish County PUD)