Instrumentation for Monitoring Around Marine Renewable Energy Converters: Workshop Final Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PNNL-23100 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 Instrumentation for Monitoring around Marine Renewable Energy Converters: Workshop Final Report B Polagye A Copping R Suryan S Kramer J Brown-Saracino C Smith January 2014 PNNL-23100 Instrumentation for Monitoring around Marine Renewable Energy Converters: Workshop Final Report B Polagye1 A Copping R Suryan2 S Kramer3 J Brown-Saracino4 C Smith4 January 2014 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, Washington 99352 1 University of Washington, Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center, Seattle, Washington 2 Oregon State University, Newport, Oregon 3 HT Harvey and Associates, Arcata, California 4 US Department of Energy, Wind and Waterpower Technologies Office, Washington, DC Recommended citation: Polagye, B., A. Copping, R. Suryan, S. Kramer, J. Brown-Saracino, and C. Smith. 2014. Instrumentation for Monitoring Around Marine Renewable Energy Converters: Workshop Final Report. PNNL-23110 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Seattle, Washington. Summary As the marine energy industry explores the potential for generating significant power from waves and tidal currents, there is a need to ensure that energy converters do not cause harm to the marine environment, including marine animals that may interact with these new technologies in their native habitats. The challenge of deploying, operating, and maintaining marine energy converters in the ocean is coupled with the difficulty of monitoring for potentially deleterious outcomes between the converters, anchors, mooring lines, power cables and other gear, and marine mammals, sea turtles, fish, and seabirds. To better understand the state of instrumentation and capabilities for monitoring around marine energy converters, the U.S. Department of Energy directed Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and the Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center at the University of Washington to convene an invitation-only workshop of experts from around the world to address instrumentation needs for three key interactions of interest to the emerging industry: interactions between marine animals and marine renewable energy converters (MECs) near the converters (“nearfield”) determining the distribution and habitat use of marine animals in the vicinity of MECs (“distribution and habitat use”) characterizing the sounds produced by MECs (“sound”). The workshop participants were also asked to determine the capabilities of the following three instrumentation categories as they apply to monitoring around MECs: active acoustic instruments, including echosounders, imaging sonars, active tags, and radar passive acoustic instruments, including hydrophones and vector sensors optical technologies, focused on various camera deployment platforms. Thirty-six scientists, engineers, and regulators from the United States, Canada, Europe, and Chile participated in the 2-day workshop, through a series of plenary presentations about the following: status of monitoring around MECs: purpose of monitoring, examples of success and limitations understanding the challenges of determining the distribution and habitat use of animals in the vicinity of MECs observing the effects of underwater sound on marine animals, and the regulatory context that drives these observations. The bulk of the workshop was spent in breakout sessions that addressed the capabilities of the instrument systems of interest and the three situations around marine energy devices, where significant instrument needs, gaps, and solutions were identified (nearfield, distribution and habitat use, and sound). For active acoustic instruments the discussion focused on the spatial and temporal limitations; data bandwidth and power requirements; data processing; seasonal, biological, atmospheric, environmental limitations; safety and permitting challenges; and mooring and platform challenges. iii Passive acoustic instrument discussions included the capabilities of hydrophones and vector sensors; the challenges of data collection in extreme energy environments; and data processing resulting from monitoring. Optical technology discussions explored a range of deployment and data-gathering options including: underwater, surface, and airborne platforms. The nearfield discussions stressed the importance of tailoring the monitoring around marine energy converters to the specific animals present at marine renewable energy sites, the animal life stages, and the protected status of the animals. The spatial scales over which each animal group ought to be monitored differs depending on the size and speed of the animal. While continuous temporal observations of converters is desirable, significant concern was expressed about the large data streams likely to be generated and the need for signal processing and software improvements in detection, tracking, localization, and classification of animals to enable automated data processing. The distribution and habitat use group focused on the need to develop monitoring strategies for specific animal groups of interest that are peculiar to the high-energy areas in which marine energy converters are placed. The group focused on packages of instruments that could observe marine animals on temporal scales of months to years in order to understand how the presence of marine energy converters may alter animal use and behavior in their vicinity. The sound group focused on how to measure sound from marine energy converters, how to determine if the measurements can adequately characterize the output of the converters, and how sound measurement techniques could be standardized. Common themes that emerged from the aggregation of the breakout groups, informed by the plenary presentations and discussions, included the following: the importance of measuring risk as a key part of the initial plans for monitoring in order to focus programs appropriately, and to inform discussions that allow certain risks to be “retired” on a project- specific basis the potential for huge data “mortgages” resulting from large streams of data that will flow from many of the instruments best suited for monitoring, and the need for automated data processing to optimize the data streams the need to integrate instruments into packages that can be deployed and operated as a single unit, and the need to integrate monitoring data streams with those generated from converter operation the lack of existing platforms and supporting technologies to allow otherwise capable monitoring instruments to realize their potential the importance of broad collaboration among the research community internationally, between researchers and developers, as well as between researchers and regulators to cost-effectively and efficiently use limited monitoring funds to understand interactions of marine energy converters with marine animals. iv Acknowledgments The authors thank Hoyt Battey, Simon Geerlofs, and Jim Dawson for both serving on the steering committee and guiding workshop execution. We could not have completed this task without them. We also gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Wind and Water Power Technologies Office that enabled us to organize, conduct, and report on the outcomes of this international workshop. We are also grateful for support from BioSonics, Inc. in making the workshop a success. Rob Cavagnaro, Hayley Harguth, James Joslin, Danny Sale, and Brit Sojka from the University of Washington transcribed the notes from the plenary sessions and breakout groups. Their detailed notes formed the basis for the breakout session descriptions in this report. Lara Aston of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Britta Timpane-Padgham of the University of Washington, and Nicole Faghin of the University of Washington provided exceptional logistical support and are the reason that everything associated with the workshop ran as smoothly as it did. Finally, we thank all workshop participants for their contributions toward furthering our collective understanding of environmental monitoring of marine renewable energy. v Acronyms and Abbreviations 2D two-dimensional 3D three-dimensional AUV autonomous underwater vehicle dB decibel(s) DIDSON Dual frequency IDentification SONar DTLC detection, tracking, localization, and classification DOE United States Department of Energy EIMR Environmental Interactions of Marine Renewable Energy Technologies EMEC European Marine Energy Centre FLOWBEC FLOW and BEnthic Ecology (project) FORCE Fundy Ocean Research Centre for Energy GB gigabyte(s)H GPS km kHz kilohertz kW kilowatt(s)m m meter(s) m2 square meter(s) MB/s megabytes per second MEC marine renewable energy converter MHK marine hydrokinetics MMO marine mammal observer MRE marine renewable energy MRED marine renewable energy device m/s meter(s) per second NOAA United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ORPC Ocean Renewable Power Company µPa micropascal(s) PAM passive acoustic monitoring ROV remotely operated vehicle RPM rotations per minute SNR signal-to-noise ratio TEC tidal (current) energy converter UAV unmanned aerial vehicle WEC wave energy converter wk week(s) vii Glossary demonstration arrays: first-generation arrays of marine renewable energy converter (MECs) intended to prove the commercial viability and environmental compatibility of a specific converter technology. farfield: distances beyond the nearfield. nearfield: a radius