Wind farm images simulate view from the beach

One of the most controversial aspects of proposals for a “wind farm” off the coast of southern Delaware has been the potential impact on the seaward horizon for millions of beach-goers and some of the most valuable properties in the state.

Bluewater Wind submitted its proposal to the state on Dec. 22 for a wind farm off its coast comprising 200 turbines in an area of 20 miles by 30 miles, under House Bill 6. That legislation included diversification of sources and technology that would produce environmental benefits for the state among considerations that the state would include when approving any of Delmarva Power’s future energy sources, under a mandate to increase state-wide supply in hopes of stabilizing costs.

With questions about the aesthetics of offshore wind power high on the minds of many property owners and visitors, each of three proposed areas for the wind farm was photographed this fall and subjected to a photo-visualization process in which the proposed wind farm was simulated in the photographs as it would eventually be viewed from different points on the shore.

Those images were recently released on Bluewater Wind’s Web site at Bluewaterwind.com.

“These visualizations use computer imagery technology to combine actual photographs taken from the location with computer generated wind turbines, so as to accurately portray how the proposed wind park will look,” Bluewater Wind officials said on the site.

“The visualizations are prepared in such a way to present a realistic landscape that includes the wind turbines, as seen from a particular point,” they added, noting the images should be viewed at 100 percent regardless of the size of the computer monitor they were viewed upon.

“These visualizations were created by RPS Group, the largest environmental and engineering consultancy in Europe,” according to the company. “RPS Group has extensive experience creating realistic visualizations in Europe, the accuracy of which has been clearly demonstrated after projects have been completed.”

Still, perception of the photo-visualizations this week varied, as the difficulty of accurately portraying the project’s impact on the horizon became clear.

On some computer monitors, the images viewed at 100 percent left one viewer unable to distinguish the turbines from the horizon while others spotted it right away. On other monitors, they were quite distinct, and only more so when viewed at what appeared to be a more realistic size, comparable to the photographer’s apparent position on the beach.

Now you see it, now you don’t

Bethany Beach Mayor Carol Olmstead, viewing the photo-visualizations online, was able to make out the turbines on the horizon. Olmstead said the turbines — and their impact on the view from the town’s beach and boardwalk — were of serious concern to her, even though she supported the concept of more environmentally-friendly energy sources.

“If you could see it with the naked eye, it would be a shame,” Olmstead said. “It would be good to do it far enough out that it’s not visible.”

Olmstead noted that she’d posed just that kind of question to Bluewater Wind’s Rob Propes at the Dec. 15 Bethany Beach Town Council meeting at which he had made a presentation on the wind farm proposal.

“It will be difficult to see them from shore. On a hazy beach day, it will be impossible to see,” Propes predicted to Bethany Beach officials and others in attendance at the meeting. The turbines would appear narrower than a toothpick and half the height of a thumbnail when viewed from the shore, he said, noting that the photo-visualizations were being done by an outside firm and would be available within weeks. “I’m anxious myself to see them,” he added.

Now that they’re done, the question is whether Propes was right about that particular bit of prognostication.

Olmstead said then, and now, that she would prefer the wind farm — proposed for 7.1 miles (or 6.2 nautical miles) offshore from the town, in federal waters — be located even farther out, beyond the horizon. Beyond 14 miles, she said, she couldn’t imagine it would be visible.

But calculations for the distance at which a 360-foot-tall turbine could no longer be seen over the horizon indicate that distance would be in excess of 28 statute miles or 25 nautical miles — well outside even the most land-distant among the three proposals from Bluewater Wind.

In our front yard

Among the three, the farthest from land — the Atlantic North location — is just 14 miles from shore, the closest the Atlantic South at 7.1 miles from Bethany Beach. The third location is inside the mouth of the Delaware Bay.

Propes said the proposed locations for the farm had been decided based on factors such as the location of existing shipping lanes and the potential loss of power that would be felt by extending the 8-inch cables that would bring the power from the two off-shore transformers to the shore. Paths for the lines would be drilled into the land to bring them onshore, some 50 to 80 meters from dry land.

There, they’d be connected to one of three substations that already exist, tying into the regional power grid controlled by PJM of Pennsylvania, which covers Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Virginia, as well as Delaware.

Propes acknowledged that not all of the estimated 600 megawatts of power the wind farm could generate would go to coastal Delaware, or even the state at large. Nor would it inherently eliminate other sources of power, such as coal.

But the company has touted its proposal as a way to help stabilize and even lower energy costs in the region without negative environmental impact. It has presented information indicating that bird migrations detour around wind farms in Denmark, minimizing the bird strikes that have always been a concern about wind power.

Propes noted that while boat traffic would be negligibly affected with no exclusion zone around the wind farm area, that recreational fishing could actually stand to benefit from the artificial reef environment created by the turbine foundations drilled 90 feet into the ocean floor. He said the turbines would be essentially silent but would need to be lit as a possible hazard to aircraft — something he said could be done in a way to minimize light pollution.

In the eye of the beholder

With the release of the photo-visualizations, focus this week remained on just exactly what kind of impact the project might have on the beachfront views of the area — particularly how accurately the new photo-visualizations depict that impact.

Bluewater Wind Director of Communications Jim Lanard delved into the issue this week with the Coastal Point and those who helped develop the images, endeavoring to make sure our readers — and visitors to the Web site — were seeing things as accurately as possible.

“Most of the time, they’re smaller than half a thumbnail or a toothpick,” he clarified, standing by the firm’s recommendation that the online images not be enlarged. “The photo montages are more accurate than the verbal descriptions,” he added of the experience with the visualizations in other projects where they had been used, including a landmark project off the coast of Denmark that has been the shining example in Bluewater’s presentations.

“Bluewater never wants to be seen as understating a challenge or concern,” Lanard emphasized regarding the thumbnail/toothpick scale that he and Propes have both mentioned in the past. “We have intentionally, at times, overstated the issue so that our credibility remains intact.”

Lanard said the original photographs were designed to be printed at 33 inches wide and 12 inches high on paper, and viewed at 10.2 inches from the eye. Seen on the Web site, they’re often compressed onto a 15-inch monitor, he noted, reducing the apparent accuracy of the visualization. He said the company had considered the issue before releasing the images, just as Coastal Point staff did this week in deciding whether to reproduce the images on its pages.

“We debated whether to go online with these for exactly the same questions and concerns,” Lanard said. “But the sense of scale is more important than getting it exactly accurate.”

But the bottom line, he said regarding the online images: “I don’t think they will ever see it smaller than what it will really be. We believe any views on the computer will represent the largest possible instead of the smallest possible. As long as they’re not viewing them over 100 percent, it should be accurate.”

In addition to the scale issue, Lanard agreed there were other problems imposed by color and other settings on computer monitors. “On-screen, it may appear more striking than would you would see it on paper,” he said. (The Coastal Point decided this week not to reproduce the images, largely based on concerns that newsprint would diminish the visual impact of the white turbines or otherwise fail to accurately represent them. Instead, readers should view the images on-line or in person.)

An up-close view

Lanard further noted that the images were taken in November, as part of the timing involved in filing its proposal with the state on Dec. 22, but also reflecting none of the summer haze that beach-goers might expect to have impede their view of the horizon and the turbines.

“On a hazy summer day it will be impossible to see them,” he said, reiterating his and Propes’ prior statements. “On a clear winter day, they will be visible and will be visible at no larger than half the size of a thumbnail and thickness of a toothpick held at arm’s length,” he said in clarification.

Staffers at Coastal Point and Bluewater Wind compared thumbnails this week and were convinced only that human beings vary too much to use thumbnails as an accurate benchmark. But Lanard said that measure would be no greater than a quarter-inch to 5/16 of an inch as viewed on the horizon from the beach on a clear day.

“If you took the 33-by-12 image and went to the beach where the picture is taken, and held it 10.2 inches from your eyes,” he said of the photo-visualizations, with the paper curved across a 180-degree spread, “you would see the same thing” as the real view behind it.

Those wanting to see that image in person will have several additional opportunities. “Bluewater will be in southern Delaware over the coming weeks,” Lanard said. “If people want to contact us on the Web site or send us an e-mail, we would be happy to let them know when we will be making a presentation.”

One such presentation is already set for Jan. 19 at the Center for the Inland Bays.

“We would encourage people to weigh in, regardless of their point of view,” said Lanard. “It’s a Bluewater tenant that public input is very important. Even though we’d prefer to see people support the project, people who have other points of view ought to weigh in as well.”

Lanard said most of those submitting comments on the project now were writing to the Public Service Commission, with most of those comments posted directly on the PSC’s Web site.

Awaiting Feb. 28 decision

As it stands, Bluewater’s wind farm proposal is one of three proposals submitted to the state for new energy sources for Delmarva Power. The other two bidders are NRG, which currently operates the coal-fired Indian River power plant and proposes another coal-based plant, and Conectiv, which has proposed a gas-powered source at an unknown location.

Lanard said answers to additional questions from the state had been due back Jan. 4, and Bluewater was notified Jan. 5 that it was one of the “short-listed bidders” that was being advanced in the process for a more detailed and thorough review. He said it was likely that all three bidders were on that short-list. What is to follow is a more intense review and analysis, with a final decision to be made by Feb. 28.

According to Lanard, the review will be undertaken by Delmarva Power and Light (DPL) and its consultant, ICF, along with the Public Service Commission’s consultant and representatives of the state’s Division of Energy (under DNREC), the state comptroller’s office and Office of Management and Budget.

As to the possibility that more than one of the three bidders could be approved, Lanard said that the “economies of scale” meant that multiple sources might result in smaller-scale projects that would prove to be too expensive to operate. “For the most stable, lowest-price energy, each bidder would have to have fairly significant number of megawatts.”

Should Bluewater’s proposal for a wind farm be accepted, Lanard said there would be two components used to determine which of the three proposed sites would be used: environmental factors and an engineering component.

“Each of the sites has different characteristics to commend them,” Lanard said, noting that there are three substations available for land connection — any one of which could be used, but only one of which is suitable for the bay site, with the other two suitable for either of the Atlantic sites.

“DPL may have reasons to prefer one, which may take one or two sites out of play,” he said, suggesting the final decision might not come down to a matter of aesthetics and what coastal residents want in their defacto front yards.