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.

Wind farms are looking to put down stakes offshore just like oil drillers are`

(Photo of offshore wind farm in Britain from Flickr and photographer phault/Phil Hollman)

News Update: Oil companies may have competition for the offshore continental shelf as a source of energy. Wind companies are looking offshore as well. The Interior Department is just now ending a comment period on a plan to lease large areas of offshore property to harvest wind, which is stronger in the ocean than it is on land. So far, the states have been leading the way and they met in Delaware this week to discuss their prospects and problems. The biggest threat right now is the failure of Congress to agree on extending the production tax credit wind companies depend on to keep their businesses competitive. Other obstacles are government red tape, an inadequate grid and citizen objections. The Catch-22 is if they build close to shore, in state water, people living along the shore object. If they go far out into federal water, they have to wend their way through a series of regulations that can take years. Delaware, seen as a leader in offshore wind here, has signed an agreement with Bluewater Wind to buy power from a farm to be placed 11 miles off its coast. But they are still awaiting federal approval. The most interest in offshore wind is in the Northeast, where there are large population centers near the coast. Rhode Island and New Jersey are among the states taking a serious look. And Massachusetts is still waiting to resolve the controversy over Cape Wind off Nantucket. (Sources: ClimateWire, Greenwire)

… as oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens plans largest wind farm ever

(Photo of Texas wind farm from Flickr and and photographer fieldsbh)

News Update 4: Texas mogul T. Boone Pickens is expecting a windfall. As you no doubt have seen, he plans to construct the world’s largest wind farm, in the Texas Panhandle, and make a(nother) fortune while cutting U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Pickens’ much publicized Pickens Plan is to put up 2,700 wind turbines over the next 4 years and generate enough electricity to power more than 1 million homes. The 80-year-old Pickens has convinced neighboring ranchers to put the turbines on their land for $10,000-$20,000 each. He, himself, isn’t going to have any – saying they’re ugly – but he’s worth $3 billion and doesn’t need the money. The Texas conservative hopes to pressure Congress to do more about clean energy. Oil peaked in Texas in 1973, so now he’s on to something new. He says it’s ridiculous for the U.S. to import 70% of its oil at a cost of $700 billion a year. His plan is to use wind and solar for power, and then shift natural gas to replace gasoline for fuel. No doubt he’ll make some money at that end too. While environmentalists love his big push for wind, most don’t like the natural gas bit, since it’s only about 30% lower in carbon than gasoline. (Sources: The Guardian, Huffington Post, pickensplan.com)

Ten key Dem Senators had problems with global warming bill -- what happens next?

(Photo of Capitol Building from Flickr and photographer Gawnesco/Scott Gawne.)

Weekly Angst: Following a 48-36 vote (60 were needed) to end debate on the Climate Security Act Friday, 10 keys Dems, 9 of whom voted with the leadership, said they had problems with the bill that would have kept them from ultimately voting for it.

In a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Environment Chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the 10 said their states would be the most adversely affected by the bill, as written. Sens. Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin (Mich.), Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.), Jim Webb (Va.), Evan Bayh (Ind.), Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor (Ark.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), and Sherrod Brown (Ohio) said they favored a cap-and-trade bill but it must “ensure consumers and workers in all regions of the U.S. are protected from undue hardship.” The following issues need to be addressed, they said:
* Make sure there’s a short-term cushion to ensure technologies will be there to help meet early emissions targets.
* Fold state laws into the federal system.
* Expand agriculture and forestry offsets.
Advocates are now looking to a new President and new Congress to get a cap-and-trade bill passed. With Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) retiring, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said he is looking for a new partner to continue working on the Climate Security Act.

Next on the Senate agenda
While the global warming bill may be dead for now, Senate leadership is moving on to other energy bills: the unfinished business of passing an extension of renewable tax credits (approved by the House) and a “windfall profits” bill to tax major oil companies and address “price gouging.”

The renewable tax credit extentions (HR6049) would continue wind farm production credits 1 year and solar energy investment credits 6 years, as well as continue credits for other renewable energy sources and efficiency. The credits are due to expire the end of this year and without them renewable projects face an uncertain future.

The windfall profits bill (S3044) will probably come up first and is intended to address high oil and gasoline prices. In addition to a new tax and the repeal of tax breaks for major oil companies, the bill has a price-gouging provision and also allows the Justice Department to bring anti-trust actions against OPEC. This one is unlikely to get the 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster and President Bush has threatened a veto.

And across the way in the House
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) rejected a GOP challenge to debate global warming on the floor of the House before the 4th of July and said any activity this year will be in Energy Chair John Dingell (D-Mich.)’s committee. She indicated chances for passing a strong bill will be much better next year.

Dingell has announced his subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, headed by Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), will hold hearings on the bill that just died in the Senate, as well as the two strong bill introduced in the House by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) Waxman’s bill calls for an emissions cut of 80% by 2050, with 100% of the credits auctioned, and Markey mandates an 85% reduction, with 94% of credits auctioned. Dingell and Boucher are expected to produce their own bill at some point.
(Sources: E&E Daily, E&E News PM)

Is Big Oil turning back from wind and solar to focus on oil and gas despite carbon emissions?

(Photo of Shell station in Britain from Flickr and photographer Lee Jordan.)

News Update: Shell Oil pulled out of plans to build a large off-shore wind farm in the UK last week, sparking concern about the viability of the project, which could have powered a quarter of London’s homes. The company said it was selling its one-third share in 341-turbine London Array wind farm, casting doubts about the viability of the 1-gigawatt project. Another partner said it was weighing its options. The cost of the project had skyrocketed from $2 billion to about $5 billion, largely because of the high demand for wind turbines. Britian was counting on the project to help it meet its target of 20% renewable energy by 2020. Shell said it would continue to invest in onshore wind in the U.S., but a story in The Guardian questioned whether two oil giants, Shell and BP, were turning away from renewables to focus more on oil and gas, after ExxonMobil made the biggest profit this year while avoiding renewable investment. BP is cooling on solar, The Guardian said, and putting money into tar sands, after earlier refusing to do so because of the greenhouse gases emitted. Meanwhile, descendents of John D. Rockefeller, who started Standard Oil, forerunner of Exxon, pushed the company to begin investing in renewables, citing the dangers of climate change. Leading the charge was Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) (Sources: The Financial Times and The Guardian.)

Wind farm developers eyeing Lake Michigan

(Photo of wind farm way offshore in Britain. You can hardly see it from shore. Photo from Flickr and photographer dpicker/David P)

News Update 2: Three wind developers are considering building hundreds of wind turbines in Lake Michigan. One would like to put up 390 turbines 18 miles off Milwaukee, where the water is relatively shallow. The U.S. has no offshore or water-based wind turbines to date, though they have been proposed for Nantucket Sound and Lake Erie. In Europe, Denmark and the U.K. have offshore turbines. I saw the ones off Denmark while cruising the Baltic Sea a few years back and thought they looked quite graceful. Talks are at the preliminary stage in Wisconsin, where state agencies have been studying the feasibility of turbines in both Lake Michigan and Lake Superior. (Sources: Greenwire and jsonline.com.)

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)

Polar bears vs. Bush: the lawsuit

News update: Alaska natives and environmental groups filed suit last week to block the Interior Dept.’s Feb. 6 sale of oil and gas leases in 30 million acres of the Chukchi Sea, home to 10% of the world’s remaining polar bears. The bears are already threatened by the rapidly melting Arctic ice they use as a base for finding food. Several weeks ago the administration announced the delay of a decision about endangered-species status for the bears until after the oil lease sale. Then administration officials told a House hearing that oil exploration would not threaten the bears. This despite an earlier environmental impact study by scientists in their own department that said there’s a 33-51% chance of a major oil spill. “Polar bears do not do well with oil,” according Steven Armstrup of the U.S. Geological Survey. “Most likely it would be fatal.” (Sources: E&E Daily, E&E News PM, AP) (Photo courtesy of Flickr and photographer mape_s.)

Poll: 62% see warming as threat, but few take action
A poll of 11,000 Americans revealed that 62% of adults and 79% of children see global warming as a very serious problem. (23% of the adults were unsure.) And 57% of the adults and 74% of the kids said warming is a threat to all life on the planet. (27% of the adults were unsure, an option the kids apparently didn’t have.) Many support recycling, driving fuel-efficient cars and using less energy at home, but few are doing much about it. Democrats were 3 times as likely to see global warming as a danger, but only a little more likely to take action. The survey was conducted by George Mason University. Lead author Edward Maibach said there is growing fear about the topic but not enough information on what people can do. (Source: USA Today)

FutureGen out, smaller coal projects in – but when?
That didn’t last long. The feds pulled the plug last week on a $1.8 billion carbon-sequestration project, after Mattoon, Ill. was announced as the site in December. The huge demonstration project, planned since 2003, was to test whether carbon can be successfully captured and stored underground (forever) so that coal can be burned without emitting greenhouse gases. But what originally was to cost $1 billion grew to almost double that amount over the past 5 years.
The government says it will instead provide (less) money to create a much smaller pilot project and help new or existing coal plants add capture and sequestration. (Sources: PlanetArk, E&E PM)

UN says global warming could cost up to $20 trillion
Putting the world on a clean-energy trajectory and helping poor countries adapt to global warming could cost the world $15 trillion to $20 trillion over the next 20-25 years, a new UN report says. Now, the energy sector spends about $300 billion a year on new plants and other investment. (I’m struggling with the math here – too many zeroes.) The report is in preparation for a 2-day UN debate in mid-February on climate policy and adaptation. (Source: AP)

Etc.: Whole Foods trashes plastic bags … U.S. wind power up 45% in 2007 … Florida starts Green Lodging certification … Japan eyes network of offshore wind farms … high gas prices spur Americans to buy fuel-efficient cars … global carbon trade up 80% last year … ancient plants and moss exposed after 1,600 years in Arctic melt.