{"id":655612,"date":"2025-03-04T18:00:31","date_gmt":"2025-03-04T15:00:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/en.buradabiliyorum.com\/balancing-techno-economic-and-socio-environmental-factors-in-offshore-wind-site-selection\/"},"modified":"2025-03-04T18:00:31","modified_gmt":"2025-03-04T15:00:31","slug":"balancing-techno-economic-and-socio-environmental-factors-in-offshore-wind-site-selection","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/balancing-techno-economic-and-socio-environmental-factors-in-offshore-wind-site-selection\/","title":{"rendered":"#Balancing techno-economic and socio-environmental factors in offshore wind site selection"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n
\n \"Mapping
\n Baseline facility suitability scores in 90th percentile of all alternatives under the A) stakeholder and B) developer paradigms. C) Consensus areas (green) where stakeholder and developer paradigms align show there is considerable overlap on the East Coast showcasing that consensus areas are vast, but some existing wind development areas are not within them. Existing wind development sites are also shown (pink\/red). Credit: Santarromana et al.
\n <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Ideal locations and scales for offshore wind installations depend on both physical conditions and social<\/a> acceptability.<\/p>\n

Published<\/a> in PNAS Nexus<\/i>, Rudolph Santarromana and colleagues conducted a spatial multi-criteria analysis considering both techno-economics and socio-environmental impacts, including a broad range of possible concerns, such as visual, fishing, marine life, and vessel traffic impacts.<\/p>\n

Fifty-eight percent of plant location alternatives are suitable from the perspective of developers (techno-economic perspective), but just eighteen percent of sites are suitable from the perspective of a broad range of external stakeholders (socio-environmental perspective).<\/p>\n

Nearly all the past and current offshore wind project proposals are in suitable areas for developers, but many\u2014including the canceled Cape Wind project in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts\u2014are in unsuitable areas for stakeholders, according to the analysis. The authors mapp<\/a>ed areas that both developers and external stakeholders would likely consider suitable, which on the East Coast has the potential for 600 GW of power.<\/p>\n

On the West Coast, consensus areas are scarce, with only the potential for 5 GW of power, owing to greater depths nearshore that limit the possible development area. Using unmoored floating turbines and power-to-hydrogen\u2014which do not require transmission cables\u2014might increase the consensus areas on the West Coast, albeit at greater investment costs. Investment tax credits currently in place may help develop plants that are more socio-environmentally suitable.<\/p>\n

Finally, the authors find that while the industry is moving toward larger projects, smaller projects afford less uncertainty in their impacts, and are potentially more robust and flexible for development in various sites. According to the authors, developers should focus on consensus areas and consider smaller projects when proposing offshore wind installations.<\/p>\n

\n

More information:<\/strong>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRudolph Santarromana et al. Multicriteria models provide enhanced insight for siting US offshore wind, PNAS Nexus<\/i> (2025). academic.oup.com\/pnasnexus\/art \u2026 93\/pnasnexus\/pgaf051<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

\n Provided by
\n PNAS Nexus<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\n Citation<\/strong>:
\n Balancing techno-economic and socio-environmental factors in offshore wind site selection (2025, March 4)
\n retrieved 4 March 2025
\n from https:\/\/techxplore.com\/news<\/a>\/2025-03-techno-economic-socio-environmental-factors.html\n <\/p>\n

\n This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no
\n part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.\n <\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n