Changing vessel routes could significantly reduce the cost of future offshore wind projects.

With the recent emphasis on offshore wind energy Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP) has become one of the main frameworks used to plan and manage the increasingly complex web of ocean and coastal uses. As wind development becomes more prevalent, existing users of the ocean space, such as commercial shippers, will be compelled to share their historically open-access waters with these projects. Here, we demonstrate the utility of using cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to support siting decisions within a CMSP framework. In this study, we assume that large-scale offshore wind development will take place in the US Mid-Atlantic within the next decades. We then evaluate whether building projects nearshore or far from shore would be more cost-effective. Building projects nearshore is assumed to require rerouting of the commercial vessel traffic traveling between the US Mid-Atlantic ports by an average of 18.5 km per trip. We focus on less than 1500 transits by large deep-draft vessels. We estimate that over 29 years of the study, commercial shippers would incur an additional $0.2 billion (in 2012$) in direct and indirect costs. Building wind projects closer to shore where vessels used to transit would generate approximately $13.4 billion (in 2012$) in savings. Considering the large cost savings, modifying areas where vessels transit needs to be included in the portfolio of policies used to support the growth of the offshore wind industry in the US.

[1]  Kevin P Gallagher,et al.  International trade and air pollution: estimating the economic costs of air emissions from waterborne commerce vessels in the United States. , 2005, Journal of environmental management.

[2]  Mehmet Bilgili,et al.  Offshore wind power development in Europe and its comparison with onshore counterpart , 2011 .

[3]  A. Boardman,et al.  Cost-Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice , 1996 .

[4]  Brian F. Snyder,et al.  Ecological and economic cost-benefit analysis of offshore wind energy , 2009 .

[5]  Thomas Prässler,et al.  Comparison of the Financial Attractiveness Among Prospective Offshore Wind Parks in Selected European Countries , 2012 .

[6]  Annette R. Grilli,et al.  Protocol to Include Ecosystem Service Constraints in a Wind Farm Cost Model , 2013 .

[7]  Megan McCluer,et al.  A National Offshore Wind Strategy. Creating an Offshore Wind Energy Industry in the United States , 2011 .

[8]  F. Douvere,et al.  The role of marine spatial planning in implementing ecosystem-based, sea use management , 2008 .

[9]  J. Corbett,et al.  Probability and mitigation of vessel encounters with North Atlantic right whales , 2009 .

[10]  Wanfei Qiu,et al.  The emerging policy landscape for marine spatial planning in Europe , 2013 .

[11]  V. Eyring,et al.  Second IMO GHG study 2009 , 2009 .

[12]  Richard Green,et al.  The economics of offshore wind , 2011 .

[13]  James J. Corbett,et al.  The effectiveness and costs of speed reductions on emissions from international shipping , 2009 .

[14]  Blaise Sheridan,et al.  Calculating the offshore wind power resource: Robust assessment methods applied to the U.S. Atlantic Coast , 2012 .

[15]  G. Giebel,et al.  Europe's onshore and offshore wind energy potential : An assessment of environmental and economic constraints , 2009 .

[16]  K. Martin,et al.  The missing layer: Geo-technologies, communities, and implications for marine spatial planning , 2008 .

[17]  A. Bowden The Economic Cost of Maritime Piracy , 2010 .

[18]  James J. Corbett,et al.  The costs and benefits of reducing SO2 emissions from ships in the US West Coastal waters , 2007 .

[19]  Annette R. Grilli,et al.  Application of Technology Development Index and Principal Component Analysis and Cluster Methods to Ocean Renewable Energy Facility Siting , 2010 .

[20]  C. Ehler,et al.  Conclusions: Benefits, lessons learned, and future challenges of marine spatial planning , 2008 .

[21]  F. Douvere,et al.  New perspectives on sea use management: initial findings from European experience with marine spatial planning. , 2009, Journal of environmental management.

[22]  W. Kempton,et al.  Pricing offshore wind power , 2011 .

[23]  F. Douvere,et al.  The role of marine spatial planning in sea use management: the Belgian case , 2007 .

[24]  S. Jay Planners to the rescue: spatial planning facilitating the development of offshore wind energy. , 2010, Marine pollution bulletin.

[25]  B. Halpern,et al.  Evaluating tradeoffs among ecosystem services to inform marine spatial planning , 2013 .

[26]  S. Cellini,et al.  Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis. , 2015, The Genetic resource.

[27]  Carrie V. Kappel,et al.  Ecosystem service tradeoff analysis reveals the value of marine spatial planning for multiple ocean uses , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[28]  Walter Musial,et al.  Book Review: Offshore Wind Power , 2010 .

[29]  A. Anonymous US Port and inland waterways modernization: Preparing for Post-Panamax Vessels , 2012 .

[30]  W. Kempton,et al.  Public opinion about large offshore wind power: Underlying factors , 2007 .

[31]  J J Corbett,et al.  Mitigating the health impacts of pollution from oceangoing shipping: an assessment of low-sulfur fuel mandates. , 2009, Environmental science & technology.

[32]  W. Kempton,et al.  Large CO2 reductions via offshore wind power matched to inherent storage in energy end‐uses , 2007 .