PNNL

Abstract

An experts' workshop was convened in Dublin Ireland September 27th – 28th 2010 in support of IEA Ocean Energy Systems Implementing Agreement Annex IV. PNNL was responsible for organizing the content of the workshop, overseeing the contractors (Irish Marine Institute) hosting the event, presenting material on Annex IV and materials applicable to the workshop intent. PNNL is also overseeing a contractor (Wave Energy Center/University of Plymouth – WEC/UP) in the collection and analysis of the Annex IV data. Fifty-eight experts from 8 countries attended the workshop by invitation, spending two days discussing the needs of Annex IV. Presentations by DOE (background on Annex IV), PNNL (process for developing Annex IV; presentation of the draft database for PNNL project, plans for incorporating Annex IV data), WEC/UP on the environmental effect matrix, and four MHK developers (two from the UK, one from Ireland and one from Sweden; each discussing their own projects and lessons learned for measuring and mitigating environmental effects, as well as interactions with consenting [permitting] processes) helped provide background. The workshop participants worked part of the time in the large group and most of the time in four smaller breakout groups. Participants engaged in the process and provided a wealth of examples of MHK environmental work, particularly in the European nations. They provided practical and actionable advice on the following: • Developing the Annex IV database, with specific uses and audiences • Strong consensus that we should collect detailed metadata on available data sets, rather than attempting to draw in copious datasets. The participants felt there would then be an opportunity to then ask for specific set of data as needed, with specific uses and ownership of the data specified. This is particularly important as many data collected, particularly in Europe but also in Canada, are proprietary; developers were not comfortable with the idea of handing over all their environmental effects data, but all said they would entertain the request if they specifics were clear. • The recommendation was to collect metadata via an online interactive form, taking no more than one hour to complete. • Although the idea of cases representing the “best practices” was recognized as useful, the participants pointed out that there are currently so few MHK projects in the water, that any and all projects were appropriate to highlight as “cases”. There was also discomfort at the implication that “best practices” implied “lesser practices”; this being unhelpful to a new and emerging industry. • Workshop participants were asked if they were willing to continue to engage in the Annex IV process; all expressed willingness. The workshop was successful in adequately addressing its objectives and through participation and interaction in the breakout sessions around the various topics. As a result of the workshop, many delegates are now better informed and have a greater understanding of the potential environmental effects of MHK devices on the marine environment. There is now a greater sense of understanding of the issues involved and consensus by those regulators, developers and scientists who attended the workshop. A strong network has also been built over the two days between European and US/Canadian technical experts in wave and tidal energy.