FOWCoE2024漂浮式海上风电共址共存的机遇与挑战研究报告英文版75页_1mb

报告摘要

Floating Offshore Wind Co-Location and Co-Existence: Risks and Opportunities Summary

This report examines the potential interactions between floating offshore wind (FOW) developments and key maritime industries (aquaculture, carbon capture and storage (CCUS), defence, oil & gas (O&G), and subsea cables) in the UK. It aims to identify risks and opportunities for coexistence, outline mitigation strategies, and provide a roadmap for collaborative engagement. The findings are based on stakeholder consultations and technical assessments.

Key Objectives and Scope

Objective: To address risks and opportunities arising from FOW co-location with other sea users, ensuring efficient development and compliance.
Scope: Excludes fishing, marine navigation, and aviation due to prior projects on these topics. Focuses on the five industries mentioned above.

Stakeholder Engagement Framework

Conducted 1-2-1 sessions with industry experts to evaluate potential interactions.
Stakeholders prioritized risks and opportunities based on likelihood, impact, and mitigation potential.
Identified six interaction types: Physical & Technology, Operations & Navigation, Ports & Infrastructure, Policy & Regulation, Environmental, and People & Skills.

Priority Interactions & Recommendations by Industry

1. Aquaculture

High-Priority Risks:
- A1 (Policy/R): Design standard gaps delay FOW-aquaculture co-location.
  - Actions: Review standards, collaborate on guidance, and assess feasibility.
- A2 (Environmental): Aquaculture attracts marine life, increasing collision and noise risks for FOW infrastructure.
  - Actions: Environmental monitoring, literature review, and mitigation studies.
- A3 (Physical/Tech): Shared anchors could reduce CAPEX costs.
  - Actions: Technical feasibility studies and alignment of design standards.
- A5 (Physical/Tech): Storm damage risks for co-located projects.
  - Actions: Risk assessments, design redundancy upgrades, and stakeholder collaboration.
- A6 (Policy/R): Regulatory gaps increase development risks for FOW-aquaculture projects.
  - Actions: Regulatory reviews and stakeholder engagement to address uncertainties.
Medium-Priority Risks:
- A7 (Environmental): Aquaculture offshore migration may influence marine pathogens.
- A8 (Environmental): Offshore aquaculture could mitigate effluent-related environmental risks.
- A9 (Policy/R): FOW’s focus on co-location may limit collaboration with traditional aquaculture firms.
- A10 (Ports/Infrastructure): Co-located FOW pipelines may enable investment in onshore aquaculture processing.
- A11 (Environmental): FOW noise and EMF emissions could impact farmed fish health.

2. Carbon Capture & Storage (CCUS)

High-Priority Risks:
- CCS1 (Policy/R): Early CCUS commercialization may perceive co-location as high-risk, raising finance costs.
  - Actions: Engage regulators for targeted guidance and risk assessment.
- CCS2 (Policy/R): Unclear co-location processes reduce developer/investor confidence.
  - Actions: Clarify regulations, build partnerships, and develop guidelines.
- CCS3 (Physical/Tech): FOW can power CCUS facilities, reducing reliance on shore-based energy.
  - Actions: Technical feasibility analysis and economic impact studies.
- CCS4 (Operations/Navi): Shared logistics (helicopter/vessel use) offer cost savings.
  - Actions: Logistical and economic feasibility reviews.
- CCS5 (People/Skills): Competition for skilled offshore workers.
  - Actions: Skill mapping, training initiatives, and workforce planning.
- CCS6 (Physical/Tech): FOW station loss risks CCUS infrastructure; vice versa.
  - Actions: Risk assessments and design-based mitigations.
Medium-Priority Risks:
- CCS7 (Physical/Tech): FOW’s large mooring footprints may obstruct CCUS seismic monitoring.
- CCS8 (Physical/Tech): FOW infrastructure could support CCUS seismic activities.

3. Defence

High-Priority Risks:
- D1 (Physical/Tech): FOW installation increases port competition and infrastructure risks.
  - Actions: Spatial planning reviews and collaborative guidance development.
- D5 (Operations): FOW towing operations pose navigational hazards for MoD vessels.
  - Actions: Risk assessments, updated regulations, and stakeholder coordination.
Medium-Priority Risks:
- D2 (Physical/Tech): FOW station loss creates unforeseen hazards.
- D3 (Policy/R): FOW acoustic emissions may affect sonar effectiveness.
- D4 (Physical/Tech): UXO on seabed poses risks for FOW infrastructure during development.
- D6 (Policy/R): PEXAs (Practice & Exercise Areas) constrain spatial planning.
  - Actions: Analyze historical processes, engage MoD early, and ensure compliance.
- D7 (Physical/Tech): FOW motion interferes with defence radar, creating 'dead zones'.
  - Actions: Radar impact studies and mitigation strategies.

4. Oil & Gas (O&G)

High-Priority Risks:
- OG1 (Physical/Tech): FOW infrastructure interacts with O&G pipelines, increasing collision/EMF risks.
  - Actions: Risk assessments, updates to safety protocols, and collaboration on design.
- OG2 (Policy/R): Regulatory gaps for co-location deter investment.
  - Actions: Review legal frameworks and engage regulators.
Medium-Priority Risks:
- OG3 (Environmental): Shared environmental monitoring reduces costs and improves outcomes.
  - Actions: Identify synergies and develop joint protocols.
- OG4 (Physical/Tech): FOW mooring systems limit O&G seismic monitoring flexibility.
  - Actions: Explore alternative monitoring methods and technical solutions.
- OG5 (Environmental): FOW EMF emissions may cause pipeline corrosion.
  - Actions: Expert reviews and mitigation research.
- OG6 (Physical/Tech): FOW anchors and cables risk O&G wells/pipelines.
  - Actions: Technical assessments and proactive planning.

5. Subsea Cables

High-Priority Risks:
- SC1 (Physical/Tech): FOW interference complicates subsea cable installations.
  - Actions: Spatial planning, stakeholder collaboration, and route optimization.
- SC2 (Operations/Navi): FOW displaces fishing vessels, increasing subsea cable risks.
  - Actions: Early engagement, monitoring, and conflict resolution.
- SC3 (Physical/Tech): Cable repairs damage FOW anchors/systems.
  - Actions: Review repair procedures and update safety guidelines.
- SC4 (Physical/Tech): FOW installation risks existing subsea cables.
  - Actions: Pre-installation coordination and innovative monitoring methods.
Medium-Priority Risks:
- SC5 (Physical/Tech): FOW operations increase subsea cable failure risks.
- SC6 (Physical/Tech): FOW station loss damages subsea cables.
- SC7 (Physical/Tech): Cable maintenance vessels risk FOW infrastructure.
- SC8 (Physical/Tech): Post-repair cable configurations exacerbate spatial constraints.
  - Actions: Develop best practices for co-location and risk management.

Roadmap and Recommendations

Short-Term (2024–2025): Focus on regulatory reviews, feasibility studies, and initial stakeholder collaboration.
Medium-Term (Early Commercial Arrays): Develop shared space planning, update guidelines, and explore cost-saving measures.
Long-Term (Full Commercial Arrays): Prioritize long-term strategies to address risks and enhance opportunities through comprehensive planning and coordination.

Conclusion

The project highlights the need for proactive collaboration between FOW and other maritime sectors to mitigate risks (e.g., regulatory gaps, operational conflicts, environmental impacts) and capitalize on opportunities (e.g., shared infrastructure, cost reductions, and resource optimization). It emphasizes the importance of early stakeholder engagement, updated standards, and industry-specific roadmaps to ensure the sustainable growth of FOW while minimizing conflicts with co-located industries.

展开完整摘要