States see linked wind farms along East Coast

(Photo of offshore wind farm built in 2000 off Denmark from Flickr and United Nations photos.

I spent many days swimming and fishing on East Coast as I was growing up – summers in Rhode Island, occasional trips to Long Island or Fire Island, N.Y., and visits to grandparents in Florida. I still make frequent trips back to what feels like home. I love the Atlantic seaboard.

Fast-forward and envision a chain of interconnected offshore wind farms up and down the coast supplying much-needed power to the New England and Mid-Atlantic states. A source of electricity that doesn't release greenhouse gases.

I would much rather live with offshore wind turbines than offshore drilling platforms or belching coal plants. I saw the graceful, slow-turning turbines off Denmark a few years back – didn’t even know what they were, but they didn’t seem like an eyesore. And the vision is that these farms will be so far offshore you'll scarcely be able to see them, if at all.

Given the need for clean energy, I’ve been rooting for Cape Wind off Nantucket during it’s 8-year battle for approval, which is still going on. (Even Ted Kennedy said “not in my backyard.")

Wave of the future
So I was happy to see in September that some East Coast states, from Maine to Maryland, are joining together to develop a vibrant wind industry off their coastline. They have formed what they call the U.S. Offshore Wind Collaborative.

One goal is to get R&D funding to develop floating turbines that can function in rough seas and deep water far off the coast – beyond the horizon. That could take time.

Meanwhile the states are motivated to cooperate rather than compete, and to come up with a network of windfarms connected on the ocean floor by a shared grid that goes to onshore substations near cities needing power.

Many reasons to do it
There are, of course, practical reasons for these states to work together:
• They import most of their power from the Midwest.
• The population is too dense to put windfarms on land.
• By working together they can reduce costs, cut through red tape and have an influential national voice.
• They can develop a strong offshore wind industry for the U.S., after ceding the onshore business to Europe years ago.
• They can, hopefully, speed things up so they can meet their self-imposed goals for renewable energy.
• The strongest, most reliable wind is offshore and the supply is endless.
(A curious difference about Europe’s offshore wind business versus ours. Their water is shallower so they’ve been able to adapt land towers for the sea, while we will need deeper water turbines if we want to place them some distance off the coast.)

Meeting last week
At the Clean Energy Summit in New Jersey last week, the states continued their talks. They will lobby together for an extension of the wind production tax credit beyond 2012. They will share public financing, technology and transmission lines. They'll work together to minimize environmental impact. (Yes there could be an impact on birds and marine life, but weigh it against the damage acidification from CO2 is causing oceans right now.) The states are even exploring the idea of making utilities buy a portion of their energy from offshore wind farms.

They said they will be able to save on costs and provide green jobs sooner than if each state proceeded on its own.

Many have already selected sites that meet state criteria. But the approval process involving the federal government is a complex one they hope to fast track, by agreeing among themselves.

Already underway
Several individual projects are already in the works:
• Cape Wind’s planned 130 turbines
• Delaware’s 450mw Bluewater Wind Co. project
• New Jersey’s work with several developers to produce 350mw
• Maine’s plan to test deep-water technology at 5 sites.
Rhode Island, Maryland and New York also are working on plans.

States have the right to put turbines up to 3 miles offshore, but the states want the federal government to begin issuing ocean floor leases for wind development beyond the 3-mile limit. Far better than issuing oil and gas leases.

(Sources: ClimateWire, usowc.org, NY Times.)

To follow us on Twitter everyday, click on the little bird on the right-hand side of the page.

California voters OK bonds for high-speed rail, Missouri passes renewable electricity standard

(Photo of ballot marked yes for highspeed rail from Flickr and and photographer Brad Lauster)

News Update: A smattering of good news from around the nation:
• California authorized $20 billion in bonds to construct a 700-mile high-speed train line from San Diego to San Francisco. Not surprisingly, the coastal communities wanted it, because they’ll benefit, but the inland voters did not. The project will need additional federal and private funding for completion, not an easy ask in these tough economic times.
• Two other California propositions, opposed by environmental groups, were voted down: The T. Boone Pickens-backed proposal that encouraged natural gas use for autos and a poorly written plan for 50% RES by 2025. (Bad news: San Francisco’s effort to take over the local utility and shift to renewables also failed.)
• Missouri voters OK’d a 15% renewable electricity standard by 2021, the third state to vote for an RES after California and Washington (others have been approved by state legislatures).
• Voters in 11 coastal towns south of Boston gave 87% approval to the controversial Cape Wind project in Nantucket Sound. None of the towns are on Cape Cod, where opposition is strongest. The project has the state’s environmental OK and the state’s Siting Board begins hearings this week. Final hurdle will be the U.S. Interior Dept. A ruling there is expected this month.
• In Seattle, 3 urban counties around Puget Sound, approved $22.8 billion for bus and rail transit.
• Florida voted for a modest measure giving tax exemptions for rooftop solar installations.
• Colorado voters reduced tax credits on oil and gas, with money to be used for a number of purposes including renewable energy and efficiency. So the states inch
(Sources: ClimateWire, Greenwire)

Martha’s Vineyard alternative to Nantucket’s long-delayed controversial Cape Wind farm

(Photo of Martha's Vineyard from Flickr and photographer Federico Chi.)

News Update: Blue H, a subsidiary of a Dutch company, wants to put an offshore wind farm in deep water 23 miles from Martha’s Vineyard. The floating turbines would be out of sight from land, which makes the plan much more palatable than the controversial Cape Wind project, just 5 miles from shore in Nantucket Sound. Either plan could supply about 75% of the electricity used by Cape Cod, Nantucket and the Vineyard. The main problem with the new plan is the technology of floating turbines in 167 feet of water is untested and could be many years in the future. Cape Wind has already bounced around for years from one government entity to another because some summer residents, including Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) are fighting it, but it could get final federal approval this year. The new proposal is for 120 turbines to produce 328 megawatts, similar in scope to Cape Wind. (For more and a map, see Boston.com)