With marine renewables resources offering so much promise, why hasn’t their power yet been tapped? Peter Asmus of Pike Research offers three reasons, over at Clean Tech Brief:

The first is the nature of the ocean itself, a powerful resource that cannot be privately owned like land that typically serves as the foundation for site control for terrestrial power plants of all kinds;The second is funding. Hydropower was heavily subsidized during the Great Depression, but little public investment has since been steered toward marine renewables with the exception of ocean thermal technologies, which were perceived to be a failure.

The third reason why the ocean has not yet been industrialized on behalf of energy production is that the technologies, materials and construction techniques did not exist until now to harness this renewable energy resource in any meaningful and cost effective way.

Tapping into the potential of oceans and tides will yield rewards. Asmus notes that:

The United Nations (UN) projects that the total “technically exploitable” potential for waterpower (including marine renewables) is 15 trillion kilowatt-hours, equal to half of the projected global electricity use in the year 2030.  Of this vast resource potential, roughly 15 percent has been developed so far. T he UN and World Energy Council projects 250 GW of hydropower will be developed by 2030.  If marine renewables capture just 10 percent of this forecasted hydropower capacity, that figure represents 25 GW, a figure Pike Research believes is a valid possibility and the likely floor on market scope.

Perhaps those figures will serve as added incentive to move forward with a marine renewables industry in the United States.

So what’s up with the FERC Hydrokinetic Pilot Project License Process? Launched with some fanfare in late 2007, the pilot project license process was intended to provide an expedited procedure for small (under 5 MW) early stage commercial projects to get into the water within a year, rather than within the three to five years that an ordinary license might take. In exchange for slightly for fewer studies up front, the pilot project procedures limit the license term to five years (with the option of renewal or relicensing as a full blown project), impose rigorous post-deployment monitoring and provide for project removal if unacceptable adverse impacts result.

Originally - and somewhat surprisingly, it was the marine renewables developers who gave the cold shoulder to the pilot process. Many companies figured that a the cost of attaining a five year pilot license didn’t make sense when they could spend just a little more to secure a 30 year license. Moreover, most investors had not interest in a five year pilot because it would not provide any immediate return on investment.

However, with the DOE Waterpower program revived and increased government funding available for marine renewables, some companies now have access to public money and thus, began to reconsider the pilot process as a way to get early stage projects into the water more quickly. As a result, two companies - Verdant Power and Ocean Renewable Power Company (See Slide 4) have now filed pilot project applications.
Continue reading »

For renewables seeking capital, the center of the financial universe has shifted from Wall Street to Washington, reports the New York Times Green Inc. blog. With venture funding hammered by the recession, renewable energy developers are turning to the government, seeking to take advantage of the funding opportunities for renewables included in the stimulus package.

For marine renewables, seeking government aid is nothing new. Because marine renewables are an emerging technology, they haven’t had access to the same types of private capital as their counterparts in wind or solar. In fact, with more renewables now seeking infusions from the government funding lifeline, marine renewables will face more competition for public funds even though more are now available.

Just a few days ago, I posted about how marine renewables are losing favor with some in part, because the industry hasn’t yet matured to the point where it can produce hundreds of jobs.  So I was gratified to come across this Business Week column by Saul Kaplan who argues that our laser-like focus on green jobs above all else distracts us from the equally significant matter of solving larger problems like reducing greenhouse gases and weaning ourselves off of foreign oil. Kaplan writes:

The problem with overplaying the promise of green jobs to win more backing for “decarbonizing” our economy is twofold. First, it threatens to turn people off to needed environmental actions if jobs don’t quickly materialize. Second, the pain of averting global warming and reducing our dependence on foreign oil is greater than we are being told. We need to build a broad consensus across America that transforming our energy system is imperative. We’ve already seen what happens to support for new energy policies when the price of gasoline at the pump goes down. Expect the same thing to happen if green jobs become the measuring stick for important energy policies like capping carbon dioxide emissions and concurrently creating a market to buy and sell exemptions.I hope the U.S. will compete as an innovator and global leader for green-collar work. We need all of the jobs that we can get to help us out of this economic downturn. But the driver for energy policy should not be the labor intensity of alternative approaches. If the best way to address global climate change and energy independence is to employ technology that doesn’t create significant numbers of jobs, that is the path we should take.

So march on marine renewables! Perhaps the industry can’t yet do a very good job of creating jobs right now, but the job of tackling climate change and energy independence is equally important.

What’s the prognosis for marine renewables? Not so great, if you believe this recent Wall Street Journal article that documents some of the low points of the past years for the industry. These include Finavera’s sunken buoy and its subsequent decision to put marine renewables development on hold or more recently, the temporary grounding of the Pelamis project in Portugal resulting from funding problems. I’m quoted in the article, expressing my view that all of these bumps in the road (or ebbs in the tide) are part and parcel of the rocky path to commercialization.

Ironically, the availability of loan guarantees and stimulus funds into renewables, not to mention incentives like production tax credits and investment tax credits may actually have the perverse effect of hurting marine renewables. As the WSJ article points out:

As renewable energy moves into the mainstream, proven sources, like wind and solar, are siphoning off the lion’s share of private investment and public support. Utilities facing state requirements to rapidly increase their supply of renewable power - and with a recession sapping available funding - prefer a proven technique over wave energy, where as many as 80 largely untested technologies are competing for attention. While wind farms are becoming a common site in many states, government agencies are still hammering out how to regulate anything more than a few test buoys.

Continue reading »

With the marine renewables industry on the cusp of commercialization in the United States, meet two of the individuals who will play an instrumental role in shaping the industry’s future.  Over at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Chairman Jon Wellinghoff, profiled in the Christian Science Monitor took the helm in April and has plans to ensure that renewables such as wind, solar and ocean power get equal access to the grid. In addition, Chairman Wellinghoff has also explored ways to innovate the regulatory process to stimulate development of hydro-kinetics, a topic discussed in this Energy Bar Journal article which he co-authored.

However, when it comes to energy policy, FERC and Chairman Wellinghoff aren’t the only players. Steven Chu, Secretary of the Department of Energy holds the power to determine which renewable technologies will receive an injection of stimulus funding. Chu is profiled in the June 25, 2009 issue of the Rolling Stone and also at the Salon Blog. The Salon piece argues that Chu is a techno-geek, awed by the power and possibility of new technology - and for that reason, one might expect him to embrace marine renewables. At the same time, however, Chu and Department of Energy seem rather lukewarm towards marine renewables, as evidence by the Administration’s recent decision to cut funding for marine renewables. Still, if the Rolling Stone article is accurate, and Chu is a scientist through and through, I’m convinced that he’ll at least be willing to give marine renewables a chance once he becomes more familiar with their potential and the current state of the technology.

Oh how do we love thee, marine renewables? Let me count the ways. We love thee for your clean attributes and ability to reduce greenhouse gases, for your proximity to load, and predictable intermittency and your potential to contribute to diverse energy supply and wean us off foreign oil. We love thee for your innovation and the pioneer spirit and yes, even the wackiness that’s part and parcel of being an emerging technology.

But these days, with the economy in a tailspin, our love, once all-encompassing, is now conditional. Because when all is said and done, ultimately, we’ll lose our infatuation with marine renewables unless they can deliver JOBS!

So can marine renewables deliver jobs? The verdict is out, but I remain optimistic that as this industry grows, jobs will inevitably follow.
Continue reading »

In some ways, being a marine renewable technology is kind of like being Ginger Rogers.  Just as Ginger Rogers ably executed the same steps as dance partner Fred Astaire but backwards, so too, marine renewables technologies must address siting and environmental and operational challenges just like conventional energy projects and on top of all of that, figure out how to get the power transported to, and interconnected with the onshore grid in an economic and efficient manner.

As marine renewables move towards more widespread commercial use, resolving transmission issues assumes increased urgency.  As described at the Environmental Research Web , now that the U.K. has 600 MW of offshore wind and more on the way, there’s a debate over whether companies should construct their own transmission or cooperate on a uniform grid.

Thus far, the ad hoc approach has prevailed, with each wind company planning its own parallel and expensive transmission lines back to shore. Indeed, Ofgem, which regulates energy in the U.K., supports development of transmission by individual arrangements had pointed out that the advantage of the individual approach is that companies can proceed individually and avoid delays caused by third parties.
Continue reading »

I’m pleased to announce that LOCE Renewables Offshore Energy Law Blog has been named one of the Top 50 Environmental Law Blogs by the e-Justice Blog.

What are some of your favorite blogs for tracking the marine renewables, and more generally, the renewables sector? Post your thoughts below in the comment section.

Andrew McLain of Energy Legal Blog posts on the recent MOU between FERC and Washington State that I covered last week. McLain comments that the MOU signals the Washington’s retreat from its previous opposition to FERC’s issuance of conditional licenses for marine renewables projects in favor of a more conciliatory approach.

I’m not so sure that agree with McLain’s assessment. As I’ve posted previously, states believe that conditional licenses erode their authority to evaluate and issues permits for a project before FERC issues a final license. That’s why Washington State opposed the conditional license that FERC issued to Finavera even though it ultimately issued both a Section 401 water quality certificate and coastal zone management consistency finding for the project. Because of the controversial nature of conditional licenses, I don’t view them as a solution to the regulatory purgatory that marine renewables must endure. As I’ve written on several occasions, I’d prefer to see a more formalized, collaborative process for hydro-kinetics that eliminates duplication of effort and creates a central point of contact for applicants, instead of requiring them to deal with multiple agencies.

Continue reading »