Ocean Energy Advocates Testify to Senate Subcommittee

Hydro

Hydro needs the chance to develop,
Its impact should be a wallop,
Enhancing the sources of new energy,
Bringing forth freshness in technology,
Power that's needed in all industry,
Causing change at a gallop.

adrianakau2aol.com

Why on earth would we want a separate agency to control ocean renewable technology--we already have enough government agencies tasked with handling renewable energy technology?
Steven

The first paragraph of this article is baloney. Ms. Elephant specifically discouraged the establishment of a new agency. Her full testimony can be read at the Senate Committee website: http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Testimony&Hearing_ID=a190dda5-770e-46dd-bfba-4ee64342897e&Witness_ID=2ad2c814-fa70-4fd5-8622-dc9d2c7dfdc0.

The key points she made have to do with the emerging nature of the many ocean-renewable technologies, the existing jurisdictional overlaps, and the need to differentiate the role and needs of this industry from O&G, and the importance of adequate date on which to base any Marine Spatial Planning initiative.

Thank you, Cliff. I followed your link to Ms. Elefant's testimony--more baloney.

"Though offshore wind projects are now commercially viable and can be financed through power purchase agreements, marine renewable have only just reached the stage where the first generation of demonstration projects are ready for deployment."

Offshore wind projects aren't economically viable from the rate and taxpayers' perspectives.

National Grid identified Deepwater Wind off the coast of Block Island "will more than triple the current rate for traditional electricity."

Providence Business Journal
10/16/09
'N. Grid rejects Deepwater Wind proposal'

"...But in a letter to the PUC, Grid called Deepwater's proposal "not commercially reasonable" and said "in pure financial terms, [it] is uneconomic by a significant margin for Rhode Island customers for the entire term."

http://www.pbn.com/detail/45500.html

Ms. Elefant continues:

"For now, we advocate application of principles of adaptive management which allows for rigorous post-deployment monitoring and changes in operation to address adverse impacts as an alternative to extensive pre-siting studies. Adaptive management will also allow for collection of data that can inform MSP and future siting decisions. Uncertaintly regarding impacts also makes marine renewable inappropriate candidates for the precautionary principle…"

Adaptive management monitoring and mitigation has failed to reduce harm to wildlife on land. Effective techniques to monitor avian and bat mortalities caused by WTGs over water simply do not exist according to USFWS.

The MBTA is a strict liability criminal statute that summons the precautionary principle that limits development potential for Ms. Elefant's clients.

http://bjdurk.newsvine.com/_news/2009/03/11/2534556-dear-secretary-salazar-please-do-not-sign-off-on-cape-wind-

Ms. Durkin,

I suggest you save your tired anti-Cape Wind rhetoric for sites dealing with offshore wind turbines. Or are you against all forms of renewable energy?

Ms. Elefant's testimony was in support of policies that would foster the development, evaluation, and ultimate adoption of technologies related to "wave, tidal, hydrokinetic, current, and ocean thermal energy conversion." I'm trying to imagine how a bat or migratory bird might get injured in a wave energy converter.

Mr. Goudey:

Ms. Elefant makes a representation in her testimony regarding offshore wind energy that is not supportable, particularly in the context of Cape Wind that is "not economically viable":

Ms. Elefant:

"Though offshore wind projects are now commercially viable and can be financed through power purchase agreements, marine renewable have only just reached the stage where the first generation of demonstration projects are ready for deployment."

However; The lead federal regulator's Appendix F of the MMS Cape Wind final Environmental Impact Statement provides:

"Given the estimated cost of energy is $122/MWh, twice that of the current market and this is after the full benefit of tax and RPS incentives, the prospects of entering a long-term purchase power contract would seem low."

Source: http://www.mms.gov/offshore/AlternativeEnergy/PDFs/FEIS/Appendix%20F%20-%20Economic_Model.pdf

U.S. EPA response (CEQ #20090006) to the MMS Cape Wind MMS Final Environmental Impact Statement of February 17, 2009:

"We also noted that discussion about economic viability of the smaller scale project are complex given statements in the DEIS that the proposed project and other sites are not economically viable."

Americans need reliable and affordable energy. If a renewable technology satifies that criteria, and if it leaves a relatively small footprint, I'm listening.

I'm interested in wave & tidal energy conversion as well as its potential impacts on marine life. I'm reasonably up to speed on wind turbines effects on bird life; and hope that wave and tidal technologies are less environmentally damaging.

Ms. Durkin,

Time will tell how economically viable the Cape Wind project turns out.

In your search for reliable energy sources, please keep in mind the risks associated with the current dependence on fossil fuels. In your search for affordable energy sources, please factor in the federal subsidies lavished on O&G&C&N power, not to mention the DoD costs ($$ & lives) in securing certain foreign sources. While you're at it, please factor in health costs (both human and wildlife) associated with O&C plant emissions, the environmental costs of fossil fuel extraction, and you mustn't forget the costs we are about to bear for global warming and sea level rise. You have a lot of calculating to do and I'll be interested in learning your result.

Renewable energy industry advocates need to come clean (no pun intended): all forms of energy production are going to have environmental impacts. We need to evaluate those impacts openly and honestly, and contrast them with fossil fuels. Based on my research, I have great confidence that renewable energy technologies are preferable (even if they cost more $ in the short term, the long-term overall cost will be significantly less). Not to mention the fact that burning oil is a tremendous waste of a fabulous but finite resource (how will we build wind turbines and solar panels without the plastics and composites derived from oil?). As long as we need energy, we will need to "choose our poison(s)."