Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Oregon’

KEVIN FAGAN, San Francisco Chronicle, July 31, 2010

It happened a long time ago in a state on the other side of the country, but the day Ohio National Guardsmen killed four students at Kent State University during an anti-war protest is still a fresh hurt for Laurel Krause.

Her sister, 19-year-old freshman Allison Krause, was one of those killed in what became a tragic touchstone for protests against the Vietnam War. Now, 40 years after the May 4, 1970, shootings that also left nine wounded, Krause has launched a personal project to collect a video history of the event.

The 55-year-old Mendocino County woman will be coming to San Francisco on Aug. 7 and 8 to set up a camera and record the testimonials of anyone who was at the shootings or was directly affected by them. Witnesses, people who were wounded, relatives of victims, teachers, administrators, National Guardsmen – they’re all welcome, she said.

The event will be webcast live from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. each day on MichaelMoore.com.

‘Truth Tribunal’

Krause, an environment blogger, is calling her project “The Kent State Truth Tribunal.” Her first collection of oral histories – about 70 in all – was recorded in early May at Kent State, when the university was commemorating the 40th anniversary of the killings. After San Francisco she intends to record more recollections in New York City on October 9 and 10.

Co-directing the project with Krause is filmmaker Emily Kunstler, daughter of the late civil rights lawyer William Kunstler.

“Based on what we’ve been told over the years, we think the second-largest group of participants and witnesses to the shootings is in California, and we expect people to come from this state, Washington, Oregon and anywhere else nearby,” Krause said. “We are hoping to get all sides of the story. We want the whole truth to come out about these shootings.”

Public apology

In 1990, then-Ohio Gov. Richard Celeste apologized publicly for the shootings, but nobody was ever officially held accountable for the killings. Varying accounts have been offered over the years of whether the National Guardsmen were ordered to open fire on the anti-war protesters or did so spontaneously.

Krause is convinced the shooting was deliberate. She wants an apology from the federal government, because the U.S. invasion of Cambodia during the Vietnam War was what precipitated the protests that led to the shootings.

“Even 40 years later, it’s still a horrible thing for me and my family,” Krause said. “Allison was my only sibling. She wanted to be an art therapist. And I can never, ever see her again.”

Krause intends to give her collection to a library at New York University.

Earlier this year, the shooting site at Kent State was added to the National Register of Historic Places, and the university started a walking tour of it. The school’s library already has more than two floors worth of archives, including 100 oral histories, devoted to the shootings – but its archivists pick no sides in the historical debate, said Cara Gilgenbach, head of special collections and archives.

“There are many varying narratives of what occurred,” she said.

Find out more

To find out more about the tribunal event in San Francisco, and to register to give a testimonial, go to truthtribunal.org.

Read Full Post »

MARSHA WALTON, MNN.com, June 8, 2010

The last thing that supporters of a promising renewable energy source want is a technology that harms wildlife.

So before wave energy buoys are deployed off the Oregon coast, scientists and developers want to make sure that 18,000 migrating gray whales are not put in jeopardy.

These whales, weighing 30 to 40 tons each, make a twice-yearly journey, heading south to breed off Baja, Mexico, in winter, and back up to the Pacific Northwest in spring.

Biologist Bruce Mate wants to find out if a low power underwater noise can be used effectively to nudge the whales away from wave energy devices.

“We want them to turn their headlights on,” says Mate, director of Oregon State’s Marine Mammal Institute.

Mate says the “whoop-whoop-whoop” sound being tested “is designed to be something unnatural. We don’t want them to think of it as background noise, as a wave, or as another animal. We want it to be something that is disconcerting,” he says.

Disconcerting enough so that the animals would move a few hundred yards away from the energy-capturing buoys, expected to weigh about 200 tons.

The underwater cables on these wave buoys are solid, 4 to 6 inches in diameter. Mate says a gray whale swimming 3 to 4 mph could be seriously hurt if it collided with a cable.

Mate has a grant from the Department of Energy to test whether the acoustic device is the right strategy to keep whales and buoys away from each other. Tests will begin in late December, and end before mothers and calves migrate north in May.

The noise-making device, about the size of a cantaloupe, will be located about 75 feet below the ocean surface, moored in about 140 feet of water. During the testing, it will make noise for three seconds a minute, six hours a day.

Gray whales stick close to shore, about 2.5 to 3 miles away. Swimming farther out, they can become lunch for killer whales.

During the tests, researchers will use theodolites, surveying instruments that measure horizontal and vertical angles. Mate says the animals’ actions should be fairly easy to observe as they encounter the noise.

“These animals track very straight lines during migration. They are motivated to get to the other end,” he says.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licenses wave energy technologies, and dozens of agencies oversee how this technology will affect ocean life.

“Wave energy developers are required to undergo a rigorous permitting process to install both commercial-scale and pilot projects,” says Thomas Welch of the Department of Energy (DOE).

Ocean Power Technologies is set to deploy the first of 10 energy-generating buoys off Reedsport, Ore., later this year.

Wave energy developers say they have worked with conservation groups from the start, dealing with everything from whales to erosion.

“As an untapped renewable resource there is tremendous potential,” says Justin Klure, a partner at Pacific Energy Ventures, a company that advances the ocean energy industry.

A believer in clean energy, Klure says it is imperative that the technology be the least disruptive.

“Nobody knows if a large buoy or any other technology is going to have an impact on an ecosystem. A misstep early could set back the industry. This is hard work, it’s expensive, if you don’t have a solid foundation, we feel, that is going to cost you later,” he says.

Klure says the industry has studied how other energy development, including wind and solar, have dealt with environmental challenges.

“I think the lesson here is how critical project siting is. It’s the same concept as land use planning for the ocean. Where are the most sensitive ecosystems? Where are areas that need to be preserved for recreation, or commercial fishing?” Klure says.

It will likely be five to 10 years before wave energy provides significant electricity production. But the acoustics research by Mate could provide help to animals, reaching beyond the Pacific coast.

“We certainly hope it has broader uses,” Mate says. If the sounds do move animals to safety, similar devices could be used to lure whales back from shallow waters if they are in danger of stranding — or even help whales or other marine mammals skirt the poisons of a large oil spill.

Read Full Post »

GAYATHRI VAIDYANATHAN, New York Times, March 2, 2010

Harnessing the ocean waves for emission-free power seems like a tidy concept, but the ocean is anything but tidy. Waves crash from multiple directions on a seemingly random basis, and converting the kinetic energy into electricity is a frontier of alternative energy research that requires grappling with large unknowns.

But with several utility companies and states, and in one case, the U.S. Navy, investing in wave power, or hydrokinetic energy, may not be too far off in the utility mix. At least two companies hope to reach commercial deployments within the next three to five years.

Off the coast of Orkney, Scotland, is the Oyster, a white- and yellow-flapped cylinder, 40 feet tall and firmly locked into the ocean’s bed. With a total of seven moving parts, two of which are pistons, it captures waves as they near the coast. Oyster funnels them into a pipe and carries the power inland to a hydroelectric power generator. The generator has been supplying the United Kingdom’s grid with 315 kilowatts of energy at peak power since October.

A farm of up to 100 Oysters could yield 100 megawatts, according to Aquamarine Power, the Scottish company that developed the technology.

“From an environmental perspective, in the sea you have a very simple machine that uses no oil, no chemicals, no electromagnetic radiation,” said Martin McAdam, CEO of Aquamarine.

The Oyster provides a tiny fraction of the 250 gigawatts of power that the water is capable of providing, including conventional hydroelectric energy by 2030, according to the United Nations. At least 25 gigawatts of that will come from marine renewables, according to Pike Research, a clean technology market research group. The non-conservative estimate is as much as 200 gigawatts. And 2015 will be the benchmark year to determine which of these estimates will be true.

The field of hydrokinetic power has a number of companies such as Aquamarine, all with unique designs and funded by utility companies, government grants and venture capitalists. If at least 50% of these projects come online by 2015, marine power could supply 2.7 gigawatts to the mix, according to Pike Research. A gigawatt is the electrical output of a large nuclear power plant.

‘PowerBuoy’ joins the Marines

There are six marine renewable technologies currently under development that aim to take advantage of ocean waves, tides, rivers, ocean currents, differences in ocean temperatures with depth, and osmosis.

“The energy landscape is going to be a mix of different energy sources, with an increasing proportion coming from renewables,” said Charles Dunleavy, CEO of Ocean Power Technologies, a New Jersey-based research group also developing wave energy. “We aim to be a very big part of this.”

The company has been testing its wave energy device, called the PowerBuoy, in the ocean since 2005. It recently launched another device a mile offshore from the island of Oahu in Hawaii and connected it to the power grid of the U.S. Marine Corps base. It now supplies 40 kilowatts of energy at peak, enough to power about 25 to 30 homes.

“The Navy wants to reduce its reliance on imported fossil fuel; they have a strong need to establish greater energy independence,” said Dunleavy.

The buoy captures the energy from right-sized waves (between 3 and 22 feet tall), which drive a hydraulic pump. The pump converts the motion into electricity in the ocean using a generator embedded into its base. A subsea cable transfers the power to the electrical grid. A buoy farm of 30 acres could yield 10 megawatts of energy, enough to supply 8,000 homes, said Dunleavy.

The structures rise 30 feet above water, and extend 115 feet down. They would not be a problem for commercial trawlers, which are farther offshore, or for ship navigation lanes, said Dunleavy. Recreational boaters, however, may have to watch out.

‘Oyster’ competes with the ‘top end of wind’

In comparison with a system such as the Oyster that brings water ashore to power turbines, creating electricity in the ocean is more efficient, said Dunleavy. “You lose a lot of energy to friction,” he said.

But Aquamarine’s system of having onshore power generation will cut down on maintenance costs, according to McAdam. Operation costs are expected to consume as much as 40% of the budget of operating a marine power plant, according to Pike Research.

Ocean Power is already selling its device for individual commercial use and building larger units of 150 kilowatts off the West Coast of the United States and for the utility company Iberdrola’s unit in Spain.

It is also developing the first wave power station under the Department of Energy’s stimulus program at Reedsport, Ore., according to Dunleavy. The farm, which currently has a 150-kilowatt unit, could grow by nine additional buoys.

And as for price, which is a major concern, Dunleavy said that cost compares with other renewables.

“It is cheaper than solar thermal and photovoltaics, and in the range of biomass,” he said. “It is at the top end of wind.”

The Oyster is also aiming to position itself as an alternative to wind power for utilities. McAdam said that by 2013, his company hopes to be a competitor to offshore wind installations. And by 2015, he hopes to compete with onshore wind.

Read Full Post »

FRANK HARTZELL, Mendocino Beacon, February 25, 2010

The Southern California investment company with a federal permit to develop wave energy in waters off Mendocino has entered into a partnership with one of the world’s top companies in the field.

GreenWave Energy Solutions recently entered into a memo of understanding, or MOU, with Ocean Power Technologies (OPT) of New Jersey, a move which makes wave energy off the village of Mendocino much more likely than ever.

Earlier this month, Ocean Power Technologies earned a federal license to develop wave energy off Reedsport, Ore., a groundbreaking move in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) process.

Ocean Power Technologies had its own FERC wave energy preliminary permit off Cape Mendocino but last year gave up on that site as impractical. OPT, which has since eclipsed many of its hydrokinetics competitors, plans to bring its experience to developing waters off Mendocino, the FERC permit states.

OPT recently deployed one of its Power Buoys off Hawaii, where it is also developing wave energy. OPT has been granted the exclusive right to sell their patented WEC devices to GreenWave for the generation of electrical power off Mendocino.

The existence of GreenWave’s FERC preliminary permit already spells doom for the creation of any new Marine Life Protection Act (MLPAI) Initiative protection of the claimed area.

GreenWave told FERC in its latest progress report that the firm has a target date of April 2012 for filing a license to actually develop electricity off Mendocino.

A preliminary permit gives exclusive study rights to an area to the applicant and also provides automatic preference to a license to actually produce power in the ocean.

“The proposed 100 megawatt GreenWave Mendocino Wave Park is estimated to generate an average of 250 GigaWatt-hours annually. GreenWave has contacted most or all of the stakeholders … and will continue to conduct community outreach and informational efforts to keep all stakeholders apprised of progress and plans related to the environmental studies and development of this proposed wave energy project,” the FERC filing by GreenWave President Wayne Burkamp states.

GreenWave and Ocean Power Technologies plan joint meetings locally beginning in March, the filing states. The two firms plan to file full details of the wave energy project with FERC by March and then discuss those plans in public meetings with locals.

Wave energy has generated substantial local opposition led by local fishermen. The environmental community in Mendocino has also opposed wave energy. Environmentalists in Humboldt County have not been involved in the issue.

PG&E, faced with local opposition, withdrew its Fort Bragg wave energy development application and continued its effort in friendlier Humboldt County, then added a second site in Southern California.

National environmental groups signed off on wave energy in a letter to president Obama. But the Obama administration studied the issue and, like Fort Bragg residents, learned the technology raised serious environmental issues and was too theoretical to help with the nation’s energy needs in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, fishing and civic groups have been seeking to construct a public process that protects the ocean.

A group formed in Fort Bragg, Fishermen Interested in Safe Hydrokinetics (FISH) is the lead plaintiff on a lawsuit against FERC challenging FERC’s issuance of the exclusive development rights to waters off Mendocino to GreenWave. The city of Fort Bragg, County of Mendocino, the Ocean Protection Council, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen and the Recreational Fishing Alliance are also part of the challenge.

The lawsuit, with filings due in federal court this spring and summer, asserts that FERC failed to follow environmental laws or create a comprehensive plan before issuing wave energy permits.

“GreenWave has reviewed the allegations contained in the complaint and believes the allegations are without merit. GreenWave is monitoring this litigation and will provide any support that FERC believes necessary,” GreenWave’s recent filing states.

PG&E said the reason it abandoned its Fort Bragg development site was Noyo Harbor is unsuitable. That hasn’t discouraged GreenWave so far.

Background

The exclusive three-year preliminary permit granted in May 2009 to GreenWave stretches from just north of Albion to off Point Cabrillo, about a half-mile to three miles offshore.

Five men from the Thousand Oaks area of Southern California, including Tony Strickland, a Republican state senator, formed GreenWave Energy Solutions about two years ago.

Strickland, one of the state’s most ardent deregulators and anti-tax advocates, won the state Legislature’s closest race last November by a handful of votes, California’s closest major race. He made his involvement in alternative energy a key part of his campaign.

Green Wave Energy Solutions when formed was composed of Burkamp, Strickland, engineer Bill Bustamante and prominent housing developers Dean Kunicki and Gary Gorian.

Calls to GreenWave’s message phone number revealed Strickland and the others are still involved.

GreenWave does not mention Strickland, or any local members of the California Legislature among its communications with the Legislature in its report to FERC.

“GreenWave has participated in numerous meetings with California state government officials regarding various aspects of the permitting process and the political dynamics of development of a wave farm, in this district. GreenWave has met with various legislative personnel including California State Assemblyman Felipe Fuentes (39th District). Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher (75th District), and Gov. Schwarzenegger’s Chief Deputy Legislative Assistant, John Moffatt.

“These meetings involved discussions regarding the future of wave energy in California, working to streamline the permitting process in California and questions related to legislation which would assist in wave energy development,” the FERC filing states.

The Marine Life Protection Act Initiative process has concentrated solely on restricting and banning fishing, despite broader general ocean protection goals in the act. An opinion issued by the California Attorney General’s office states that any prior legal claim (such as a preliminary permit for wave energy) precludes the establishment of any type of new marine protected area. However, that fact has not yet been introduced into the discussions of creation of “arrays” or fishing restricted areas, despite large areas off limits in both Humboldt and Mendocino counties due to permits granted to PG&E and GreenWave.

Editor’s Note: Phenomenal reporting by Frank Hartzell, thank you!

Read Full Post »

PennWell Publishing, February 22, 2010

Construction has begun off Oregon’s coast on a commercial U.S. wave energy farm, which is being developed by Ocean Power Technologies and is planned to supply power to about 400 homes, according to national media reports.

The system will be installed off the Oregon coast near Reedsport, and it will represent the first phase of an expected 10-PowerBuoy Reedsport wave power station with a generating capacity of about 1.5 MW. The development would be the first commercial-scale wave power farm in the United States.

The first buoy will measure 150 feet tall by 40 feet wide, weigh 200 tons and cost $4 million, according to Phil Pellegrino, spokesman for New Jersey-based developer Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. OPT has chosen Oregon Iron Works to construct its first commercial wave energy PowerBuoy system in North America.

Nine additional PowerBuoys will be constructed and installed under the second phase of the project. The additional buoys are scheduled to be deployed by 2012 at a total cost of about $60 million.

Ocean Power Technologies recently received an A$66.5 million (US$61 million) grant from the Australian government to build a 19-MW wave power project off the coast of Victoria, Australia.

Ocean Power Technologies plans to complete its first PB150 wave energy device in the UK for deployment in Scotland in mid 2010.

Read Full Post »

msnbc.com, January 27, 2010

Lots has been said about warming temperatures and rising sea levels, but a new study puts the spotlight on a more imminent threat to coastal communities: extreme waves that are growing taller in some parts of the world.

Data from buoys off the Pacific Northwest coast found that since the mid-1970s the height of the biggest waves has increased on average by nearly four inches a year. That’s about 10 feet over that period.

“The waves are getting larger,” said lead author Peter Ruggiero, an assistant geosciences professor at Oregon State University.

And that, he said, means “the rates of erosion and frequency of coastal flooding have increased over the last couple of decades and will almost certainly increase in the future.”

In the study published in the journal Coastal Engineering, Ruggiero and his colleagues report that the reasons are not completely certain.

“Possible causes might be changes in storm tracks, higher winds, more intense winter storms, or other factors,” Ruggiero said. “These probably are related to global warming, but could also be involved with periodic climate fluctuations such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and our wave records are sufficiently short that we can’t be certain yet.”

The team also looked at how high a “100-year event” might be, given that planners use those scenarios in approving development projects. Using the new data set, the researchers  estimated that the biggest waves could get up to 46 feet tall — a 40 percent increase from 1970s estimates of 33 feet.

Ruggiero said that the study reinforces earlier ones showing similar trends off some other coasts, among them the U.S. Southeast Atlantic, the Northeast Pacific and southwest England. On the other hand, areas like the North Sea and the Mediterranean have shown little to no increase.

Double Whammy

Ruggiero said he’s working on a publishing another study that shows the increase in Pacific Northwest wave heights over the last 30 years “has been significantly more important than sea level rise” in terms of flooding and erosion threats to the coast.

“The bottom line,” Ruggiero said, “is that water levels have already increased in the Pacific Northwest due to wave heights and as sea level rise accelerates the region will experience a ‘double whammy’. So it is critical for engineers and planners to consider both processes.”

Both “winners and losers” are expected in terms of beach stability, with some areas gaining sand, but already some negative effects are visible in coastal towns like Neskowin, Ore.

“Neskowin is already having problems with high water levels and coastal erosion,” Ruggiero said.

“Communities are going to have to plan for heavier wave impacts and erosion, and decide what amounts of risk they are willing to take, how coastal growth should be managed and what criteria to use for structures,” he added.

Ruggiero emphasized that another factor for the Pacific Northwest is that a large earthquake could drop the shoreline by several feet, worsening the impact of extreme waves.

That proved to be the case in Sumatra, Indonesia, during the 2004 quake and tsumani, he said, and some of the shoreline there dropped by up to five feet.

Read Full Post »

DAVID PERLMAN, San Francisco Chronicle, January 11, 2010

The powerful earthquake that rocked the seabed off the Northern California coast near Eureka on Saturday underscores the complexity of seismic dangers within the Earth’s crust, and is likely to be followed by a large aftershock this week – but it is not expected to exceed the 6.5 magnitude of the temblor that was felt as far away as Reno, scientists said Sunday.

A “probability report” from the U.S. Geological Survey said there is a 65% chance for a “strong and possibly damaging aftershock” from the temblor in the next seven days. As many as 90 weaker aftershocks are expected to be felt in local communities, the report said, but it’s not probable any will be larger than Saturday’s mainshock.

More than 20 smaller aftershocks – some with magnitudes larger than 4 – churned the seabed throughout the day Sunday.

Although Californians are most conscious of the quakes that constantly hit the San Andreas Fault Zone, where its many offshoots include the dangerous Rodgers Creek and Hayward faults, offshore quakes are extremely common.

Saturday’s quake was unrelated to the San Andreas, but struck within the southern end of an offshore geological feature of the Earth’s crust called the Gorda Plate, according to David Oppenheimer, a seismologist with the Geological Survey’s main research center in Menlo Park.

Scientists have long known that the entire crust of the Earth is composed of vast crustal plates that are constantly in slow movement. The familiar San Andreas Zone, for example, marks the boundary between the huge Pacific Plate and the North American Plate, and when these two plates suddenly slip after building up pressure grinding past each other, potentially deadly quakes are the result.

The Gorda Plate, with its eastern edge along the coasts of California and Oregon, is a much smaller slab of the crust, and above it lies a far larger segment of the crust called the Juan de Fuca Plate that extends along the coast well north of Seattle and Vancouver Island.

The San Andreas Fault’s northern end veers sharply west at Point Arena in Mendocino County, and there the fault is known as the Mendocino Fracture Zone. That area – the most seismically active in the continental United States – marks the southern edge of the Gorda Plate and the boundary between the Gorda and Pacific plates.

“It’s a highly complex region,” Oppenheimer said, “and the convergence of all these plates has generated earthquakes of many types.

Saturday’s powerful temblor was known as a “strike-slip” quake, where the convergence of the Pacific and Gorda plates caused one side to slip past the other.

The Gorda and Juan de Fuca plates, however, form part of an offshore crustal segment called the Cascadia Subduction Zone where the huge slabs dip deep beneath the North American Plate and can cause truly giant quakes every few hundred years. Those quakes actually are the tectonic forces that have raised the volcanic Cascade Mountains, including – in California – Mounts Shasta and Lassen.

Saturday’s offshore quake struck 18 miles deep within the Gorda Plate, in an area very close to the epicenters of two large aftershocks that followed a magnitude 7.1 earthquake on land near Petrolia and Cape Mendocino on April 25, 1992.

Those two aftershocks, centered 16 miles offshore and within the Gorda Plate’s southern edge, registered magnitudes of 6.6 and 6.7. They were very similar, Oppenheimer said, to Saturday’s 6.5 magnitude mainshock – which struck at 39 seconds past 4:27 p.m., 23 miles northwest of Ferndale and 29 miles southwest of Eureka.

Read Full Post »

MATTHEW PREUSCH, Oregonian.com, August 1, 2009

oregon_fishNewport, Oregon – The fleet that fishes for black cod, perch and other groundfish off the Oregon coast is a shadow of what it once was. And so are the fish stocks that it harvests and hauls into processors like those anchoring the historic waterfront here in Newport.

But new rules are likely to change that. Each fisherman would be given a quota for his or her catch, and no time limit in which to fulfill it.

If it sounds unremarkable, quotas could transform current practice by eliminating fierce competition and the “derby-on-the-sea” phenomenon that has, in the eys of some scientists, helped decimate several fish stocks.

Here in Oregon, it will be the first time the system – called catch shares or individual transferable quotas – has been tried on the West Coast outside of Alaska. And it could provide long-term viability that a $25 million groundfish industry that under a decade ago was declared a federal disaster.

The rules, devised by the Pacific Fisheries Management Council, are supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which will wait until next summer to officially adopt them for implementation in 2011.

But the shift in thinking has occurred already.

Studies published last year and as recently as last week in the journal, Science, report bolstered stocks in some fisheries that have taken conservation steps, one of them implementation of individual quotas.

And several voices in Oregon’s fishing community – both for and against – are heard assessing consequence.

“Every pound is going to be accounted for. So if you catch a pound of fish and it’s going to go against your quota, you’re not going to waste that fish,” said Brad Pettinger, director of the Brookings-based Oregon Trawl Commission. “It’s going to make everyone accountable about how they fish.”

“There are a lot of fishermen who don’t want anything to do with this, because life is good for them the way things are,” said Dave Jincks, , an ocean trawler owner and Port of Newport Commissioner who supports catch shares.

Shares will be allocated based primarily on a boat’s performance in the fishery between 1994 and 2003. So if your boat caught a lot of fish relative to others, your allotted share of the catch will be higher.

This could hurt newer boats in the fishery that don’t have a long history of catching lots of fish, but have nonetheless been fishing well in recent years.

While life is good for some fishermen, it’s a mess overall for the ocean trawling industry off Oregon’s coast.

Like scores of ocean fisheries around the world, the groundfish fishery has suffered under the unsustainable equation of too many boats chasing too few fish.

That led to some fish species getting nearly wiped out, prompting sharp and shifting government restrictions on fishing that are onerous to boat owners and fishing businesses seeking some predictability.

The groundfish fishery encompasses over 80 species and is divided into two sectors – non-whiting and whiting – and can include offshore trawlers that land their catch in port, deep ocean catcher-processor boats and mother ship vessels that collect the catch from smaller boats.

The new rules will mean different things for each sector of the fishery, but the basic premise of catch shares is simple enough.

Whereas under old rules each boat in the fleet fought for the biggest piece possible of a total allowable catch for each species, leading to a rush to catch as many fish as possible before the seasonal cap was reached, under catch shares each boat is granted their own share of the total catch.

It amounts to the privatization of a previously public resource.

Catch shares gained greater favor last year after a paper published in Science reported that their implementation “halts, and even reverses, the global trend towards widespread collapse” of ocean fish stocks.

And this year NOAA, led by former Oregon State University professor and oceans expert Jane Lubchenco, convened a task force to make recommendations for applying catch shares to more of the nation’s fisheries.

“It seems like it’s a nexus between conservation and economics,” said Steve Murawski, chief science advisor for NOAA Fisheries.The agency’s report is due out by today.

Despite the current popularity of catch shares, some groups are urging NOAA to proceed with caution in its embrace of the management tool.

For one thing, divvying up the total allowable catch can’t restore fisheries if the total allowable catch is more than the fish stocks can bear.

“Until we have a true commitment to set fishing levels that are sustainable, how you allocate it isn’t going to solve the problem,” said Rebecca M. Bratspies, a fisheries expert at New York’s CUNY School of Law.

And since the individual quotas, or shares, are transferable, companies can buy them up, leading to consolidation in an industry that still allows an individual boat owner to make a living.

For that reason the groundfish catch share program sets limits, generally 3-15% percent, on how much of the total catch any one owner has right to.

They’ll be monitors on each boat to see that its owner doesn’t exceed their quota. If someone goes over their cap, they will have to buy extra quota from another boat. And if they don’t expect to fish to their full quota, they can sell or lease their excess on the open market.

The cost of monitors and other parts of the program once it’s implemented in 2011 is expected to cost between $2.4 and $2.9 million a year, and the fishing boats in the program will bear the brunt of the cost.

And some boat’s quotas may be so small that they choose to simply lease their quota to another boat, leading to a phenomenon called “armchair fisherman,” which the group Ecotrust Canada says have become commonplace in catch share fisheries in British Columbia.

“I’m concerned we will see in the play out of the groundfish fisheries some of the same problems we saw in British Columbia,” said Ed Backus, vice president for fisheries for Ecotrust’s Portland office.

NOAA recently released preliminary figures for what percent of the catch each boat in the program could get. Jim Seavers, who has been fishing out of Newport for three decades, keeps the rows of figures in a small binder, and he’s circled in bright highlighter the percentages and pounds allotted to the three trawlers he owns or manages.

One, the Miss Sue, is set to get about .5% of the traditional groundfish catch, or 313 metric tons, and about 2.7% of the whiting catch, equal to 1,147 tons. This week the Miss Sue loaded up with fuel, ice and provisions before heading out again to fish.

Seavers is hopeful the catch shares program will eliminate waste in the fishery and bring some predictability to the regulations that manage it. But he worries about the extra cost each boat will have to bear to pay for the program.

Seavers had experience in a catch share fishery in Alaska, which he said has overall had positive effects. But he warns the groundfish fleet could face further reductions – it’s down to fewer than 170 boats from close to 500 in the 1990’s – even as it reduces waste.

He’s confident of one thing, though: “It’s going to make it more expensive to fish.”

Read Full Post »

ELIZABETH RUSCH, Smithsonian Magazine, July 2009

von-Jouanne-Oregon-Otter-Rock-BeachShe was in the water when the epiphany struck. Of course, Annette von Jouanne was always in the water, swimming in lakes and pools as she was growing up around Seattle, and swimming distance freestyle competitively in high school and college meets. There’s even an exercise pool in her basement, where she and her husband (a former Olympic swimmer for Portugal) and their three kids have spent a great deal of time…swimming.

But in December 1995 she was bodysurfing in Hawaii over the holidays. She’d just begun working as an assistant professor of electrical engineering at Oregon State University. She was 26 years old and eager to make a difference—to find or improve upon a useful source of energy, preferably one that wasn’t scarce or fleeting or unpredictable or dirty. The sun was going down. The wind was dying. She was bobbing in the swells.

“As the sun set, it hit me: I could ride waves all day and all night, all year long,” says von Jouanne. “Wave power is always there. It never stops. I began thinking that there’s got to be a way to harness all the energy of an ocean swell, in a practical and efficient way, in a responsible way.”

Today, von Jouanne is one of the driving forces in the fast-growing field of wave energy—as well as its leading proponent. She will explain to anyone who will listen that unlike wind and solar energy, wave energy is always available. Even when the ocean seems calm, swells are moving water up and down sufficiently to generate electricity. And an apparatus to generate kilowatts of power from a wave can be much smaller than what’s needed to harness kilowatts from wind or sunshine because water is dense and the energy it imparts is concentrated.

All that energy is also, of course, destructive, and for decades the challenge has been to build a device that can withstand monster waves and gale-force winds, not to mention corrosive saltwater, seaweed, floating debris and curious marine mammals. And the device must also be efficient and require little maintenance.

Still, the allure is irresistible. A machine that could harness an inexhaustible, nonpolluting source of energy and be deployed economically in sufficient numbers to generate significant amounts of electricity—that would be a feat for the ages.

Engineers have built dozens of the machines, called wave energy converters, and tested some on a small scale. In the United States, waves could fuel about 6.5% of today’s electricity needs, says Roger Bedard of the Electric Power Research Institute, an energy think tank in Palo Alto, California. That’s the equivalent of the energy in 150 million barrels of oil—about the same amount of power that is produced by all U.S. hydroelectric dams combined—enough to power 23 million typical American homes. The most powerful waves occur on western coasts, because of strong west-to-east global winds, so Great Britain, Portugal and the West Coast of the United States are among the sites where wave energy is being developed.

Aside from swimming, von Jouanne’s other passion as a youngster was learning how things work. It started with small appliances. An alarm clock broke. She unscrewed the back, fixed the mechanism and put it back together. She was about 8 years old. “That was so exciting for me,” she says. She moved on to calculators and then to a computer she bought with money from her paper route. One day, she waited for her parents to leave the house so she could take apart the television and reassemble it before they returned. (Von Jouanne cautions kids not to do as she did: “there is a high-voltage component.”)

When her brothers, older by eight and ten years, came home for college breaks, she pored over their engineering textbooks. (An older sister pursued a business degree.) “Reading them confirmed that, yup, this is what I want to do,” she recalls.

She studied electrical engineering as an undergraduate at Southern Illinois University and for her doctorate at Texas A&M University. She was often one of the few women in a class. “I never saw myself as a woman engineer,” she says. “I saw myself as an engineer trying to make things better for the world.”

At Oregon State University, she related her wave-tossed epiphany to Alan Wallace, a professor of electrical engineering who shared her fascination with the ocean’s power. “We started saying, there’s got to be a way to harness this energy,” she recalls. They studied the wave energy converters then being produced and looked up centuries-old patents for contraptions to extract power from waves. Some resembled windmills, animal cages or ship propellers. A modern one looked like a huge whale. The gadgets all had one problem in common: they were too complicated.

Take, for example, a device called the Pelamis Attenuator, which was recently deployed for four months off the coast of Portugal by Pelamis Wave Power. It looks like a 500-foot-long red snake. As waves travel its length, the machine bends up and down. The bending pumps hydraulic fluid through a motor, which generates electricity. Complex machines like this are riddled with valves, filters, tubes, hoses, couplings, bearings, switches, gauges, meters and sensors. The intermediate stages reduce efficiency, and if one component breaks, the whole device goes kaput.

After analyzing the field, von Jouanne says, “I knew we needed a simpler design.”

Von Jouanne’s lab is named in memory of Wallace, who died in 2006, but the Wallace Energy Systems & Renewables Facility (WESRF) is familiarly known as “We Surf.” Painted in deep blues and grays and bearing murals of curling waves, the lab has been a research facility and testing ground for such innovative products as an all-electric naval ship, a hovercraft and the Ford Escape Hybrid engine. In one corner is a tall buoy that resembles a huge copper-top battery. Beside it another buoy looks like two cross-country skis with wire strung between them. The designs were among von Jouanne’s earliest. “Breakthroughs are almost always born of failures,” she says.

Her breakthrough was to conceive of a device that has just two main components. In the most recent prototypes, a thick coil of copper wire is inside the first component, which is anchored to the seafloor. The second component is a magnet attached to a float that moves up and down freely with the waves. As the magnet is heaved by the waves, its magnetic field moves along the stationary coil of copper wire. This motion induces a current in the wire—electricity. It’s that simple.

By early 2005, von Jouanne had engineered one of her prototypes and wanted to test whether it was waterproof. She hauled the wave energy converter to her basement, into a flume that circulates water to let her swim in place. Her daughter Sydney, then 6, sat on the prototype, much as a seal might cling to a real buoy. It floated.

Next she phoned a nearby wave pool, where people go to play in simulated waves.

“Do you rent out your pool?” she said.

“For how many people?” the attendant asked.

“Not many people—one wave energy buoy.”

The park donated two early mornings to her venture. Von Jouanne anchored the machine with ten 45-pound weights from a health club. It performed well in the playful waves, bobbing up and down without sinking.

Then came the real test, at one of the longest wave simulators in North America.

At the west end of the leafy Oregon State University campus, past the scholarly red-brick buildings, is a massive T-shaped steel shed in a giant paved lot. Though the building is 50 miles from the Pacific Ocean and well beyond the reach of killer tidal waves, a blue and white metal sign at its entrance says “Entering Tsunami Hazard Zone.”

When von Jouanne first brought a buoy to test in the 342-foot-long concrete flume at Oregon State’s Hinsdale Wave Research Laboratory, “things didn’t go as planned,” says Dan Cox, the facility’s director, with a laugh. Von Jouanne and co-workers plopped the buoy in the 15-foot-deep channel and buffeted it with two-, three- and four-foot waves. The first five-foot wave tipped it over.

“We had a ballast problem,” von Jouanne says somewhat sheepishly. She goes on, “We’re electrical engineers, and we really needed more help from ocean engineers, but to get them we needed more funding, and to get more funding we needed to show some success.”

Von Jouanne kept refining her buoys. A small group watched as a five-foot wave headed for one of her latest versions. As the buoy lifted with the surge, a 40-watt light bulb on top of it, powered by wave energy, lighted up. “We all cheered,” Cox recalls.

Route 20 winds from Oregon State to the coast though cedar and fir trees, following the Yaquina River. Near the mouth of the river is a sandy spit with low buildings decorated with oyster shells and gnarly driftwood. Breezes set halyards from the nearby marina clanking against metal masts. This is the home of Oregon State’s Hatfield Marine Science Center, devoted to research about marine ecosystems and ocean energy.

George Boehlert, a marine scientist and director of the center, looks out of his office at a field of undulating sea grass. “What we know now is what we don’t know,” says Boehlert, whose dirty blond curls resemble ocean waves. “Ocean energy is a fast-moving field and environmental researchers have a lot of questions.”

For instance, the buoys absorb energy from waves, reducing their size and power. Would shrunken swells affect sand movement and currents near shore, perhaps contributing to erosion?

Buoys, as well as the power cables that would connect to the electrical grid on-shore, emit electromagnetic fields. And mooring cables would thrum in the currents, like a guitar string. Might these disturbances confuse whales, sharks, dolphins, salmon, rays, crabs and other marine animals that use electromagnetism and sound for feeding, mating or navigation?

Would birds collide with the buoys or turtles become entangled in the cables?

Would anchors create artificial reefs that attract fish not normally found in that habitat?

Would deploying, maintaining and removing buoys disturb the seafloor or otherwise change the ocean environment?

“I want to know the answers to these questions, too,” von Jouanne says. “The last thing I want to do is harm the ocean and its beautiful creatures.” To study the environmental risks and allow wave energy engineers to test their inventions, she and colleagues at Oregon State, including Boehlert, are building a floating test berth nearby. It is scheduled to open next year and at its center will be a buoy full of instruments to collect data on how well wave energy converters are performing.

The test berth is part of a massive effort to move wave energy out of the lab and onto the electrical power grid. Through a new Energy Department-funded national marine renewable energy center, researchers from all over the country will have the chance to refine their inventions in the WESRF energy lab, test them in the Hinsdale wave flume and perfect them in the ocean. “This is what we need to do to fully explore wave energy as part of a renewable energy portfolio, for the state, the nation and the world,” von Jouanne says.

Boehlert and others say that even if wave energy has some local environmental impacts, it would likely be far less harmful than coal- and oil-fired power plants. “The effects of continuing to pump carbon into the atmosphere could be much worse for marine life than buoys bobbing in the waves,” he says. “We want ocean energy to work.”

Von Jouanne recently towed her best-performing buoy—her 11th prototype—out through Yaquina Bay and one and a half miles offshore. The buoy, which resembles a giant yellow flying saucer with a black tube sticking through the middle, was anchored in 140 feet of water. For five days it rose and fell with swells and generated around 10 kilowatts of power. In the next two to three years, Columbia Power Technologies, a renewable energy company that has supported von Jouanne’s research, plans to install a buoy generating between 100 and 500 kilowatts of electricity in the test berth off the coast of Oregon. See video of the device here.

“A few years ago,” Cox says of von Jouanne, “she was working on a shoestring. Now she has government getting behind her work and companies knocking at her door. That’s incredibly fast advancement that bodes well for the future of wave energy.”

Another of Von Jouanne’s inventions, the first of its kind, is a machine that tests wave energy converters without having to get them wet. A prototype buoy is secured inside a metal carriage that mimics the up-and-down motion of ocean waves. Electrical equipment monitors the power the buoy generates. The test bed looks like an elevator car in the middle of her lab.

Wave energy researchers from other institutions will be welcome to use von Jouanne’s test bed, but at the moment, it holds one of her own energy-converter buoys. A student sitting at a nearby computer commands the device to simulate waves 1 meter high traveling 0.6 meters per second with 6-second intervals between wave peaks.

“That’s a small summer wave,” von Jouanne says.

The machine hums, lurches and heaves like an amusement park ride.

As the buoy moves up and down, a gauge registers the juice it produces. The needle moves. One kilowatt, two, then three.

“That’s enough to power two houses,” says von Jouanne.

Read Full Post »

PETER ASMUS, Pike Research, June 17, 2009

wave-ocean-blue-sea-water-white-foam-photoThe earth is the water planet, so it should come as no great surprise that forms of water power have been one of the world’s most popular “renewable” energy sources. Yet the largest water power source of all – the ocean that covers three-quarters of earth – has yet to be tapped in any major way for power generation. There are three primary reasons for this:

  • 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.

Literally hundreds of technology designs from more than 100 firms are competing for attention as they push a variety emerging ocean renewable options. Most are smaller upstart firms, but a few larger players – Scottish Power, Lockheed Martin and Pacific Gas & Electric — are engaged and seeking new business opportunities in the marine renewables space. Oil companies Chevron, BP and Shell are also investing in the sector.

In the U.S., the clear frontrunner among device developers is Ocean Power Technologies (OPT). It was the first wave power company to issue successful IPOs through the London Stock Exchange’s AIM market for approximately $40 million and then another on the U.S. Stock Exchange in 2007 for $100 million. OPT has a long list of projects in the pipeline, including the first “commercial” installation in the U.S. in Reedsport, Oregon in 2010, which could lead to the first 50 MW wave farm in the U.S. A nearby site in Coos Bay, Oregon represents another potential 100 MW deployment.

While the total installed capacity of emerging “second generation” marine hydrokinetic resources – a category that includes wave, tidal stream, ocean current, ocean thermal and river hydrokinetic resources – was less than 10 MW at the end of 2008, a recent surge in interest in these new renewable options has generated a buzz, particularly in the United Kingdom, Ireland, the United States, Portugal, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and Japan, among other countries. It is expected that within the next five to eight years, these emerging technologies will become commercialized to the point that they can begin competing for a share of the burgeoning market for carbon-free and non-polluting renewable resources.

The five technologies covered in a new report by Pike Research are the following:

  • Tidal stream turbines often look suspiciously like wind turbines placed underwater. Tidal projects comprise over 90 percent of today’s marine kinetic capacity totals, but the vast majority of this installed capacity relies upon first generation “barrage” systems still relying upon storage dams.
  • Wave energy technologies more often look more like metal snakes that can span nearly 500 feet, floating on the ocean’s surface horizontally, or generators that stand erect vertically akin to a buoy. Any western coastline in the world has wave energy potential.
  • River hydrokinetic technologies are also quite similar to tidal technologies, relying on the kinetic energy of moving water, which can be enhanced by tidal flows, particularly at the mouth of a river way interacting with a sea and/or ocean.
  • Ocean current technologies are similar to tidal energy technologies, only they can tap into deeper ocean currents that are located offshore. Less developed than either tidal or wave energy, ocean current technologies, nevertheless, are attracting more attention since the resource is 24/7.
  • Ocean thermal energy technologies take a very different approach to generating electricity, capturing energy from the differences in temperature between the ocean surface and lower depths, and can also deliver power 24/7.

While there is a common perception that the U.S. and much of the industrialized world has tapped out its hydropower resources, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) disputes this claim. According to its assessment, the U.S. has the water resources to generate from 85,000 to 95,000 more megawatts (MW) from this non-carbon energy source, with 23,000 MW available by 2025. Included in this water power assessment are new emerging marine kinetic technologies. In fact, according to EPRI, ocean energy and hydrokinetic sources (which includes river hydrokinetic technologies) will nearly match conventional new hydropower at existing sites in new capacity additions in the U.S. between 2010 and 2025.

The 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% has been developed so far. The UN and World Energy Council projects 250 GW of hydropower will be developed by 2030. If marine renewables capture just 10% 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.

The demand for energy worldwide will continue to grow at a dramatic clip between 2009 and 2025, with renewable energy sources overtaking natural gas as the second largest source behind coal by 2015 (IEA, 2008). By 2015, the marine renewable market share of this renewable energy growth will still be all but invisible as far as the IEA statistics are concerned, but development up to that point in time will determine whether these sources will contribute any substantial capacity by 2025. By 2015, Pike Research shows a potential of over 22 GW of all five technologies profiled in this report could come on-line. Two of the largest projects – a 14 GW tidal barrage in the U.K. and a 2.2 GW tidal fence in the Philippines — may never materialize, and/or will not likely be on-line by that date, leaving a net potential of more than 14 GW.

By 2025, at least 25 GW of total marine renewables will be developed globally. If effective carbon regulations in the U.S. are in place by 2010, and marine renewable targets established by various European governments are met, marine renewables and river hydrokinetic technologies could provide as much as 200 GW by 2025: 115 GW wave; 57 GW tidal stream; 20 GW tidal barrage; 4 GW ocean current; 3 GW river hydrokinetic; 1 GW OTEC.

About the author: Peter Asmus is an industry analyst with Pike Research and has been covering the energy sector for 20 years. His recent report on the ocean energy sector for Pike Research is now available, and more information can be found at http://www.pikeresearch.com. His new book, Introduction to Energy in California, is now available from the University of California Press (www.peterasmus.com).

Read Full Post »

Excerpts from FRANK HARTZELL’s article in the Mendocino Beacon, June 4, 2009

13298_DIA_0_opt picOcean Power Technologies’ subsidiary California Wave Energy Partners in it’s “wave energy project proposed off Cape Mendocino has surrendered its Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) preliminary permit, making two major companies that have abandoned the area in the past two weeks.

The moves come at a time when President Obama’s energy policy has cut funding for wave energy in favor of solar and wind energy development.

The withdrawals leave GreenWave Energy Solutions LLC, with a permit off Mendocino, as the only local wave energy project.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company announced earlier this month they would not seek to develop wave energy off Fort Bragg. However, PG&E has not yet legally abandoned its FERC preliminary permit.

California Wave Energy Partners did just that on May 26, telling FERC their parent company, Ocean Power Technologies (OPT) was pulling out of California in favor of developing wave energy more seriously in Oregon.

The project was proposed near Centerville off Humboldt County, south of Eureka on the remote coast of Cape Mendocino.

“OPT subsidiaries are also developing two other projects at Coos Bay and Reedsport,” wrote Herbert Nock of OPT. “During the process of developing these projects, OPT has learned the importance of community involvement in the project definition and permitting process.

“OPT therefore feels it is in the best interests of all parties to focus its efforts (in Oregon) at this time. This will allow the time and resources necessary to responsibly develop these sites for the benefit of the coastal community and the state,” Nock wrote.

The Cape Mendocino project was to be situated in a prime wave energy spot, but with connections to the power grid still to be determined. The project was never the subject of a public meeting in Mendocino County and stayed under the radar compared to several other Humboldt County projects. PG&E still plans to develop its WaveConnect project off Eureka.

Brandi Ehlers, a PG&E spokeswoman, said PG&E plans to relinquish the preliminary permit for the Mendocino Wave Connect project soon.

She said the utility spent $75,000 on the Mendocino County portion of Wave Connect before stopping because Noyo Harbor was ill-equipped to deal with an offshore energy plant.

“PG&E is not currently pursuing applications for new FERC hydrokinetic preliminary permits, but it is important that we continue to explore other possibilities,” Ehlers said in response to a question.

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar has announced that his department will host 12 public workshops this month to discuss the newly-issued regulatory program for renewable energy development on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf.

All the meetings are to be held in large cities — in Seattle June 24, Portland on June 25, and San Francisco on June 26.

Salazar restarted the process of building a framework for energy development in the ocean, which had been started in the Bush Administration but never finished.

The new program establishes a process for granting leases, easements, and rights-of-way for offshore renewable energy projects as well as methods for sharing revenues generated from OCS renewable energy projects with adjacent coastal States. The rules for alternative energy development in the oceans become effective June 29.

Most of the actual ocean energy development figures are for the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. The Pacific Ocean’s near-shore slopes are too steep and too deep for current wind energy technology. Wave and tidal energy are still in their infancy, not seen as able to help with President Obama’s energy plan.

The Obama administration has proposed a 25% cut in the research and development budget for wave and tidal power, according to an in-depth report in the Tacoma, Wash., News Tribune.

At the same time the White House sought an 82% increase in solar power research funding, a 36% increase in wind power funding and a 14% increase in geothermal funding. But it looked to cut wave and tidal research funding from $40 million to $30 million, the News Tribune reported.

Interior’s Minerals Management Service, the agency charged with regulating renewable energy development on the Outer Continental Shelf [and specifically wind energy projects], is organizing and conducting the workshops, which will begin with a detailed presentation and then open the floor to a question and answer session. All workshops are open to the public and anyone interested in offshore renewable energy production is encouraged to participate.”

Read Full Post »

COLIN SULLIVAN, The New York Times, April 14, 2009

wave-ocean-blue-sea-water-white-foam-photoPalo Alto — Technology for tapping ocean waves, tides and rivers for electricity is far from commercial viability and lagging well behind wind, solar and other fledgling power sectors, a panel of experts said last week during a forum here on climate change and marine ecosystems.

While the potential for marine energy is great, ocean wave and tidal energy projects are still winding their way through an early research and development phase, these experts said.

“It’s basically not commercially financeable yet,” said Edwin Feo, a partner at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, during a conference at Stanford University. “They are still a long ways from getting access to the capital and being deployed, because they are simply immature technologies.”

Ocean and tidal energy are renewable sources that can be used to meet California’s renewable portfolio standard of 10 percent of electricity by 2010. But the industry has been hampered by uncertainty about environmental effects, poor economics, jurisdictional tieups and scattered progress for a handful of entrepreneurs.

Finavera Renewables, based in British Columbia, recently canceled all of its wave projects, bringing to a close what was the first permit for wave power from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. And last fall, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) denied Pacific Gas & Electric Co.’s application for a power purchase agreement with Finavera Renewables, citing the technology’s immaturity.

Roger Bedard, head of the Electric Power Research Institute’s wave power research unit, said the United States is at least five and maybe 10 years away from the first commercial project in marine waters. A buoy at a Marine Corps base in Hawaii is the only wave-powered device that has been connected to the power grid so far in the United States. The first pilot tidal project, in New York’s East River, took five years to get a permit from FERC.

Feo, who handles renewable energy project financing at his law firm, says more than 80 ocean, tidal and river technologies are being tested by start-ups that do not have much access to capital or guarantee of long-term access to their resource. That has translated into little interest from the investment community.

“Most of these companies are start-ups,” Feo said. “From a project perspective, that doesn’t work. People who put money into projects expect long-term returns.”

William Douros of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) expressed similar concerns and said agency officials have been trying to sort through early jurisdictional disputes and the development of some technologies that would “take up a lot of space on the sea floor.”

“You would think offshore wave energy projects are a given,” Douros said. “And yet, from our perspective, from within our agency, there are still a lot of questions.”

‘Really exciting times’

But the belief in marine energy is there in some quarters, prompting the Interior Department to clear up jurisdictional disputes with FERC for projects outside 3 miles from state waters. Under an agreement announced last week, Interior will issue leases for offshore wave and current energy development, while FREC will license the projects.

The agreement gives Interior’s Minerals Management Service exclusive jurisdiction over the production, transportation or transmission of energy from offshore wind and solar projects. MMS and FERC will share responsibilities for hydrokinetic projects, such as wave, tidal and ocean current.

Maurice Hill, who works on the leasing program at MMS, said the agency is developing “a comprehensive approach” to offshore energy development. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar himself has been holding regional meetings and will visit San Francisco this week to talk shop as part of that process.

Hill said MMS and the U.S. Geological Survey will issue a report within 45 days on potential development and then go public with its leasing program.

“These next couple of months are really exciting times, especially on the OCS,” he said.

Still, Hill acknowledged that the industry is in an early stage and said federal officials are approaching environmental effects especially with caution.

“We don’t know how they’ll work,” he said. “We’re testing at this stage.”

‘Highly energetic’ West Coast waves

But if projects do lurch forward, the Electric Power Research Institute’s Bedard said, the resource potential is off the charts. He believes it is possible to have 10 gigawatts of ocean wave energy online by 2025, and 3 gigawatts of river and ocean energy up in the same time frame.

The potential is greatest on the West Coast, Bedard said, where “highly energetic” waves pound the long coastline over thousands of miles. Alaska and California have the most to gain, he said, with Oregon, Washington and Hawaii not far behind.

To Feo, a key concern is the length of time MMS chooses to issue leases to developers. He said the typical MMS conditional lease time of two, three or five years won’t work for ocean wave technology because entrepreneurs need longer-term commitments to build projects and show investors the industry is here to say.

“It just won’t work” at two, three or five years, Feo said. “Sooner or later, you have to get beyond pilot projects.”

Hill refused to answer questions about the length of the leases being considered by MMS.

Read Full Post »

SUSAN CHAMBERS, The World, February 3, 2009

Coos Bay — The announcement came as a surprise to everyone.

beachpThe Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Thursday order issuing a preliminary permit for a 200- to 400-buoy wave energy project off of Newport shocked Ocean Power Technologies leaders as well as the public.

“It’s a project, a site that is not on our priority list right now,” OPT spokesman Len Bergstein said. “It was a little bit of a surprise to us in terms of timing.”

What’s different about this project is that FERC’s approval stirs up a hornet’s nest at the time OPT is trying to work with residents on the South Coast for community approval of two sites: a 10-buoy project off of Gardiner and a 200-buoy project off of the North Spit.

It also calls into question FERC’s intentions of adhering to a memorandum of understanding previously negotiated with Oregon to give the state greater siting power over wave energy projects in the territorial sea.

The approval also seems to be designed for FERC to flex authority over territory traditionally overseen by the U.S. Department of Interior’s Minerals Management Service. Both agencies have claimed the area outside of Oregon’s territorial sea, beyond three nautical miles.

Mixed Messages

As the FERC notice of approval hit residents’ e-mail inboxes late Thursday, outrage began to build.

“My concern is this sends the wrong message,” said Lincoln County District Attorney Rob Bovett. “This is high-value crab grounds, about as valuable as you get.”

OPT applied for the permit in November 2006, but let the application slide. The jurisdictional battle meant the application was going nowhere fast. OPT decided to concentrate its work on the Gardiner and Coos Bay sites, both of which are inside the territorial sea.

Bergstein said as soon as he found out about the approval, he immediately called Lincoln County Commissioner Terry Thompson and other Lincoln County folks, particularly those involved with the Fishermen Involved in Natural Energy group.

“Clearly, we have not been prompting FERC,” Bergstein said.

Bovett, who was involved in the commenting on the original OPT application, said Fishermen Involved has been working with wave energy companies to determine the best sites for development that would have the least impact on the fishing industry and local communities. This, though, was different.

“FINE wasn’t involved in the selection of this box,” Bovett said.

State vs. FERC?

Bovett’s first question was: Does the memorandum of understanding not mean anything?

In March 2008, FERC and Oregon signed a memorandum designed to “coordinate the procedures and schedules for review of wave energy projects.”

Bovett just chuckled.  According to the deal, he said, FERC wasn’t going to issue permits willy nilly. 

Some of the discrepancy over the decision to issue a preliminary permit — which allows OPT to only study the area for feasibility — may be because Oregon hasn’t finished updating its territorial sea plan. The Ocean Policy Advisory Council and the state have been working on it, but the marine reserves issue has dominated the council’s time over the past year.

“This will obviously get everybody’s attention,” Southern Oregon Ocean Resource Coalition Chairman Nick Furman said of FERC’s decision.

That’s putting it lightly.

Whereas the Reedsport and Coos Bay sites are considered by some to be ground zero as far as local communities negotiating with wave energy developers, the Newport site could be ground zero for state vs. federal and agency vs. agency jurisdiction and siting battles.

However, Bovett said, OPT holds the key right now.

The New Jersey-based wave energy developer should withdraw from  the site, he said. Otherwise, years of litigation seem likely — and courts ultimately would have the final say over which agency should be in charge of alternative energy.

“OPT can fix this,” Bovett said. “It’s exactly what they should do.”

Read Full Post »

MendoCoastCurrent, January 31, 2009

On January 26, 2009, Lockheed Martin and Ocean Power Technologies agreed to work together to develop a commercial-scale wave energy project off the coasts of Oregon or California.

OPT is providing their expertise in project and site development as they build the plant’s power take-off and control systems with their PowerBuoy for electricity generation.  Lockheed will build, integrate and deploy the plant as well as provide operating and maintenance services. Lockheed and OPT have already worked together on maritime projects for the U.S. government.

Spanish utility Iberdrola is using OPT’s PowerBuoy on the Spainish coast in Santoña for first phase deployment, hoping to become the first commercial-scale wave energy device in the world.  In the Spainish project, Lockheed and Ocean Power are working toward an increased cost-performance of a power-purchasing agreement from which this U.S. wave energy project may benefit.

Read Full Post »

Susan Chambers, The World, January 26, 2009

coos-bay-intro1Coos Bay, Oregon – Ocean Power Technologies is feeling pressure as local groups, the state and even the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission urge the company to shrink its 200-buoy Coos Bay plan.

Oregon Wave Energy Partners I, as Ocean Power Technologies, filed its notice of intent and preliminary application document with FERC in March 2008 for the 200-buoy array off the North Spit.

The Southern Oregon Ocean Resource Coalition, Oregon International Port of Coos Bay, Surfrider Foundation and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife filed comments suggesting OPT slow down. Instead of going for a full build-out, phase it in after more studies are done, they said.

The 200-buoy plan also runs counter to FERC’s own advice.

In August 2008, FERC told OPT that, “since information about the potential environmental effects of large-scale projects, such as proposed in your (preliminary application document) is limited, we believe that in most situations, smaller pilot projects are better suited for development at this time.”

The coalition also debated the length of the license, should it be granted. Like hydropower licenses, which typically are in force for between 30 and 50 years, so too are hyrokinetic licenses — those that cover wave, tidal and current energy projects.

“… it is premature to license a project of the size and scope planned off of Coos Bay, especially given the 30- to 50-year license terms being sought after,” SOORC said, noting that more studies should be done first.

OPT has said it will be a few years before even the first few buoys are in the water. OPT hasn’t yet placed one buoy in the water at Gardiner but FERC could grant a license for the Coos Bay project before any studies from the Reedsport project are completed.

ODFW, too, said more studies must be done.

“ODFW believes that the proposed project size (200 buoys) is not consistent with state’s support of experimental wave energy projects,” ODFW wrote in its comments. “A full build-out of a commercial sized project at this stage would lack the applied knowledge from studies of previous experimental projects, thus ODFW would not fully understand the potential impacts of the project in order to responsibly and thoroughly comment on a large project.”

The Port of Coos Bay reiterated Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski’s plan for the territorial sea. Last year, Kulongoski wrote to FERC that large-scale projects “must be preceded by a comprehensive evaluation for this and other uses of these waters to ensure those ocean resources and other ocean values and uses will not be harmed.”

That shows, the port said, that a small demonstration project should be allowed first, with studies over several years on impacts to the environment and coastal communities — before a full license is granted.

OPT’s vice president of Business Development and Marketing, Herb Nock, said the company expected such comments.

“It’s a range of views,” Nock said. “We came back to the public meetings and are investing the time to understand the alternative uses of the sea.”

Read Full Post »

CASSANDRA PROFITA, The Daily Astorian, January 26, 2009

In a move eagerly anticipated by liquefied natural gas opponents on the North Coast of Oregon, President Barack Obama has named Jon Wellinghoff acting chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

“The move, together with likely changes to the board’s makeup in the coming months and pending challenges to the U.S. Court of Appeals, could have consequences for the Bradwood Landing LNG project, the front-runner among three LNG proposals in Oregon.

Wellinghoff, a Democrat, was the lone dissenting vote on the Bradwood project, which was approved by FERC in a 4-1 vote in September. He replaces former chairman Joseph Kelliher, a Republican, who stepped down earlier this month but remains on the board as he looks for new job opportunities.

Wellinghoff helped establish FERC’s Energy Innovations Sector to promote new technologies and was also the main author of the renewable energy standards established in Nevada, where he served as the state’s first consumer advocate for customers of public utilities. Environmentalists expect the commission to put a higher priority on energy efficiency and renewable resources under his leadership.

“The new chairman is technically only one vote, but he does help set the agenda for the discussions and considerations of FERC,” said Peter Huhtala, executive director of the Astoria-based Columbia River Business Alliance, which is opposed to LNG. “It’s a step in the right direction, certainly.”

Wellinghoff traveled to Oregon in 2007 to talk with local and state leaders about the three LNG projects proposed in Oregon. Two proposed terminals are on the lower Columbia River and one is in Coos Bay.

“He listened to our concerns,” said Huhtala. “I felt like we were listened to, and – son of a gun – he followed up.”

Wellinghoff voted against the $650 million Bradwood Landing project, proposed for a site 20 miles east of Astoria on the Columbia River, arguing that the project developers have not proven the LNG terminal is needed to meet the region’s energy needs, that more efficient, reliable and environmentally preferable alternatives could substitute for LNG, and that “significant environmental concerns” about the project had not been fully evaluated.

Several challenges to FERC’s approval of the Bradwood project are still in the works, and two FERC board members, Kelliher and Commissioner Suedeen Kelly, whose term ends June 30 are likely to be replaced by Obama appointees in the next six months.

“It starts to get real easy to count to three, doesn’t it?” said Huhtala.

Brett VandenHeuvel, executive director of the LNG opponent group Columbia Riverkeeper, said by the time the Bradwood project developers have met more than 100 conditions placed on the September approval, the board may have a different opinion of what meets federal regulations.

“Bradwood is far from meeting its conditions and far from getting its approval to start construction,” he said. “FERC’s approval says there can’t be any construction, any action, until they get final approval from FERC after satisfying all the conditions. We expect FERC to look at Bradwood with a more critical eye when determining the conditions.”

Columbia Riverkeeper and Gov. Ted Kulongoski are both planning to file a challenge to FERC’s approval of the Bradwood project at the U.S. Court of Appeals this week. The state of Washington and regional tribes may file similar challenges, as well.

If the court overturns the Bradwood approval, FERC will have to revisit the case and may even be forced to redo the environmental assessment of the project.

“With a new chair, new FERC members and a decision from the court rejecting FERC’s initial approval, we may very well get a different answer,” said VandenHeuvel.

Read Full Post »

MendoCoastCurrent, January 7, 2009

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Joseph T. Kelliher today issued the following statement:

Today I announce my intention to step down as chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), effective January 20, 2009. Although my term as commissioner does not end until 2012, I will also immediately begin to recuse myself from FERC business, as I explore other career opportunities.  

Read Full Post »

MendoCoastCurrent, December 15, 2008

opt2Ocean Power Technologies (OPT) recently reported quarterly financials and also recent developments:

– Deployed and tested a PowerBuoy off the coast of Spain under the wave power contract with Iberdrola

– Awarded $2.0 million from the US Department of Energy in support of OPT’s wave power project in Reedsport, Oregon

– Deployed and tested a PowerBuoy for the US Navy at a site off Marine Corps Base Hawaii, on the island of Oahu

– Ocean-tested 70 miles off the coast of New Jersey an autonomous PowerBuoy developed specifically for the US Navy’s ocean data gathering program

– Awarded $3.0 million contract from the US Navy for the second phase of their ocean data gathering program

– US Congress passes bill which provides for wave power to qualify for the US production tax credit

Dr. George Taylor, OPT’s CEO, said, “We have maintained the positive momentum with which we began the 2009 fiscal year, and have made significant progress under a number of contracts during the quarter, most notably with the US Navy and Iberdrola. In September, we deployed a PB40-rated PowerBuoy in Spain under our contract with Iberdrola, one of the world’s largest renewable energy companies. OPT also tested one of its autonomous PowerBuoy systems off the coast of New Jersey in October, under contract from the US Navy in connection with the Navy’s Deep Water Active Detection System (“DWADS”) initiative. We ended the second quarter with a PowerBuoy deployment for the US Navy in Hawaii. We have also furthered our relationship with this significant partner and announced a $3.0 million contract for participation in the second phase of the US Navy’s DWADS program.”

“We expect that the US Government’s recent expansion of the production tax credit to now include wave energy will help better position OPT competitively in the alternative energy arena. We are also gratified by signs that the Obama administration in the United States is keen on leveraging renewable energy sources as commercial sources of energy for the country. The $2.0 million award we received this quarter from the Department of Energy, in support of our work in Reedsport, Oregon, is reflective of the US Government’s support for wave energy,” Dr. Taylor concluded.

More about OPT

OPT has seen strong demand for wave energy systems as evidenced by record levels of contract order backlog, currently at $8.0 million. OPT continues to make steady progress on development of the 150 kW-rated PowerBuoy (PB150), which comprises a significant portion of our current backlog. The design of the PB150 structure is on track to be completed by the end of calendar year 2008, and is expected to be ready for complete system testing in 2009. OPT continues to work actively with an independent engineering group to attain certification of the 150 kW PowerBuoy structure design.

OPT’s patent portfolio continues to grow as one new US patent was issued during the second quarter of fiscal year 2009. The Company’s technology base now includes a total of 39 issued US patents.

During the second quarter of fiscal 2009, the Company announced that it expects to benefit from the energy production tax credit provision of the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008. Production tax credit provisions which were already in place served only to benefit other renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. The Act will, for the first time, enable owners of wave power projects in the US to receive federal production tax credits, thereby improving the comparative economics of wave power as a renewable energy source.

OPT is involved in wave energy projects worldwide:

REEDSPORT, OREGON, US – OPT received a $2.0 million award from the US Department of Energy (DoE), in support of OPT’s wave power project in Reedsport, Oregon. The DoE grant will be used to help fund the fabrication, assembly and factory testing of the first PowerBuoy to be installed at the Reedsport site. This system will be a 150 kW-rated PB150 PowerBuoy, major portions of which will be fabricated and integrated in Oregon. OPT is working closely with interested stakeholder groups at local, county and state agency levels while also making steady progress on the overall permitting and licensing process.

SPAIN – OPT deployed and tested its first commercial PowerBuoy under contract with Iberdrola S.A., one of the world’s largest renewable energy companies, and its partners, at a site approximately three miles off the coast of Santona, Spain. The enhanced PB40 PowerBuoy, which incorporates OPT’s patented wave power technology, is the first step of what is expected to be a utility-grade OPT wave power station to be built-out in a later phase of the project.

ORKNEY ISLANDS, UK – OPT is working under a contract with the Scottish Government at the European Marine Energy Centre (“EMEC”) in the Orkney Islands, Scotland to deploy a 150 kW PowerBuoy. OPT is currently working on building the power conversion and power take-off sub-assemblies. The Company is also reviewing prospective suppliers for manufacturing of the PowerBuoy, which is on track to be ready for deployment by the end of calendar year 2009. As part of its agreement with EMEC, OPT has the right to sell power to the grid up to the 2MW berth capacity limit, at favorable marine energy prices.

CORNWALL, UK –The “Wave Hub” project developer, South West of England Regional Development Agency (“SWRDA”), recently appointed an engineering contractor to manage the construction of the “Wave Hub” marine energy test site. SWRDA has forecasted that the Wave Hub connections, cabling and grid connection infrastructure will be completed by the end of the 2010 calendar year. OPT continues to work with SWRDA and is monitoring its progress in developing the project site.

HAWAII, US – OPT deployed its PowerBuoy systems near Kaneohe Bay on the island of Oahu. The PowerBuoy was launched under OPT’s on-going program with the US Navy at a site off Marine Corps Base Hawaii and will be connected to the Oahu power grid.

US NAVY DEEP OCEAN APPLICATION – OPT tested one of its autonomous PowerBuoy systems 70 miles off the coast of New Jersey. The PowerBuoy was constructed under contract from the US Navy in connection with the Navy’s DWADS initiative, a unique program for deep ocean data gathering. The Company received a $3.0 million contract award for the second phase of the program, which is for the ocean testing of an advanced version of the autonomous PowerBuoy.

Read Full Post »

MICHELLE MA, Seattle Times, November 17, 2008

What started out as a mad dash to extract energy from the ocean’s waves and tides has slowed to a marathoner’s pace — complete with a few water breaks and sprained ankles along the way.

In the past three years, more than 100 preliminary permits have been issued nationally for wave and tidal energy projects, and nearly 100 more are pending approval. But only one has won a license to operate — a small wave energy development off Washington’s northwest coast.

That project is still awaiting state and federal permits, and its British Columbia-based developer, Finavera Renewables, doesn’t know when the first devices will go in the water. It doesn’t help that a wave power buoy the company was testing off the Oregon coast unexpectedly sank last year.

Tapping the power of waves and tidal currents to generate electricity is promoted as one of many promising alternatives to the fossil fuels that contribute to global warming.

But no one knows exactly how the technologies will behave in the water, whether animals will get hurt, or if costs will pencil out. The permitting process is expensive and cumbersome, and no set method exists for getting projects up and running.

“The industry is really young, and everything is hodgepodged right now,” said Jim Thomson, an oceanographer at the University of Washington’s Applied Physics Lab who is involved in tidal research.

A new report that collected findings from dozens of scientists raises concerns about the impact wave energy developments could have on the ocean and its critters. Wave energy buoys could alter the food chain or disrupt migrations, the report says.

Still, developers, regulators and researchers are moving forward. A 2.25-megawatt project off the coast of Portugal went on line this fall, becoming the world’s first commercial wave energy development in operation. It can supply 1,500 households with electricity.

The first commercial wave energy park in the U.S. could go in off Reedsport, Ore., within the next two years.

Tidal energy has yet to go commercial, but devices have been tested in Ireland and Canada. Turbines have been placed in New York’s East River, and a demonstration project is planned for the Bay of Fundy off Northeastern U.S.

In the Northwest, the Snohomish County Public Utility District (PUD) has narrowed its search for tidal power sites in Puget Sound, although the PUD doesn’t expect to have a test project in the water for another two years.

Race to develop

Dozens of developers have staked claim to plots in the ocean and in waterways that could provide wave and tidal energy. But despite the jostle for space, getting projects off dry land has proved difficult.

Wave power generators use the up-and-down motion of the ocean’s swells to produce electricity. Tidal generators act like underwater windmills, spinning as the tides move in and out.

To get small projects in the water quicker federal regulators recently created a five-year pilot license for tidal and wave developments. That’s meant to help developers gather data they need to launch future projects, said Federal Energy Regulatory Commission spokeswoman Celeste Miller.

Yet even with a more streamlined process, no one has applied for the pilot license, Miller said. Finavera received its license for the 1-megawatt Makah Bay wave project before this option became available.

Given the unknowns in a young industry, it’s not surprising projects are taking longer than some developers would like, said Myke Clark, senior vice president of business development for Finavera.

His company encountered another hurdle when Pacific Gas and Electric’s agreement to buy power from a planned Finavera wave energy project off California was rejected last month by the state’s Public Utilities Commission.

Regulators said the rates were too high and the buoy technology not yet ready.

Clark said the decision wouldn’t affect Finavera’s Makah Bay project.

Research under way

Researchers from the University of Washington and Oregon State University hope that a new national marine renewable energy research center in the Northwest will help answer questions about tidal and wave energy.

A federal grant provides $1.25 million annually for up to five years. The UW will continue research on tidal energy in Puget Sound, while OSU will focus on wave energy.

“The feeling is that a lot of questions being asked now are only questions that can be answered with a responsible pilot [project],” said Brian Polagye, who is pursuing his doctorate in mechanical engineering at the UW.

Locally, researchers want to see where marine life in Puget Sound congregates and to create a standard way to evaluate sites around the country to determine which would be good candidates for tidal energy projects.

Admiralty Inlet, between Whidbey Island and Port Townsend, is the likely spot for the Snohomish County PUD’s small test project set to launch at least two years from now, said Craig Collar, the PUD’s senior manager of energy resource development.

The inlet’s tides are strong, and the area is large enough to accommodate a tidal project without interfering with other activities such as diving and ferry traffic.

Finavera wants to install four wave energy buoys in Makah Bay in the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary to test its technology. Developers also plan to monitor the project for effects on wildlife and shoreline habitat, keeping an eye on federally listed species such as the marbled murrelet, a small bird that dives for food.

Finavera doesn’t intend to continue the project after its five-year license expires. Still, if the company can negotiate a purchasing agreement with the Clallam County Public Utility District, homes in the area could use the wave generated power while the project is in the water, Clark said.

The Makah Nation wants to see what effect the project might have on the environment before deciding whether wave energy is a viable long-term option, said Ryland Bowechop, tourism and economic-development planner for the tribe.

The buoys would sit just offshore from the tribal headquarters in Neah Bay.

“We are always concerned because our livelihood is the ocean,” Bowechop said.

Concerns linger

The environmental effects of wave and tidal energy are largely unknown and require more studies, dozens of scientists concluded after meeting a year ago at OSU’s Hatfield Marine Science Center in Newport, Ore.

The group was concerned that electromagnetic cables on the ocean floor could affect sea life, and that buoys could interfere with whale and fish migration.

Large buoys might actually attract more fish, but the marine ecosystem could be altered if more predators move in. Buoys also could disrupt natural currents and change how sediment is moved. Shorelines might be affected as energy is taken from the waves.

Even if environmental concerns are checked, costs to extract the power remain high. Wave energy costs at least 20 cents per kilowatt hour to generate, compared with 4 cents per kilowatt hour for wind power, said Annette von Jouanne, leader of OSU’s wave energy program. Wind energy used to be much more expensive 20 years ago.

In comparison, coal-generated power costs about 5 cents per kilowatt hour, and power from dams can be as low as 3 cents, said Roger Bedard, ocean energy leader with the nonprofit Electric Power Research Institute.

Tidal energy costs are harder to determine because there aren’t any projects trying to sell electricity, Bedard said.

Fishermen have their own worries. They fear that wave and tidal projects could further reduce access to fishing grounds, said Dale Beasley, a commercial fisherman in Ilwaco, Pacific County, and president of the Columbia River Crab Fisherman’s Association.

“There’s so many things coming at the ocean right now,” he said.

Beasley says the industry wants a say in how wave and tidal energy projects are developed.

“Coastal communities are going to have to figure out a way to deal with this, and if they don’t, the character of the coast will change dramatically,” he said.

Read Full Post »

TERRY DILLMAN, South Lincoln County News, September 23, 2008

Oregon’s emergence as a national leader in developing wave energy technology crested Thursday, when the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced grant support to establish the Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center at Oregon State University’s Hatfield Marine Science Center (HMSC) in Newport.

The agency selected 14 research teams to receive as much as $7.3 million -representing a cost-shared value of more than $18 million – for projects to “advance commercial viability, cost-competitiveness, and market acceptance of new technologies that can harness renewable energy from oceans and rivers.” It’s part of the federal Advanced Energy Initiative designed to dramatically boost clean-energy research funding to develop cleaner, reliable alternative energy sources that cost less. The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) signed into law in December 2007 authorizes DOE to establish a program of research, development, demonstration, and commercial application to expand marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy production.

“Wave, tidal, and current-driven hydro power is an important clean, natural, and domestic energy source that will promote energy security, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” John Mizroch, acting assistant secretary of energy efficiency and renewable energy, noted in announcing the selections.

A merit review committee of national and international water power experts made the selections. Two awards of up to $1.25 million in annual funding, renewable for up to five years, went to establishing marine energy centers.

One went to the University of Hawaii in Honolulu for the National Renewable Marine Energy Center.

The other went to OSU and the University of Washington to establish the Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center at HMSC, with “a full range of capabilities to support wave and tidal energy development” for the nation. DOE officials want the center to “facilitate commercialization, inform regulatory and policy decisions, and close key gaps in understanding.”

The federal grant will add to funding from the Oregon legislature, OSU, the Oregon Wave Energy Trust (OWET), the University of Washington and other sources to bring in $13.5 million in five years to – according to Robert Paasch, the interim program director for the new center – “help move the generation of energy from waves, ocean currents and tides from the laboratory to part of the nation’s alternative energy future.”

The main effort is to build a floating “berth” to test wave energy technology off the Oregon coast near Newport, as well as fund extensive environmental impact studies, community outreach, and other initiatives.

“This is just the beginning,” Paasch added. “There’s still a lot of work to do on the technology, testing, and environmental studies. But we have no doubt that this technology will work, that wave energy can become an important contributor to energy independence for the United States.”

Oregon can now lead those efforts, thanks to involvement by numerous partners.

The state legislature committed $3 million in capital funding to help create the new wave energy test center.

OWET – a private, not-for-profit organization founded in 2007 and funded by Oregon Inc. to be an integral part of the state’s effort to become the leader in renewable wave energy development – has provided $250,000 in funding, and is working to coordinate support from government agencies, private industry, fishing, environmental, and community groups.

OWET’s goal is to have ocean wave energy producing at least 500 megawatts of energy by 2025 for Oregon consumption.

The University of Washington has committed funding support and will take the lead role in innovative research on tidal and ocean current energy. The National Renewable Energy Center in Golden, Colo., will support studies on how to integrate wave energy into the larger power grid, and help it take its place next to other alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar.

Lincoln County officials immersed themselves in the effort from the outset. OSU’s wave energy test site is off county shores, and groups such as the Newport-based FINE – Fisherman Involved in Natural Energy – are active in providing input and advice from coastal constituencies.

“Oregon is now the unquestioned national leader in marine renewable energy,” Paasch said. “But as this technology is still in its infancy, we want to get things right the first time. We need extensive research on environmental impacts, we need to work with community groups and fishermen, and we need our decisions to be based on sound science as we move forward.”

OSU’s College of Engineering, College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences and Hatfield Marine Science Center will lead technology development, as well as diverse research programs on possible environmental impacts on the wave resource, shores, marine mammals and other marine life.

Construction of the new floating test berth should begin in 2010, Paasch said, after design, engineering work and permits have been completed. The facility will open on a fee basis to private industry groups that want to test their technology, and will provide detailed power analysis, as well as a method to dissipate the power.

“When complete, we’ll be able to test devices, see exactly how much power they generate and be able to assess their environmental impact, using technologies such as the OSU Marine Radar Wave Imaging System and on-site wave sensors,” Paasch

OSU will also continue its own research on wave energy technology led by Annette von Jouanne, professor of electrical engineering.

The university is working closely with private industry partners, recently finished a linear test bed to do preliminary testing of new technology on the OSU campus, and will test prototypes that OSU researchers consider as having the best combination of power production, efficiency and durability. In 2007, the university hosted a workshop to begin looking at the potential ecological implications of establishing wave energy parks along the West Coast. On-going research will continue to ponder that and many other questions.  Much of that research will take place at HMSC.

Read Full Post »

MendoCoastCurrent, October 13, 2008

osuA new prototype of a wave energy device being developed by Oregon State University and Columbia Power Technologies was successfully tested last month in the ocean off Newport, Oregon, providing valuable data and moving the research program closer to commercialization.

In a $1 million research effort during the past year, 18 different “direct drive” wave energy technologies have been evaluated, five of the most promising selected from that group, and one approach has now been tested in the ocean. The work has been a collaboration of OSU, Columbia Power Technologies and the Facilities Engineering Command of the U.S. Navy.

“Our latest test went exceedingly well,” said Ted Brekken, an assistant professor of electrical engineering at OSU. “The buoy produced significant power, the hydrodynamic behavior fit our expectations and design, the placement and deployment went smoothly and we got a large amount of data to further evaluate. The Columbia Power Technologies and OSU team did a tremendous job in this collaborative effort.”

There are different approaches towards tapping the power of heaving ocean swells, scientists say, but OSU is focused on a direct drive technology that eliminates the need for hydraulic systems and may be more efficient and durable in a rugged ocean environment.

According to Annette von Jouanne, an OSU professor of electrical engineering, one approach may ultimately become the most dominant in this emerging alternative energy industry, as has been the case with wind power. However, different systems may work better depending on the application, she said.

“We may find that the best system is different depending on the need for low, mid-range or high power production,” von Jouanne said. “One might work best for commercial wave parks, while others could be better suited to local use by coastal communities or even small power devices that run sensors or self-powered buoys.”

In use, wave buoys might range widely in size, from a couple of feet to large commercial devices that are as much as 50 feet wide and 100 feet long, probably in a cylindrical shape, Brekken said. The above water portion of the buoy would be similar in size and visibility to a small boat. Researchers envision that energy production devices might have a lifespan of about 20 years with regular maintenance, similar to existing wind energy systems.

OSU is working in several areas of wave energy development, including new technologies, assessments of the potential biological or environmental impacts, site evaluations and outreach to coastal communities and interest groups.

In September, officials also announced funding support for a new Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center, to be based at the OSU Hatfield Marine Science Center, with a total of $13.5 million in funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, Oregon legislature, OSU, the Oregon Wave Energy Trust, the University of Washington and other sources. A key part of this initiative will be creation of a wave energy test facility near Newport that would be available to academic researchers as well as private industry.

Experts have estimated that the electrical power available in the U.S. from wave energy might be similar to that of hydroelectric energy, and as such could become a significant part of a sustainable energy future. In Oregon, based on the amount of ocean space that is being considered for use in wave energy “parks,” it could be possible to supply as much as 10% of Oregon’s energy needs, Brekken said.

Further research is needed to address issues such as buoy spacing and placement, but a wave park that could produce 50-100 megawatts of electrical power might be about three miles long and one mile deep, Brekken said, or three square miles. It’s been suggested that Oregon might develop about seven wave parks. If buoys were placed in the areas between the offshore area from one to three miles off the state’s 300-mile-long coast, the space needed for seven energy production parks would be about one-third of 1% of this 600-square-mile area.

Continued research will further refine the optimal energy production and buoy technology, experts say, as well as methods to scale it up in size for commercial use, monitor its maintenance needs and reliability, and other issues.

Read Full Post »

ISABEL ORDONEZ, Dow Jones News Service, October 6, 2008

Surfers aren’t the only ones itching to jump in the water and catch some big waves.

Dozens of companies, from oil giant Chevron Corp. to smaller firms like Ocean Power Technologies Inc., have invested in or are evaluating the potential of technology designed to harness electrical energy from waves, tides and currents.

Ocean Power, of Pennington, N.J., and Verdant Power Inc., of New York, are among the firms that already have built or plan to build wave and tidal power stations in oceans or adjacent waters. Others, such as Chevron, are seeking government approval to study the feasibility of such projects. All are in a race to harness what some scientists contend is among the nation’s largest unexploited sources of renewable energy.

“Chevron is monitoring ocean energy technology and considering how it might be integrated into our operations,” says Kim Copelin, a spokeswoman for the San Ramon, Calif., company, which is seeking a permit from the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission to start researching a possible tidal-power project in Alaska’s Cook Inlet.

These projects represent a rebirth of interest in the ocean and other waters as a source of energy, which intensified during the 1970s oil crises but fizzled in the 1980s when the price of oil dropped. Now, with concerns growing about global climate change, foreign oil dependency and rising commodity prices, companies and governments are taking another look.

Ocean-energy technology is in its infancy, and big hurdles to its widespread use remain. Among them: figuring out how to economically produce power on a large scale without harming marine life, and navigating a permitting process that companies say is lengthy and cumbersome but that some government agencies say is necessary to protect the environment.

Despite the hurdles, supporters believe there is an abundance of energy sitting off the U.S. coast just waiting to be tapped. While the amount of energy currently being produced by ocean-energy projects is minuscule, the Electric Power Research Institute — the research arm of U.S. utility companies — estimates that oceans eventually could supply about 10% of the electricity consumed in the U.S.

“Oceans are an enormous resource that should be seriously considered as part of the U.S. renewable energy portfolio,” says Sean O’Neill, president of the Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition, a national trade organization. Oceans “have waves, tides, currents, even offshore winds that don’t need to compete for precious land resources to generate plenty of electricity.”

Predictability of Tides

Companies are using a variety of devices to create electricity from moving water.

Ocean Power, for example, uses a network of buoys. The up-and-down movement of the ocean’s waves is converted into hydraulic pressure by pistons and cylinders located inside the buoys. That pressure spins a turbine, which turns a generator. The resulting electricity is sent ashore via an underwater cable. The company has a contract with the U.S. Navy to install and test its devices off the Marine Corps base at Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii. It also is working with a utility company in California and Oregon to build four wave-power stations, pending federal approvals.

verdantVerdant Power, meanwhile, produces power for a supermarket and parking lot using six underwater turbines in New York’s East River. The movement of water from the river’s tides turns blades on the turbines, creating a rotary motion that runs a generator. The company says it has a list of customers waiting for it to get the necessary approval to start generating electricity on a larger scale.

The prime territory in the U.S. to harvest energy from wave power is in the Pacific Ocean, off the coasts of Hawaii, Alaska, Oregon, Washington and northern and central California. The optimum spot for tapping into ocean currents, which are steady flows of water going in a prevailing direction, is off the shores of south Florida, while parts of the Alaska coastline, including the upper Cook Inlet around Anchorage, have some of the strongest tides in the world. The edges of Maine, New York, San Francisco and Washington state’s Puget Sound also look to be ideal for tidal energy, researchers say.

Tidal energy is drawing special interest because, though intermittent, it is more predictable than wind, solar or wave energy. While those energy sources rely on the weather, tides depend on the position of the sun, Earth and moon and gravitational forces that can be accurately predicted years in advance, says Roger Bedard, ocean energy leader at the nonprofit Electric Power Research Institute.

Regulatory Jockeying

New York, Maine, Alaska and other coastal states are investing in ocean energy projects, as is the U.S. Department of Energy, which spent $7.5 million in fiscal 2008 and could spend as much as $35 million in fiscal 2009 to help advance the viability and cost competitiveness of ocean water driven power systems.

“We need everything we can get to try to address energy supply issues,” says Steven Chalk, deputy assistant secretary for renewable energy at the Department of Energy. “If we have a true supply diversification, we will be less vulnerable to, say, rising oil prices.”

But proponents of ocean energy say private investment is being deterred by what they call an overly lengthy and complicated permitting process. Companies sometimes need more than 20 local, state and federal regulatory permits to start ocean energy research, says Mr. O’Neill of the Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition. As an example, Verdant Energy says it has spent more than $2 million on environmental research and waited more than five years to get to the final stages of obtaining the permits it needs to install more underwater turbines and produce electricity on a larger scale.

“In a perfect world, the U.S. will have a fast way to deal with new emerging technologies that allow companies to get into the water and start testing how efficient the equipment is and to measure the environmental impacts,” says Mr. O’Neill. “But that is just a dream.”

The projects facing the biggest logjams are those proposed for federal waters on the outer continental shelf, which generally begins three miles beyond the U.S. shoreline. Companies interested in generating energy from that part of the ocean need approval from both the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission — the U.S. agency that regulates interstate natural gas and electricity transactions — and the U.S. Minerals Management Service, a branch of the Interior Department that oversees offshore energy development.

An effort to end what many companies say is a jurisdictional overlap was unsuccessful, and last month, the Minerals Management Service unveiled a set of proposed permitting rules, including environmental regulations, that it expects to have in place by later this year.

Mark Robinson, director of the office of energy projects at FERC, says his agency believes the Minerals Management Service’s proposed process is too long and costly and “will work to the disadvantage of an industry” that is trying to get on its feet.

The Minerals Management Service says that it is still evaluating comments on its proposed rules but that it has two main responsibilities when it comes to offshore energy production: securing the nation’s energy resources and protecting the environment. “We take both very seriously,” says David Smith, the agency’s deputy chief of public affairs. “We work to try to find that balance.”

In the meantime, the Minerals Management Service is granting interim leases that allow companies to test the energy potential in various spots in the ocean. More than 10 companies have obtained interim leases to begin work along the coasts of Delaware, New Jersey, Georgia, Florida and California. Still, there are no guarantees that those businesses will be able to obtain approval to work the patches of ocean they are researching.

Moving Too Fast?

Ocean-energy projects are also making surfers and fishermen nervous. Those groups say they want to be consulted on any proposed projects because the impact on ocean recreation, ecology, public safety and fishing remains mostly unknown.

“What we want is that any company who wants to put a project in waters used by commercial fishermen contact the local fishermen group and work with them so they don’t harm the fishing industry,” says Linda Buell of the Fisherman’s Advisory Committee of Tillamook, a large coastal county in Oregon. “Nothing right now is written into the rules.”

Marine scientists, meanwhile, want more research done on the unintended consequences that large ocean-energy structures could have on marine organisms. These structures could possibly conflict with migratory pathways of great whales, says George Boehlert, director of the Hatfield Marine Science Center at Oregon State University. “But this is largely unknown,” he says.

Read Full Post »

KATE GALBRAITH, The New York Times, September 23, 2008

For years, technological visionaries have painted a seductive vision of using ocean tides and waves to produce power. They foresee large installations off the coast and in tidal estuaries that could provide as much as 10% of the nation’s electricity.

But the technical difficulties of making such systems work are proving formidable. Last year, a wave-power machine sank off the Oregon coast. Blades have broken off experimental tidal turbines in New York’s turbulent East River. Problems with offshore moorings have slowed the deployment of snakelike generating machines in the ocean off Portugal.

Years of such problems have discouraged ocean-power visionaries, but have not stopped them. Lately, spurred by rising costs for electricity and for the coal and other fossil fuels used to produce it, they are making a new push to overcome the barriers blocking this type of renewable energy.

The Scottish company Pelamis Wave Power plans to turn on a small wave-energy farm — the world’s first — off the coast of Portugal by year’s end, after fixing the broken moorings. Finavera Renewables, a Canadian company that recently salvaged its sunken, $2.5 million Oregon wave-power machine, has signed an agreement with Pacific Gas & Electric to produce power off the California coast by 2012. And in the East River, just off Manhattan, two newly placed turbines with tougher blades and rotors are feeding electricity into a grocery store and parking garage on Roosevelt Island.

“It’s frustrating sometimes as an ocean energy company to say, yeah, your device sank,” said Jason Bak, chief executive of Finavera. “But that is technology development.”

Roughly 100 small companies around the world are working on converting the sea’s power to electricity. Many operate in Europe, where governments have pumped money into the industry. Companies and governments alike are betting that over time, costs will come down. Right now, however, little electricity is being generated from the ocean except at scattered test sites around the world.

The East River — despite its name, it is really a tidal strait with powerful currents — is the site of the most advanced test project in the United States.

Verdant Power, the company that operates it, was forced to spend several years and millions of dollars mired in a slow permit process, even before its turbine blades broke off in the currents. The company believes it is getting a handle on the problems. Verdant is trying to perfect its turbines and then install 30 of them in the East River, starting no later than spring 2010, and to develop other sites in Canada and on the West Coast.

Plenty of other start-ups also plan commercial ocean-power plants, at offshore sites such as Portugal, Oregon and Wales, but none have been built.

Ocean-power technology splits into two broad categories, tidal and wave power. Wave power, of the sort Finavera is pursuing, entails using the up and down motions of the waves to generate electricity. Tidal power — Verdant’s province — involves harnessing the action of the tides with underwater turbines, which twirl like wind machines.

(Decades-old tidal technologies in France and Canada use barrage systems that trap water at high tide; they are far larger and more obtrusive than the new, below-waterline technologies.)

A third type of power, called ocean thermal, aims to exploit temperature differences between the surface and deep ocean, mainly applicable in the tropics.

Ocean power has more potential than wind power because water is about 850 times denser than air, and therefore packs far more energy. The ocean’s waves, tides and currents are also more predictable than the wind.

The drawback is that seawater can batter and corrode machinery, and costly undersea cables may be needed to bring the power to shore. And the machines are expensive to build: Pelamis has had to raise the equivalent of $77 million.

Many solar start-ups, by contrast, need as little as $5 million to build a prototype, said Martin Lagod, co-founder of Firelake Capital Management, a Silicon Valley investment firm. Mr. Lagod looked at investing in ocean power a few years ago and decided against it because of the long time horizons and large capital requirements.

General Electric, which builds wind turbines, solar panels and other equipment for virtually every other type of energy, has stayed clear of ocean energy. “At this time, these sources do not appear to be competitive with more scalable alternatives like wind and solar,” said Daniel Nelson, a G.E. spokesman, in an e-mail message. (An arm of G.E. has made a small investment in Pelamis.)

Worldwide, venture capital going to ocean-power companies has risen from $8 million in 2005 to $82 million last year, according to the Cleantech Group, a research firm. However, that is a tiny fraction of the money pouring into solar energy and biofuels.

This month the Energy Department doled out its first major Congressionally-funded grants since 1992 to ocean-power companies, including Verdant and Lockheed Martin, which is studying ocean thermal approaches.

Assuming that commercial ocean-power farms are eventually built, the power is likely to be costly, especially in the near term. A recent study commissioned by the San Francisco Public Utility Commission put the cost of harnessing the Golden Gate’s tides at 85 cents to $1.40 a kilowatt-hour, or roughly 10 times the cost of wind power. San Francisco plans to forge ahead regardless.

Other hurdles abound, including sticky environmental and aesthetic questions. In Oregon, crabbers worry that the wave farm proposed by Ocean Power Technologies, a New Jersey company, would interfere with their prime crabbing grounds.

“It’s right where every year we deploy 115,000 to 120,000 crab pots off the coast for an eight-month period to harvest crab,” said Nick Furman, executive director of the Oregon Dungeness Crab Commission. The commission wants to support renewable energy, but “we’re kind of struggling with that,” Mr. Furman said

George Taylor, chief executive of Ocean Power Technologies, said he did not expect “there will be a problem with the crabs.”

In Washington State, where a utility is studying the possibility of installing tidal power at the Admiralty Inlet entrance to Puget Sound, scuba divers are worried, even as they recognize the need for clean power.

Said Mike Racine, president of the Washington Scuba Alliance: “We don’t want to be dodging turbine blades, right?”

Read Full Post »

MendoCoastCurrent, September 9, 2008

Fort Bragg, California City Council has filed a lawsuit against the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in the Washington D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Concerns escalated last August when FERC denied Fort Bragg’s second request for a rehearing on FERC’s national licensing policies for wave energy or hydrokinetic energy projects. The community stakeholders, Fort Bragg, Mendocino County, Lincoln County (Oregon) and Fishermen Interested in Safe Hydrokinetics (FISH), were also denied rehearing by FERC. Under the Federal Power Act, there are no administrative appeals left and the only recourse is a lawsuit.

Fort Bragg contests FERC’s energy development process for national licensing of wave energy projects, including the proposed Pacific Gas & Electric wave energy pilot project off the coast of Fort Bragg.

The contested policies were established in two informal documents issued by FERC in April 2008 entitled Staff Guidance on Hydrokinetic Pilot Procedures” and “Staff FAQs on Conditional Licenses.”

Fort Bragg contends that FERC established these policies without complying with a number of federal laws including the Coastal Zone Management Act, Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.

Read Full Post »

US Air Force Academy, Air Force Link, August 20, 2008

The next source of alternative energy could come from ocean waves, and Air Force Academy professors have been granted funding to dive into this research.

The National Science Foundation has awarded the Academy’s Aeronautics Department $285,619 to support a cyclodial propeller wave energy converter research project to harness the ocean’s power.

The concept of ocean waves turning power-generating turbines is simple — put propellers underwater, then let the motion of incoming and outgoing waves, along with tidal currents turn the propellers and turbines to crank out electricity. But making those turbines efficient, effective and survivable in both shallow and deep water is what has prevented large-scale application in harnessing wave energy.

But the Academy’s Aeronautics Department might be able to solve these problems. Years of research on military aircraft have given Aeronautics researchers the rare and necessary expertise in feedback flow control and fluid dynamics to potentially harness wave energy to meet the nation’s growing power needs.

The Aeronautics Department will partner with Oregon State University to use their wave tunnel for some of the experimental side of this research project. Through both computational and experimental research, the Academy will pursue development of a wave energy converter based on cycloidal propellers, like those used on tug boats. These propellers’ main advantage is the ability to produce thrust in any direction perpendicular to the propeller shaft.

This project investigates the use of cycloidal propellers for energy extraction from unsteady flow fields created by both deep and shallow water waves. Both of the three-dimensional flows are a challenge to energy conversion devices since they provide a flow field that fluctuates in time.

Historically, wave energy converters have some drawbacks, one being the need for some kind of mooring to the ocean floor, which increases the cost of the device, as well as susceptibility to damage from storms. The cycloidal propeller based wave energy converters investigated in this project has the potential to overcome this and other problems of conventional wave energy converters, such as scalability to large power levels and efficiency of energy conversion.

“Wave power has the potential to provide a large portion of the world’s electric energy needs, if it can be tapped in an efficient way,” said Dr. Stefan Siegel, who will oversee this research project.

Cadets will also catch this wave, performing the basic research as part of the Aeronautics 471 class during their senior year.

This project, which is funded through 2011, is part of a broader Air Force effort to address energy related issues and to support renewable alternative energies research.

Read Full Post »

TERRY DILLMAN, Newport News-Times, July 25, 2008

It sank to the bottom in 150 feet of water just one day before its planned retrieval. After nine months of waiting for the right weather and ocean conditions, divers and salvage vessels are currently on site to assist in the rebirth of a 75-foot, 40-ton wave energy buoy.

Developed by Finavera Renewables based in Vancouver, British Columbia, and built by Portland-based Oregon Iron Works, the Sept. 6, 2007 deployment of the Aquabuoy 2.0 wave energy converter – the first-ever wave energy test device off the Oregon coast – generated enthusiasm that has never waned, despite the Oct. 28 plunge into the ocean’s nether land. At the time, Finavera spokesman Myke Clark said engineers had gleaned plenty of data via wireless and satellite technology from onboard diagnostic equipment powered by solar panels and small wind turbines on the buoy.

“It performed exactly as we thought it would perform,” he noted.

Except for the sinking, the cause of which remains uncertain. The buoy began taking on water, and the bilge pump failed just one day before engineers were set to tow it back to shore. Finavera crews removed the anchor, mooring lines, tackle, and related paraphernalia, but had to leave the $2 million piece of technology itself resting on the ocean floor beneath the surface of the Oregon State University (OSU) wave energy test site located about 2.5 miles off the shores of Agate Beach.

Harsh weather and ocean conditions wiped out any hope of retrieving the buoy until now, despite everyone’s best efforts to recover it sooner.

Finavera officials notified everyone concerned as soon as they discovered the buoy’s disappearance, including Fishermen Involved in Natural Energy (FINE), a local advisory panel established in February 2007 by the Lincoln County commissioners. This panel played a key role in the wave energy test site selection process.

A week after the buoy sank, FINE members, county leaders, and others asked Finavera to explore any and all options to remove the buoy as soon as possible. At the time, Kevin Banister, Finavera’s vice president of business development, ocean energy, said they “pledged to explore” the options.

“We’re just as eager to get it out of the water as anybody,” he told the News-Times. “But we can’t make any guarantees.”

Even in good weather and calm waters, any ocean operation is tricky business. The Salvage Chief and related vessels began operations last week, with divers removing sand, cutting chain, and preparing the buoy for recovery. Banister told the News-Times the buoy “hasn’t moved” when discussing the situation earlier this week.

“It’s a complex operation,” he added. “It will take some time – as much as a week – to complete.”

That estimate is already off. Originally, salvage managers said they could tow the buoy in between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m. Wednesday. The first of the two pieces – the 10-foot buoy that bobs above the ocean surface – was towed into Yaquina Bay at about 2 a.m. Thursday, along with a Coast Guard escort, and taken to a shipyard about four miles upriver to await later transport to the company’s facilities. Salvage crews are working on getting the second piece to the surface and back to port.

Clark said the buoy’s collision with the seafloor at the end of its 150-foot drop damaged it, forcing divers to “cut the supports (of the accelerator tube) to make it easier to bring up.”

Kaety Hildenbrand from OSU’s Oregon Sea Grant Marine Fisheries Extension Service said the Coast Guard “is putting a 500-yard restriction on the vessels while they are towing.” Finavera and Salvage Chief officials ask that everyone steer clear of the work site.

Finavera developers said they would use the data gleaned from the buoy before its demise to “move forward with technological development” and create “the next generation” device – one as unsinkable as they can make it.

Read Full Post »

MendoCoastCurent, August 12, 2008

Last Friday the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) released its latest denial for a rehearing on the Mendocino Wave Energy project on the Northern California coast.

The denied Petitioners include Fishermen Interested in Safe Hydrokinetics (FISH) with Attorney Elizabeth Mitchell, Mendocino County, Fort Bragg, Lincoln County in Oregon and others representing concerned citizens, local city/county governments as well as local fishermen wishing to be party to wave energy development on the Mendocino coast.

In this power showdown, where federal energy policymakers are swiftly moving towards the deployment, testing and exploration of wave energy generating devices on the Mendocino coast, FERC has made it clear that they do not wish to have local and community involvement or participation, period.

And the implications of this denial are far reaching as it appears this Mendocino coast wave energy development project shall be ‘ground zero’ as the first U.S. wave energy project to explore wave energy policymaking, development, deployment and generation (the Makah Bay project is located off Native American lands in the state of Washington).

Before reading on, please take a look at FERC Denial Order: HERE The language of the Order is indecipherable to a layperson. One wonders what this order actually states.

From a more general view, the Petitioners’ have sought to become full-fledged participants in matters related to wave energy projects licensing and development on the Mendocino coast. The local groups, local governments and concerned citizenry of Fort Bragg are also calling for appropriate environmental studies/testing before deployment.

The Mendocino coast continues to inspire locals as well as visitors from around the world with its dramatic beauty, its richness in bounty, its rugged, wildness…and its awesome power. Mendocino locals wish to share this reverence and general knowledge, their oceanic and micro-climate experience…and contribute their knowledge toward a successful and environmentally-benign test of today’s nascent wave energy technology.

It is MendoCoastCurrent’s view, and possibly not a popular one, that appropriate and environmentally-benign wave energy technologies may be developed and successfully implemented. There are literally hundreds of different wave devices available today. Straight out the shoot, many are inappropriate for the Mendocino coast due to sea depth and upswell, some devices are simply pipedreams while others may be suitable — meaning, a device that may sustainably work within the harsh ocean environment, not diminish the sea flora/fauna, sea creatures or man and beneficial in scaling electrical energy output.

Yet in this FERC Denial it’s clear that FERC does not seek the necessary dialog and community ownership that will enable this project’s success.

Additionally, FERC is in the process of developing wave energy ‘conditioned licenses’ to streamline development and FERC has chosen to not incorporate rulemaking (allowing public input) in developing their licensing policies. An associate federal agency, the Mineral Management Service (MMS) that rules beyond the FERC three-mile limit to 200 miles out to sea (the outer continental shelf) is now in ‘rulemaking’ process for hydrokinetic projects. Thus, MMS is asking for comments to be submitted by September 8, 2008…see article here with MMS links to share your comments.

 

MendoCoastCurrent awaits local responses, legal analyses and federal energy policymakers’ next steps.

Read Full Post »

Platts/McGraw-Hill, August 2008

Ocean Power Technologies (OPT) is looking to generate power from Scottish waters as well. Nasdaq-listed OPT reported July 28 that it had signed a berth agreement with the European Marine Energy Center (EMEC) in Orkney, Scotland. OPT can, under the berth agreement, deploy and operate its unit as well as hook up to EMEC’s dedicated 2-MW subsea cable connected to the Scottish grid and will sell power to the grid up to the unit’s 2-MW capacity limit, using the EMEC berth for other deployments.

Across the Atlantic, wave energy development in the United States, another country looking to assume market leadership, suffered a temporary setback in late June 2008 when Finavera Renewables scuttled plans for a wave energy project off the Oregon coast to focus on developing the technology needed for other projects.

Finavera let preliminary permits granted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) expire by not filing required reports. FERC cancelled Finavera’s preliminary permit on June 26 for the proposed 100-MW Coos Country project, saying the company had failed to file six-month progress reports on studies that the company was required to perform for the project to move forward. The preliminary permit allowed for further site assessment and so-called micro siting to determine the best location for the proposed wave park, and allowed studies on such topics as oceanographic conditions, marine mammal resources, shoreline conditions, and public safety. “We had to focus some of our resources on a couple [of] other high priority projects,” said Myke Clark, vice president of corporate development for Finavera.

These include a planned 2-MW wave energy initiative at Makah Bay, California, which has already secured a long-term power purchase contract in December 2007 with California utility Pacific Gas & Electric – the first commercial PPA for a wave project in North America. In developing the new technology, engineers are tackling such challenges as the intermittency of waves and how to produce electricity from new types of equipment cheaply enough to make it profitable, he said. “We’re definitely in an intensive phase right now in terms of this technology,” Clark said, adding that the company is cancelling the project because “we need to focus a bit more on the technology development.”

The marine energy industry in America faces policy as well as technology obstacles.

As FERC promotes development of hydrokinetic energy and companies seize opportunities, the agency has issued preliminary permits that allow environmental assessments and other studies to be performed – only to have its regulatory authority questioned by other federal agencies.

The US Department of the Interior in April 2008 asserted that FERC lacked the authority to issue leases for hydrokinetic projects on the Outer Continental Shelf and called on FERC to rehear its decisions to issue two preliminary permits for wave electricity projects being considered off the coast of California.

FERC issued a license to Finavera in December 2007 for a 1-MW wave energy project in Clallam County, Washington, but several parties sought rehearing of the decision, claiming FERC violated the Clean Water Act by issuing a license before the state ecology department had issued a water quality certificate and other state permits and authorizations. In a March 20 order FERC said the rehearing requests are moot since the state issued the necessary permits to Finavera in February 2008. FERC said that its initial order was a conditional license that did not authorize construction or installation of facilities and “expressly stated that no such authority would be granted until Finavera obtained all necessary authorizations.”

The US wave energy industry received a boost in late July 2008, though, when the US Minerals Management Service, the federal agency that regulates offshore energy development, said it intends to issue leases for thirteen alternative energy research projects in the federal waters of the Outer Continental Shelf, including wave-energy projects off the California coast.

Read Full Post »

Environmental News Service, July 29, 2008

The governors of California, Oregon and Washington Tuesday announced the details of their plan to address ocean and coastal management issues such as polluted runoff, oil spills and marine garbage along the West Coast.

The West Coast Governors’ Ocean Action Plan is the result of a 2006 agreement signed by the three governors that established a long-term partnership to tackle obstacles facing the Pacific Ocean and its coastal communities.

The three states will work together on 26 actions. They promised to advocate for stricter ocean going vessel emission standards, prevent the introduction of invasive species, explore the feasibility of offshore alternative ocean energy development, improve ocean research, increase ocean education and prevent and respond to offshore oil spills, among other efforts.

Each action within the plan contains benchmarks and a timeframe for action. The governors have formally committed to report on the status of actions at the end of two years.

“This agreement is another key step in our aggressive efforts to maintain clean water and beaches along our coast,” said Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, speaking with his fellow governors via satellite.

“I believe our commitment to working together and putting this plan into action will help effectively tackle critical issues up and down the West Coast,” he said, “ensuring a healthy ocean environment for current and future generations.”

Governor Ted Kulongoski of Oregon views the effort as another successful regional compact. “Just as we’ve seen with the Western Regional Climate Action Initiative, collaboration on complex natural resource issues leads to improved management, inspires innovation and ensures a healthier environment. Together, we can sustain our marine resources and the communities that depend upon them.”

“While Washington is making significant strides with state initiatives such as the Puget Sound Partnership, the crisis facing salmon this year is an example of why we must address these issues together as a region,” said Governor Christine Gregoire of Washington. “Our waters know no boundaries.”

“This plan commits us to combining our resources and ideas, and prioritizes restoring and maintaining the health of our marine and coastal waters to ensure a sustainable future,” she said.

California, Oregon and Washington have worked closely with key federal agencies as well as ocean users, academic institutions, the public, tribes, and other state and regional entities to develop the plan and will continue to collaborate with these groups to accomplish the tasks identified in the plan.

The three governors sent a joint letter to Congress asking for $5 million in federal support for implementation of the action plan. Congress has provided funding and support for similar regional ocean initiatives, such as the Gulf of Mexico Alliance.

To support the states’ agreement, a Federal Working Group, co-led by the U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, has been established and will work with the states in implementing the actions.

The action plan commits the three states to collaborate with each other and federal partners on seven priority areas related to ocean protection:

  • Ensuring clean coastal waters and beaches;
  • Protecting and restoring healthy ocean and coastal habitats;
  • Promoting the effective implementation of ecosystem-based management of our ocean and coastal resources;
  • Reducing adverse impacts of offshore development;
  • Increasing ocean awareness and literacy among our citizens;
  • Expanding ocean and coastal scientific information, research and monitoring; and
  • Fostering sustainable economic development throughout our diverse coastal communities.

Read Full Post »

Portland Business Journal, July 28, 2008

The Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council gave its approval of the site of a wind farm billed to be the largest in the world.

The Shepherd’s Flat Wind Farm, which would span Gilliam and Morrow counties in north-central Oregon, is proposed to have 303 wind turbines with a peak capacity of 909 megawatts (MW) — instantly doubling the state’s current wind-generated capacity of 889 MW, making it one of the largest wind farms in the country.

“This is a tremendous day for renewable energy in Oregon,” Michael Grainey, director of the Oregon Department of Energy, said in a news release.

The project is being developed by Caithness Shepherds Flat, LLC of Sacramento, California, which says Shepherds Flat will be the largest single wind farm in the world.

Currently, the largest operating wind farm in the United States is Horse Hollow in Texas at 736 MW. Texas oil and gas magnate T. Boone Pickens has plans to build a wind farm in Texas by 2014 that would reach 4,000 MW.

The Shepherd’s Flat project area is between highways 19 and 74 on privately owned land, about five miles southeast of Arlington. The power output of the facility would enter the Federal Columbia River Transmission System through Bonneville Power Administration’s Slatt Substation.

Other renewable energy projects currently under review by the Oregon Department of Energy include the 400 MW Golden Hills Wind Farm in Sherman County and the 143 MW Newberry Geothermal Project in Deschutes County.

Read Full Post »

MendoCoastCurrent, July 27, 2008

Finavera Renewables CEO Jason Bak provides this overview of 2008 activities to date and an outlook for the remainder of the year.

“The first half of 2008 has been an exciting period for Finavera Renewables,” commented CEO Jason Bak. “Our strategy [in] wind projects is to develop an approximate one gigawatt pipeline with partners that can provide balance sheet strength. Our plan is to maintain majority ownership interests that will provide us with revenues. We have seen significant interest in our British Columbia and Ireland wind projects and we are confident we’ll be able to enter into development agreements with partners that will not result in undue shareholder dilution. We will be focusing our efforts and resources on our most valuable assets in order to demonstrate their value to the market and move them towards production.”

Finavera Renewables’ wind projects have been the focus of much activity in the first half of 2008. Aggressively pursuing partners for projects in British Columbia, Canada and in Ireland. After assessing a number of various partners, a proposal letter has been executed from a potential investor for the equity financing of four projects in British Columbia to be bid into the upcoming BC Hydro Clean Power Call. In addition, in Ireland, preliminary discussions have identified a potential project partner following a detailed review of groups expressing an interest in the project pipeline. The strategy for all of these projects is to maintain a significant ownership interest in the projects in order to provide a revenue stream.

Progress is also being made in the ocean energy division. The planned development of the next generation of its wave energy converter, the AquaBuOY 3.0, is continuing in order to improve the power output and economics of the device. This includes an analysis of advanced composite materials in the manufacturing of the device and discussions with potential technology development partners in an effort to enhance the core hose pump technology. This continued technology development builds on significant progress in wave energy projects including the signing of North America’s first commercial power purchase agreement for a 2 MW wave energy project in California with Pacific Gas & Electric.

Highlights of selected Finavera projects and milestones for 2008:

Wind Project Updates

British Columbia, Canada

Discussions with a potential corporate investor, receiving non-binding indicative financing proposal, in connection with four wind projects currently being developed in the Peace Region of British Columbia, Canada. The proposal contemplates the investor would invest 100% of the equity requirements for each of the four projects awarded an electricity purchase agreement by BC Hydro pursuant to the BC Hydro Clean Power Call. Specific details of the proposal, including the name of the proponent, will be released on signing of a definitive agreement, yet expects to the agreement in place well in advance of the Clean Power Call bid submission deadline November 2008. Finavera is working to prepare bids for the call, and is confident in its ability to secure a contract from the call. Also continuing is the greenfield development of its other permitted areas in the Cascade Mountains area of south central British Columbia, and soon expects to install meteorological monitoring towers on those sites.

Alberta, Canada

Continuing to evaluate development options in order to extract the maximum value from the 75MW Ghost Pine wind project. All of the significant environmental field work has been completed on the project which is located approximately 150km northeast of Calgary. The field work included wildlife, vegetation and land use studies, historical resource investigations and approvals, avian and raptor surveys, and preliminary geotechnical surveys. The project’s final detailed design is close to conclusion. Permitting and interconnection provisions are in place to allow for construction and wind turbine erection would take place in 2009 with a targeted in-service date of December 2009. Wind resource assessment is underway for the nearby 75MW Lone Pine wind project, intending to make an interconnection application for this second Alberta project soon.

Cloosh Valley, Ireland

Discussions are ongoing with a potential partner in order to development prospects for the 105 MW Cloosh Valley wind project. The project has received planning permission for meteorological tower installation for wind data collection from Galway County Council. As well, an application for interconnection has been submitted to Eirgrid, the independent electricity transmission system operator in Ireland, and grid queue position has been established. The next stages of development include the submission of an application for planning permission to An Bord Pleanala, the Irish federal planning authority, under newly established streamlined guidelines for strategic infrastructure projects.

Ocean Energy Updates

Development continues on the next generation AquaBuOY 3.0 design in order to reduce the levelized cost of electricity production and move the technology towards commercialization. Now undertaking an advanced composite materials analysis to lower the construction cost of the device and provide a stronger, lighter housing for the core hose pump technology. Finavera is also in discussion with potential technology development partners in an effort to enhance the hose pump technology and acquire or develop additional IP related to the hose pump technology. The next state of the AquaBuOY design phase will build on the information gathered from the deployment of the prototype AquaBuOY 2.0 technology off the coast of Oregon in 2007. The mathematical and power output modeling was verified during the test phase. The exact timing of future deployments and specific development milestones will be released as research and development objectives are met.

Narrowing its project development focus to the West Coast of North America and South Africa to direct resources to the most valuable project assets. This enhanced focus will help provide clean, renewable and cost effective electricity by 2012 from the project in Humboldt County, California. A long-term Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) has been signed with Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) for 2 MW wave energy project off the coast of California. This is the first commercial PPA for a wave energy project in North America.

“The second half of 2008 presents a tremendous opportunity for Finavera Renewables as we are poised to complete a number initiatives undertaken during the first half of the year. Our plan is to focus our efforts and resources on our highest value assets while investigating additional partnerships and joint ventures in the renewable energy sector,” said Jason Bak, CEO.

Read Full Post »

The World, Worldwide Ocean Energy News, April 12, 2008

Sport and commercial fishermen, members from related marine industries and Ocean Power Technologies representative Steve Kopf met again Wednesday — and made tentative progress on rebuilding trust.

A robust agenda that included discussing the difference between a traditional licensing process and an integrated licensing process — two different ways a wave energy company can apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a full license — resulted in a three-hour meeting at Oregon International Port of Coos Bay offices.

Kopf proposed working with the recently formed Southern Oregon Ocean Resource Coalition on a road map to discuss issues relating to the 200-buoy proposed wave energy park off the North Spit.

In January, Kopf told fishermen in Charleston the company was proposing a 20-buoy installation. By March, that changed to 200. The switch shocked the fishing industry and put already tenuous relationships between the two entities in jeopardy. At the same time, it galvanized the fleet into forming SOORC.

SOORC participants touched on recent developments in the wave energy industry that included the Australian company, Energetech, withdrawing its permit request from FERC for a wave energy park off of Florence.

The “gold rush” is ending, Kopf said.

Various companies have applied for permits to study sites, largely in the hopes of locking up ocean territory from other companies. It’s also called “site banking.”

Kopf said companies can apply for a permit in an afternoon. To apply for a full license, such as what OPT is doing for its Reedsport project, takes millions of dollars and a lot of time. Some companies may not find it worth the expense.

“I kind of predicted that,” Kopf said.

“Will you file for that space?” Charleston troller Jeff Reeves asked.

Kopf sidestepped the question — and repeated questions from Port Deputy Director Mike Gaul, opting instead to suggest OPT send a formal, written response to SOORC.

Finavera, who received a preliminary permit to study a site off of Bandon, is under an April 26 deadline to submit its preliminary application document to FERC. Kopf said it doesn’t look promising that will happen, either.

The company still is working on its license for a project in Makah Bay.

Kopf noted that OPT already is working through settlement discussions with state and federal agencies for its Reedsport project.

Settlement discussions don’t necessarily mean that groups or agencies have approved a specific project. It simply means both entities have agreed to what further data will be collected and how the entities will cooperate.

For energy companies, it’s a risk-reduction measure, Kopf said, noting that so far, OPT is the company that has made the most progress, reaching settlement agreements with some groups and state agencies.

“We’re the lead project on this in the U.S., probably the world,” Kopf said.

Kopf said OPT plans to file a full draft license application to FERC next week, followed by a final, full application for the Reedsport project in May.

Both SOORC and OPT agreed to continue to work collaboratively in the coming months and that further discussion on the traditional licensing process vs. the integrated process will take place when the groups meet again in May.

Read Full Post »

The World, April 10, 2008

The proposed Florence, Oregon wave energy park is no more.

At least, not on paper.

“Energetech America, under Oceanlinx Limited, respectfully requests to withdraw its preliminary permit application for the Florence Oregon Ocean Wave Energy Project …,” the company said in a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on March 26.

Oceanlinx filed for a preliminary permit in April 2007 to study a site within Oregon’s territorial sea off of Florence. The project, as planned, would have consisted of 10 offshore floating steel frame structures, moored to the seafloor and comprising an oscillating water column, turbine and electric generator. Each structure would have weighed about 300 metric tons and the footprint for each, including mooring anchors, would have been about 300 feet by 300 feet. It was planned to have a peak capacity of 10 megawatts.

The company gave no reason for its withdrawal and a call to the company’s U.S. office in Connecticut resulted in a recording directing calls to its Australia headquarters.

So far, Ocean Power Technologies is the only company on the South Coast to have submitted preliminary application documents to FERC for a full license, after a preliminary permit is granted.

Finavera Renewables, which received preliminary permit approval from FERC to study a site off of Bandon, is scheduled to submit its preliminary license application this month.

Read Full Post »

On April 7, 2008, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rejected the wave permit application of Sonoma County, California, and also the permit application of Lincoln County, Oregon, see attached letter relative to the Sonoma permit, below.

SonomaRejection

Read Full Post »

Wave Energy

This is an older FERC map showing detail of Oregon & Washington best.

Read Full Post »

JEFF BARNARD, The Associated Press, April 7, 2008

EUGENE, Ore. (AP) — Gov. Ted Kulongoski said Monday he is willing to go to court to make sure any liquefied natural gas facilities slated for Oregon are needed and safe.

Kulongoski was reacting to a letter from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission about state concerns over proposals to build facilities at the mouth of the Columbia River and at Coos Bay to unload LNG from ships and feed it to pipelines serving the West Coast.

The energy commission rejected the governor’s suggestion to conduct a regional review of LNG projects. Once it has determined they meet environmental and public safety standards, the commission said, it will let the market decide which projects are built.

“I have talked to the attorney general,” Kulongoski told The Associated Press. “I am going to look to make sure the law is followed. Though I am not wanting to go to court to protect the interests of Oregon and the citizens of this state, I will if necessary ask the attorney general to take legal action.”

LNG proposals have stirred controversy in Oregon, with some welcoming the jobs and taxes they would generate and other residents scorning the potential environmental impact and likely use of eminent domain to seize farmland, vineyards and forest for hundreds of miles of pipeline.

Energy companies have proposed building three LNG terminals in the state: one in Coos Bay and two on the Columbia River. The terminals would accept imports of supercooled natural gas on ships, reheat the liquid into a gas and ship the gas to West Coast markets through one of four proposed pipelines.

The governor said he was surprised at FERC’s position, after it had cooperated with state efforts to limit the size of wave energy buoys to avoid conflict with potential marine reserves along the Oregon Coast.

“They are willing to work with the states when they think it is to their advantage,” he said.

Kulongoski noted that Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and others introduced legislation Monday to restore state control over siting energy facilities, which was taken away by federal legislation in 2005.

He said he is not convinced that the LNG is primarily intended for distribution to Southern California. He said he is having state agencies determine whether it is really needed in Oregon and whether it would go along with his efforts to make the state carbon-neutral to combat global warming.

Read Full Post »

News Release from FERC: March 27, 2008

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the state of Oregon have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to coordinate procedures and schedules for review of wave energy projects in state waters off the coast of Oregon. This effort will be undertaken in an environmentally sensitive manner, while taking into account economic and cultural concerns.

“I commend the state of Oregon for being a leader in the development of this new source of emissions-free renewable energy,” FERC Chairman Joseph T. Kelliher said. “Their efforts, especially with today’s MOU, are critical to the successful development of hydrokinetic projects in this country. This agreement is a model of how federal and state governments can work together to promote the new energy technologies our country needs.”

“I am pleased but not surprised by the leadership and cooperation shown by the state of Oregon in fostering new hydrokinetic technologies,” Commissioner Philip Moeller said. “It was no coincidence that we held a well-attended meeting in Portland, Oregon, last October to explore modifying the FERC licensing process to encourage these new technologies. I look forward to working with the state and the region as the nation’s search continues for new sources of renewable and emission-free energy.”

The MOU establishes Oregon’s support of FERC’s procedures for a shorter-term, experimental pilot license that ensures environmental, economic and social protections.

With respect to wave energy projects, FERC and Oregon agree that:

* Each will notify the other when one becomes aware of a potential applicant for a preliminary permit, pilot project license or license. This will allow for the start of coordinated efforts to review the project.

* They will agree upon a schedule for processing applications as early as possible. The schedule will include specific milestones for FERC and Oregon to complete their respective processes. They also will encourage other federal agencies and stakeholders to comply with the schedules.

* They, along with the prospective applicant and other participants, will work together to identify potential issues, and to determine what information is needed and what studies must be conducted to permit the Commission and Oregon to undertake required reviews of proposed projects.

* Oregon intends to prepare a comprehensive plan for the siting of wave energy projects in state waters off the coast of Oregon. FERC agrees to consider, to what extent, proposed projects are consistent with the plan.

* Any pilot project license or other license issued by FERC must include conditions to protect and mitigate potential damage to fish and wildlife resource.

Read Full Post »

Susan Chambers, The World Link, March 21, 2008

REEDSPORT — Fishermen and port officials talked of trust Wednesday night at the Port of Umpqua commission meeting.

The meeting was an impromptu first battleground over what fishermen see as a violation of trust and wave energy company Ocean Power Technologies see as a business decision.

OPT filed a preliminary application document for a 200-buoy wave energy park off the North Spit on March 7 — 180 buoys more than promised when OPT representative Steve Kopf met with the Charleston fishing fleet in January.

The 200-buoy concept is not new. It’s what OPT proposed when it filed its permit request with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 2006. FERC granted the permit in early 2007.

“The bottom line is that as we started putting the PAD together, the CEO said fishermen are not worried so much about the small projects; they’re worried about the big things,” Kopf said on March 7. “So instead, (OPT) decided to face this head on.”

In February, Port of Umpqua commissioners considered sending a letter to federal lawmakers and agencies in support of OPT receiving federal energy funds to develop new technology. Commissioners postponed approval until they could talk with Kopf again to determine the status of ongoing talks with local commercial Dungeness crab fishermen.

The change in the number of buoys for North Spit wave facility — and the consternation it caused among the fleet — made discussions about the letter difficult. Kopf ultimately asked to have consideration of the letter postponed.

Kopf said Wednesday the number of buoys at the Reedsport wave park would remain the same, 10, enough for a test site to ensure the buoys work as planned and energy can be transmitted to the grid as planned. It also would give the company a chance to study the effects of the buoys on the environment and surrounding wildlife.

Still, the overriding concerns Wednesday were of trust and ongoing discussions that have not been resolved, namely the use of prime crabbing grounds for what fishermen say is unproven technology.

Unlike the 1/4- to 1/2-square-mile footprint at Reedsport, the North Spit site would encompass a roughly 300-yards-wide by 5-mile-long footprint, parallel to the beach. OPT also planned to try to place the buoys deeper, nearer 40 fathoms, than the depth in which it plans to place buoys at the Reedsport facility.

“That’s something we heard at the Reedsport meetings,” Kopf said.

The 200-buoy facility also would be broken into four sections — another result of what OPT representatives heard during Reedsport discussions — so as to benefit fishermen and OPT maintenance crews.

The North Spit park likely would not be developed for several years, Kopf said.

That didn’t sit well with fishermen.

“It shocked me that it happened so quickly,” Charleston fisherman Jeff Reeves said.

Winchester Bay crabber Stuart Schuttpelz put it even more bluntly: “This community doesn’t need to be lied to,” he said.

Kopf acknowledged their comments with aplomb.

“We definitely violated the trust with this group when we made that last-minute change,” Kopf said. “But from our perspective, we need to figure out technically, economically, if this works.”

Kopf also noted that the federal funding — part of a fiscal year 2009 budget request — would go to offset the costs of doing environmental studies. And sure, he said, funneling that money through independent Oregon universities or other businesses for the benefit of the wave energy industry overall is a viable option.

Mike Gaul, speaking on behalf of the Oregon Public Ports Association, suggested the neutral third-party option earlier in the evening, noting that he was uncomfortable with supporting federal funds going to a private company. Gaul, who’s the Oregon International Port of Coos Bay’s deputy director, also spoke Thursday night before the Coos Bay port commission. He told port commissioners he felt Kopf misled them by filing an application for a full-scale project.

“To date, OPT has not shown they are willing to work with the fishermen and Port of Coos Bay,” he said.

Kopf planned to meet with local officials today (Friday) in Coos Bay to continue to discuss the issue of moving ahead with 200 buoys — a project that could be granted a 50-year FERC license — instead of 20.

But fishermen and port officials warned more work must be done — still.

The 273-page PAD has some of the same errors in it that OPT made when it filed a preliminary application for the Reedsport site — errors Oregon Dungeness Crab Commission spokesman Hugh Link pointed out in earlier discussions with OPT.

“The Tri-state Commercial Crab Committee closely regulates harvest. The committee conducts annual reviews of crab populations and limits permits, timing and take in order to maintain the important Dungeness crab resource for both commercial and recreational take,” the application reads in one part.

But in reality, each state, Washington, Oregon and California, manages and regulates its own fleet and crab resource.

Kopf said there still is work to be done and planned to continue OPT’s commitment to working with fishermen.

“We’re committed to continuing the dialogue,” he said.

Read Full Post »

Susan Chambers Staff Writer The World January 18, 2008

REEDSPORT — It’s all about balance in a growing debate about marine reserves and, to a lesser extent, wave energy.

Chip Terhune, Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski’s chief of staff, opened the Reedsport marine reserves and wave energy discussion with about 75 people Thursday night at the Port of Umpqua with comments about his previous meetings with coastal residents. Terhune was following up on discussions fishermen had with Kulongoski in November.

“Folks feel strongly and folks feel differently,” Terhune said of the different communities he’d visited on the North and Central coasts, but they all had one thing in common. “People are passionate about their communities.”

That passion soon was evident Thursday night.

Commercial fisherman Jeff Mulkey has been vocal during discussions about placing wave energy-generating buoys in prime crabbing grounds off Gardiner.

“I really believe there are better and cheaper ways to develop renewable energy,” Mulkey said.

And off-limits areas of the ocean — marine reserves — would deal a second blow to fishermen already dealing with increasing federal regulations and other closed areas in federal waters, he said.

“There is no science that tells us we need reserves,” Mulkey said. “Let’s do one and see how it goes.”

Terhune said he could understand Mulkey’s point of view — and others, who echoed the same sentiments — and that he’d be sure and take those comments back to the governor. At the same time, there is an increasing scientific push for marine reserves and wave energy, he said.

“The decibel level on these issues is going to get higher and higher,” Terhune said. He also noted ongoing efforts to establish marine protected areas — areas that have flexible uses, as opposed to the complete closed areas of marine reserves — in California, Washington and nationwide.

It’s that huge push that often has fishermen lined up on one side of issue and environmental and conservation groups lined up on the other. Fishermen, particularly in Oregon, see increasing regulations and more fish — fish they’re not allowed to catch due to regulations. Environmental and conservation groups have poured millions of dollars into the effort to advance the advocacy and establishment of marine reserves.

Commercial fisherman Peter Keyes said he’s fished in California, Gold Beach, Port Orford and other parts of the Oregon Coast and also worked in the oil and gas industry, driving supply boats. In California, the establishment of marine protected areas and marine reserves has been a touchy issue.

“I haven’t met a single (California commercial fisherman) who’s happy about marine reserves,” Keyes said.

Winchester Bay commercial fisherman Barry Nelson referred to some of the groups pushing marine reserves as “over-the-top” environmental groups who want to take the extreme conservation policies applied to the land and apply them to the ocean.

“They’re never happy,” he said.

A few environmental groups did send out press releases to reporters and provide talking points for their members so participants could testify in support of marine reserves during Terhune’s meetings. In Reedsport, though, the supporters in the audience who have been outspoken at federal fishery management meetings and state meetings said nothing to Terhune. Only sport and commercial fishermen and tribal representatives made comments.

Charleston salmon troller Shawn Ryan, who routinely fishes in California, said fishermen there have been hit hard by closed areas and that environmental groups have dumped lots of money into the marine protected areas process.

“It’s crazy,” he said.

The Oregon Ocean Policy Advisory Council is scheduled to make a recommendation about marine reserves to the governor in November but has heard similar concerns. The governor’s nomination process would allow anyone from Oregon — even representatives or members of out-of-state conservation groups — to make recommendations about which areas to close in the ocean.

Science should come first, Nelson said.

“Study it to see what you need,” he said. “The public knows less than anyone (about the ocean) and you’re asking them to nominate sites?

“The process is way out of whack.”

Terhune, patient and open to comments, took a lot of notes and asked lots of questions during the hour-and-a-half meeting. He also noted that both short-term and long-term issues must be considered in relation to marine reserves and wave energy.

And balance.

“We’ve got to figure out how to do this the Oregon way,” Terhune said.

The Oregon way is through OPAC, he added.

The council already is in the process of creating outreach meetings to help the public understand what marine reserves are, how the nomination process works and to seek input. Those meetings will be held before November.

“Tell them what you told me,” Terhune said. “They need to hear your voice. … It sounds like we’ve got a lot more work to do than we thought.”

Read Full Post »

Susan Chambers The World April 10, 2007

A wave breaks off the southern Oregon Coast as wind blows some of the surf backward. That wave attraction is attracting power producers. To date, seven projects are proposed for the Oregon Coast, to tether power-generating buoys to the ocean floor to ride ocean swells. World File Photo

 

CHARLESTON – Commercial fishermen are accustomed to dealing with waves, but not the wave of tidal energy project proposals.

Several crabbers, salmon trollers and beach trawlers met Monday at the Charleston Marina RV Park recreation center to learn about what many viewed as the next threat to their livelihood.

“It kind of feels like a gold rush,” Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association Executive Director Onno Husing, said.

Husing was one of the organizers of the meeting, designed as an informal get-together to learn about two potential wave-energy parks proposed for ocean areas off Coos County, one in the Reedsport area and others.

To date, seven projects are proposed for the Oregon Coast. Each would consist of buoys tethered to the ocean floor that ride ocean swells. Internally, each buoy would have elements that would harness a portion of the swells’ energy, convert it to electricity and transmit it to shore. Some proposals call for up to 200 buoys in a single area, up to about 5 square miles. All must be approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Rumors abound about other projects proposed but that haven’t been officially filed with FERC.

The bottom line, Husing started to say, phrasing it more as a question, is that one or two areas may be OK.

No, Charleston salmon troller Paul Merz said, interrupting Husing. Those ocean areas already have an existing use, from border to border, he added.

“They should be coming to us,” Merz continued, noting that the companies or organizations moving ahead with the wave energy parks should be talking to existing users of the ocean: commercial fishermen, recreational fishermen, commercial shippers.

Commercial Dungeness crabbers could see the most change in their fishing patterns. The placement of the buoy arrays matches prime crab ground: depths of between 20 and 40 fathoms on expanses of sandy ocean bottom.

Salmon trollers also traverse the areas while seeking Chinook and beach trawlers find sources of some flatfish.

Salmon and crab fisherman Tim Smith, who fishes the Irish Miss out of Winchester Bay, picked up on the gold rush idea.

“They’re claim jumping,” Smith said. “They’re taking that (area) away.”

Projects already under way

Wave energy companies most often go through a two-step process to get approval from FERC , but not always. They can skip applying for a preliminary permit and simply apply for a license – as Finavera Renewables did when it applied for a project in Washington.

FERC already has approved three preliminary permits, giving three entities approval to test sites for the feasibility of operating more than one or two buoys at a site (see sidebar). Only one license is pending approval.

Ocean Power Technologies, with U.S. offices in New Jersey, plans to have the first buoy in the water off Reedsport this summer.

Some of the companies applying for permits to operate wave energy parks in the U.S. are foreign-owned, with offices in North America. Several companies already have demonstrated the value of tidal energy technology in Europe. Finavera Renewables, for example, is an Irish firm but has offices in Canada and the U.S. It has applied for a permit to study the feasibility of a park near Bandon.

Fishermen weren’t happy about the overseas component of wave energy. If the companies get subsidized to build here, where do the profits go, several asked – do they stay in the United States or go overseas?

Furthermore, they said, the issue of fishing grounds is the main issue, and the state and federal involvement in accepting energy parks that could displace the fleet.

For instance, “crabbers,” Smith said. “(They’re) going to push us aside for foreign money?”

Charleston fisherman Daryl Bogardus questioned the economic importance of the parks, too.

“I don’t think the wave-generation buoys would generate as much (money) as crab fishing,” Bogardus said.

Most fishermen agreed that somehow, some way, they should be compensated for the loss of fishing grounds and that indeed, the fleet needs to be an integral part of the process.

Already, crabbers in the Reedsport and Winchester Bay areas have been included in ongoing talks with Ocean Power Technologies about the park impacts there.

Husing proposed establishing a statewide committee with representatives from the fishing fleet in each port to stay up-to-date on wave energy developments.

It also needs to be pro-active, he said, by obtaining legal advice, finding experts on FERC processes, doing socioeconomic studies, working with the state’s Congressional delegation and working with other state and federal agencies.

“As a group, as an industry, we need to assert ourselves that there already is a use here,” Merz agreed.

Read Full Post »

From Three Tree Journal (tres_arboles), January 17, 2008

The Surfrider Foundation, a national ocean recreation advocacy organization is developing a policy position on wave energy projects and their potential effects on recreational uses. As a policy wonk, tres_arboles recognizes their need to avoid stridency on this issue, and approach it with critical, but supportive attention. On the one hand, the technology being proposed up and down the United States west coast and around the Hawaiian islands, has the potential for myriad human, environmental, and ecological effects when the arrayed technology is fully deployed in the near-shore marine environment. On the other hand, the technology has the promise of perpetually renewable, carbon-free electricity, decreasing our national dependence on all forms of carbon consuming, pollution spewing, climate change inducing forms of energy production. These latter concerns are largely shared by all but the most growth-crazed, anti-environmental ideologues in society today. So present here, as it almost always is in the policy development arena, is the nuanced competition of values that makes developing policy far more intricate than the “one side versus the other” to which we are so frequently treated in the ordinary news media.

Surfrider is an organization of local chapters, some of which are little more than an individual with a MySpace page. In contrast (fortunately), others are membered by conscientious surfers that are capable of providing scrutiny and analysis of issues affecting surf access and environmental matters of concern to surfers. Hopefully, that’s the case with the Oregon chapters now tracking the (at least three by my last count) proposed “wave park” buoy arrays that could diminish, if not destroy the surfability of the locations where they are proposed (among all of the other environmental and ecological issues they raise).

Surfrider presently supports the use of “adaptive management” in the development of the buoy arrays that are the infrastructural element of wave energy production that most concerns environmentalists, fishing organizations, and recreationalists. I am thankful that Surfrider appears engaged. However, I question the value of adaptive management in the context of the construction of these wave buoy “farms” or “parks.” Adaptive management is an approach to managing an ongoing activity that involves monitoring the activity to determine whether the activity is causing certain, predicted, and pre-agreed outcomes. Adaptive management is valuable because it enables, and in fact it relies on the ability to change the activity while it is ongoing, if monitoring shows it is not meeting those predicted, pre-agreed outcomes.

While the Surfrider blog entry is a brief one, and as such I might be making stuff up to fill in the blanks, it appears that the adaptive management proposed for the Oregon preliminary permits will assess certain issues during the incremental installation of the buoys under those permits. This does not really follow the classical adaptive management model in any way! Assessing the fishery, environmental, and recreational effects of a one buoy field will not inform the probable outcome of a 10 buoy field. And in turn, monitoring the effects of a 10 buoy field will not in any way help assess the move to a 200 buoy field, as proposed there. That is, it’s not enough to learn that one or three or ten buoys do not knock down the waves enough to enable the deployment of several tens, if not 100’s more. What if the monitoring shows that crabbers can crab the ground around ten buoys, but not fifty? Will the developer then pull 40 buoys and proceed to seek its FERC license on a reduced ten buoy project? What if that developer is beholden to shareholders?

I sincerely doubt that the types of corporate ventures that are underwriting these experiments in energy production will be willing to scrap or even slightly diminish their deployed investment if it’s already installed, producing electricity, and providing return on investment. Even if the monitoring shows that the array has eliminated fishery access to a productive crabbing ground or flattened a previously dependable surfing wave, these arrays consist of expensive equipment that will be expensive to deploy and maintain. In my experience as an environmental professional, developers are almost always willing to do damage in one form or another and simply incur an expense such as the payment of “in lieu fees” or “compensatory mitigation.” These compensatory arrangements enable the developer to absorb a cost they can turn around and pass on to their consumers, rather than avoiding the damage their development proposal will cause, or by diminishing the project or undoing it after-the-fact. While a compensatory approach might work with local commercial interests where the compensation involves buying out the fishers and crabbers, how do you compensate for the elimination of something so valuable that monetary evaluation would be trivial? Like a surf spot?

tres_arboles is tuned-in, but remains unsure of the answers to these questions. Hopefully, the values underlying these questions will be respected by FERC and the wave energy development community, before everyone gets glassy-eyed over the prospect of clean, renewable energy.

Read Full Post »

LIBBY TUCKER, The Associated Press & the Ashland Daily Tidings, January 28, 2008

NEWPORT, Oregon — Eighty-two feet above the shore at the Yaquina Head Lighthouse, biologist Joel Ortega spots a gray whale swimming three nautical miles offshore.

A few seconds later, his team of observers, on hand with binoculars, a surveying instrument called a theodolite and a laptop, pinpoint the whale’s location, just inside the boundary of Oregon territorial waters where a wave energy park has been proposed for development.

“I’ve been doing marine mammal observations for about 12 years now, so I can’t avoid it,” says Ortega, a research associate at Oregon State University’s Hatfield Marine Science Center in Newport. “Whenever I’m near the ocean, I start looking for whales and dolphins.”

Since early December, the team of OSU biologists has been cataloging the eastern gray whale as it migrates south from Alaska to Mexico, passing through the site of what one day could be Oregon’s first commercial wave energy park.

Their data will serve as a baseline of information to determine whether the whales’ path will change direction, speed or location after the buoys are installed.

The state is banking on wave energy as an industry it can dominate, and companies are eager to test their technologies for deployment.

“A wave energy research center could be a nice focus for the state of Oregon for what we’re doing with (renewable) energy generation,” said George Boehlert, director of the Hatfield Marine Science Center.

But state and federal regulators are hesitant to approve development of commercial wave energy parks without detailed environmental impact studies. Because ocean power technologies are relatively new, their effects on whales, dolphins, sea lions and other ocean life are largely unknown.

OSU’s marine mammal study is one of several funded by the Oregon Wave Energy Trust, which recently received $1 million from the Oregon Innovation Council to oversee research and development of ocean power technologies in the state. The grant is part of $4.2 million earmarked for wave energy by the 2007 Legislature.

“It’s very important to the wave energy sector to have this kind of a study being conducted,” said Mary Jane Parks, senior vice president of Finavera Renewables, which tested the AquaBuoy wave energy device that sank off the Newport coast last year. “We do need to have more marine research in this area to understand what the impacts are so we can better site the location of ocean energy plants.”

At Yaquina Head, the science team works quickly, scanning the horizon with high-power binoculars for a whale’s signature spouting. They zero in on the exact geographic location with a theodolite, the same instrument highway construction workers use to survey roads. Then they map the data on a laptop.

They take measurements to find the migration corridor, a whale highway for traveling to and from their mating grounds in Mexico. The grays are the only whales that follow a completely coastal route, making it possible to observe their migration from land. Other whales, such as humpbacks, travel through the open ocean as well as along the coast.

Gray whales typically migrate south between December and January, Ortega said, with the peak of the migration between Christmas and the first week in January. This year the whales appear to have left Alaska later than usual, since the peak happened later.

Ortega hopes to discover how gray whales follow the coast. The whales might stay at a certain depth of water, a set distance from the coast, or they might travel along the most direct route between destinations.

So far the whales are staying outside the Oregon territorial boundary, three nautical miles offshore, or just outside the waters proposed for the wave park. But, Ortega says, past studies have shown the whales swim closer to shore on their return north. More research is needed to find the exact location of the whales’ highway and determine the effects of the actual wave energy technology once it’s deployed.

“This is relatively new territory for everybody,” Ortega says. “And that’s why we’re here to find those facts and base that decision on solid science.”

Read Full Post »

From Stoel Rives January 8, 2008

Portland, Oregon – The Oregon Wave Energy Trust, or OWET, has received the first part of its $4.2 million budget approved by the 2007 state legislature, and is moving ahead with plans and activities to make Oregon a global leader in this emerging industry.

“We recognize there are a variety of stakeholders in Oregon, including important sectors like commercial crabbing and fishing, recreation, manufacturing, conservation, and others,” said Kevin Banister, president of the association. “OWET is committed to working with stakeholders to balance the benefits of renewable energy development with other historic uses.”

As the state’s newly established wave energy association, this group of industry, academic and state agency representatives just received $1 million from the Oregon Innovation Council. Officials believe that Oregon has the potential to create high-paying jobs and economic opportunity in Oregon, attract new investment and talent, and provide reliable, low-cost, clean, and renewable power. OWET was formed last year to build and share the expertise needed to support responsible development of this industry. “With great opportunity comes great challenges, and Oregon needs a central entity for all wave energy-related activities to support responsible industry development,” said Chandra Brown of Oregon Iron Works, one of the OWET partners. Researchers say that the ocean is the largest, most concentrated source of renewable energy on Earth, and the potential for wave energy in Oregon is enormous – it could provide 10 percent of the state’s electricity needs by 2025. “The state’s investment is aimed at addressing the challenges facing the industry, which include education and outreach, understanding potential environmental effects, responding to existing use conflicts, research and development, and state-wide planning,” said OWET’s acting Director Justin Klure. “The top priorities are determining potential ecological effects and working with existing ocean users to develop a plan to share the use of the ocean.” Among recent and planned activities:

  • OWET will allot $50,000 of its initial funds to support education and coastal community outreach, in programs designed by Oregon Sea Grant and the Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association.
  • Last October, OWET provided matching funds to sponsor an Ecological Effects Workshop at the Hatfield Marine Science Center in Newport, and key findings from this workshop will be used to direct environmental effects analysis and monitoring studies.
  • About $225,000 will be used to conduct a whale migration study through Oregon State University’s Marine Mammals Institute, to establish baseline data on marine mammal migration patterns off the coast of Oregon.
  • New wave energy technologies and applied research activities will also be supported at OSU, as they seek to develop a National Wave Energy Center and test new wave energy devices.

OWET represents a diverse group of stakeholders from both public and private sectors, and is using a collaborative approach to address concerns. “We recognize there are a variety of stakeholders in Oregon, including important sectors like commercial crabbing and fishing, recreation, manufacturing, conservation, and others,” said Kevin Banister, president of the association. “OWET is committed to working with stakeholders to balance the benefits of renewable energy development with other historic uses.”

OWET will direct environmental, economic, and social studies to support and improve regulatory coordination under federal and state law. According to Robin Hartmann, ocean program director for Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition and OWET board member, the funding will help assure that Oregon becomes a leader in both the technological and ecological implications of wave energy development.

For more information, contact Justin Klure, info@oregonwave.org

Oregon Wave Energy Trust The mission of the Oregon Wave Energy Trust (OWET) is to become a central entity for wave energy-related development in Oregon. Guided by its stakeholders, OWET will build and share expertise needed to support the responsible development of the state’s emerging wave industry (www.oregonwave.org).

Read Full Post »

MARIANNE LAVELLE, U.S. News & World Report, December 18, 2007

The idea of harnessing energy from ocean waves to produce electricity for U.S. homes and businesses takes a giant leap forward today as the nation’s largest utility, Pacific Gas & Electric, announces the first commercial agreement to purchase power generated with this cutting-edge technology.

AquaBuOY 2PG&E signed the deal, the terms of which were not disclosed, with the Canadian firm Finavera Renewables, a company that has had more than its share of jostles in recent weeks in the struggle to keep the hope of clean wave power afloat. The initial project would be relatively small—2 megawatts—and would be constructed about 2.5 miles off the coast of Eureka, Calif., with electricity to be delivered to customers onshore in northern and central California. A megawatt of conventional energy powers about 750 homes, but because wave power—like its renewable energy brethren, wind and solar—will be intermittent, the amount of electricity delivered is expected to be somewhat less.

But PG&E says the significance of the deal is large. “If you think about what this means to the energy security, this is monumental, because we are now going to have an example of the type of project that will be developed,” says PG&E spokesman Keely Wachs. The first step to making wave energy a reality is to prove it can work, especially to potential financial backers.

Finavera’s technology involves floating clusters of patented devices it calls AquaBuOYs several kilometers offshore, where ocean waves are strong. The wave energy is captured by two-stroke hose pumps underneath each buoy; pressurized seawater turns turbines that drive an electrical generator, and the power is transmitted ashore by an undersea transmission line. Finavera has an animation demonstrating its technology here.

However, the company suffered a setback in late October when a bilge pump failed in an AquaBuOY test off the coast of Oregon and the device sank to the ocean floor only a day before it was to be retrieved. Finavera, which trades on the TSX Venture exchange, earlier this month announced that although “there were a number of positive outcomes from the testing,” it had decided to take a $5.8 million write-off due to the AquaBuOY loss. The company said it had a $4.1 million deficit.

A few days later, Finavera announced that it had received commitments from a group of founders and significant shareholders for a private placement of $1.1 million to $2 million—not covering the shortfall. But chief executive Jason Bak said it allowed the company “to move forward without unnecessarily diluting shareholders at current prices.” Finavera is trading at about 15 cents per share after reaching a high of 90 cents earlier in the year.

With the PG&E announcement, Bak said in a statement, “There’s now a visible light at the end of the tunnel for offshore wave energy.”

Wachs of PG&E says the utility is “cautiously optimistic” about wave energy’s potential and, in fact, is also seeking to develop its own wave energy projects in addition to the power purchase agreement with Finavera. “We know there is huge potential from pure energy calculations, yet converting that will require us to do our due diligence and make investments to develop the technologies before we fully capture that potential,” he said.

California’s northern coastline is considered to have great potential because of its proximity to the powerful ocean-swelling storms that originate in the Aleutian Islands to the north. The California Energy Commission calls ocean wave energy “one of the most concentrated and widely available forms of renewable energy in coastal areas.”

But some in the fishing industry and coastal communities have raised questions about the impact of creating “wave parks,” or clusters of buoys offshore. Finavera says its arrays would be “no more noticeable than a small fleet of fishing boats.” But in Oregon, Gov. Ted Kulongoski, a huge booster of the technology, recently was forced to defuse tensions that have risen over potential projects by announcing he intends to ask the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to limit the number of sites available for wave energy parks to between five and seven. Finavera has demonstration projects proposed in Oregon, Washington State, Canada, and Portugal, but the PG&E deal is the first commitment from a utility to purchase wave power.

One factor driving PG&E’s interest in wave as well as wind, solar, and other forms of renewable energy is California’s state law—one of the most aggressive in the nation—requiring that utilities generate 20 percent of their energy from renewables by 2010. PG&E currently has a 12 percent renewables mix, and the company says it is on track to exceed 20 percent (either under contract or delivered) in two years as required.

Read Full Post »

Note: This is an older article from 2007 yet still very current in its coverage of environmental and permitting concerns related to Wave Energy and Tidal Energy projects.

MICHAEL LUFKIN & LAURA FANDINO, Marten Law Group, July 11, 2007

The adoption of renewable energy portfolio standards promises to push forward investment in the development of wave and tidal power. Projects are being developed in New York, Washington, Oregon, California and other states, spurred in part by state laws requiring public and private utilities to obtain a portion of their electricity from renewable resources. As an example, Oregon recently adopted a renewable electricity portfolio standard which requires the state’s largest utilities to meet 25% of their electric load with new renewable energy resources by 2025. Challenges to these projects include the environmental and land use impacts associated with them. Just as wind power has drawn its share of opponents, so too are critics of tidal and wave energy raising concerns about the impacts of large-scale development of these resources.

What is Tidal and Wave Energy?

Two types of marine renewable energy resources have garnered substantial interest: wave energy and tidal energy. There are several methods to capture energy from ocean surface waves. For example, one wave power device slated for use by Finavera Renewables, Ltd. (“Finavera”) in Makah Bay, Washington, involves the use of moored wave energy conversion buoys (the “Aquabuoy”) similar in size to the large navigational aids that demarcate shipping lanes. Aquabuoy converts the kinetic energy of the vertical motion of waves into pressurized water, which is directed into a conversion system consisting of a turbine that drives an electrical generator. The power from the buoys is then transported to shore through the use of an anchored submarine transmission cable installed on or just beneath the sea floor. While the Finavera plans to operate the Makah Bay project 3.7 miles offshore, wave energy devices may be used at the shoreline, nearshore, and offshore.

Another ocean energy resource, tidal energy, captures energy from the rise and fall of tides. Most tidal energy projects rely on offshore turbines, which operate much like an underwater wind farm. The ebb and flow of the tides is used to turn the blades which are connected directly to an electrical generator. Energy produced by the system is transferred to shore through the use of a submarine transmission cable installed on the sea floor. In France, and several other countries, tidal energy production has involved the construction of a dam (or barrage) to block incoming and outgoing tides across a delta, estuaries, or other coastal basin area, where the amplitude of tides are increased. In that case, the ebb and flow of the tides is used to turn turbines, or push air through a pipe which then turns a turbine, that drives an electric generator.

Preliminary Projects

Eight tidal energy projects are currently under development in Washington State that use offshore turbine technology. On March 9, 2007, the Snohomish County Public Utility District (“PUD”) received preliminary permits from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) to conduct technical and economic feasibility studies and evaluate tidal energy potential at seven locations in Puget Sound: Spieden Channel, San Juan Channel, Guemes Channel, Agate Pass, Rich Passage, Admiralty Inlet and Deception Pass. FERC has also granted a preliminary permit to Tacoma Power to evaluate the development of tidal power in the Tacoma Narrows. Each of the preliminary permits will enable these entities to study tidal energy at the permitted sites for a period of three years.

In addition to Washington State, FERC has issued preliminary permits for tidal energy projects in Alaska, California, Maine, Oregon, and New York. In New York, the Verdant Power Roosevelt Island Tidal (“RITE”) Project, is on its way to becoming the first tidal energy project to be licensed by FERC. FERC granted a preliminary permit for the RITE project, located in New York’s East River, in September 2002. FERC is licensing the RITE project under the authority granted through the preliminary permit. The project will consist of 200 turbines and will generate up to 10 MW of distributed power.

In addition, Finavera is currently developing a 1 MW demonstration wave power plant at Makah Bay, Washington. The company completed a Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment in October of 2006 which concluded with a finding of no significant environmental effects from the technology. In Oregon, FERC issued preliminary permits to Ocean Power Technologies (“OPT”) to develop a project off the coast of Reesport, southwest of Eugene, and AquaEnergy Group, Ltd. to develop an offshore wave energy project in Coos Bay.

Environmental Concerns

The primary concerns raised by critics of tidal and wave energy projects are their potential adverse impacts on marine ecosystems, fishery resources, and mammals. Environmental concerns raised by these groups include noise, species’ effects, and the physical disturbance of marine habitat. Environmental noise is said by some to affect the behavioral patterns of marine species i.e., feeding, mating and migration in areas where the habitat of protected marine species overlaps with the project. Habitat disturbance is also raised as a concern, as is displacement of benthic organisms in the footprint of the construction, including endangered or threatened species. Other concerns raised are the potential loss of fishing areas and impacts on shellfish resources.

Operating concerns include: (a) potential injuries to marine wildlife and diving birds arising from direct contact with tidal energy turbines; (b) behavioral impacts to marine species; (c) habitat disturbance, including disturbance of contaminated sediments, and impacts to sensitive spawning and nursery areas; (d) water quality impacts; and (e) hydrodynamic impacts. Hydrodynamic impacts resulting from the extraction of energy and physical presence of tidal project structures can include direct alteration of area siltation patterns, and changes to area ecology by alteration of substrate type.

Additional Barriers to Commercial Development

Permitting Process

Because of the relative infancy of wave and tidal energy development, there remains some uncertainty and confusion over which federal and state agencies have regulatory jurisdiction over marine energy projects. Generally speaking, a project’s location determines which federal agency takes the lead in overseeing the permitting process. Under the Federal Power Act (“FPA”), FERC has the authority to regulate and license all hydroelectric facilities on navigable waters of the United States. FERC has interpreted its authority under the FPA broadly to include essentially all wave and tidal energy projects, including ocean projects. In 2005, Congress muddied the jurisdictional waters by granting lead federal agency status to the Minerals Management Service (“MMS”) for renewable energy projects on the Outer Continental Shelf (“OCS”). Congress stated, however, that in granting MMS lead agency status over projects on the OCS, it was not eliminating the jurisdiction of other federal agencies. Thus for now, it appears that FERC and MMS will share lead agency status for OCS projects, while FERC will have exclusive authority to license projects in rivers and ocean waters out to the OCS.

The FERC Process

Most of the tidal and wave energy projects under consideration in the Pacific Northwest have not formally entered the FERC licensing process. Rather, these projects have received a preliminary permit from FERC which reserves a project location for the permit holder while environmental and feasibility studies are conducted. The preliminary permit is valid for three years. At the end of the three years, the permit holder must file a license application or lose priority for the location. Construction activities are not allowed during the period in which a project is being studied under a permit.

To construct and operate a tidal or wave energy project a developer must either obtain a hydropower operating license from FERC, or be granted an exemption from licensing. The process for obtaining a FERC operating license can often take five to seven years and requires significant analysis and consultation with state, federal, and tribal resource agencies. Operating licenses are normally granted for 30 to 50 year periods.

Because of the burdensome nature of the licensing process, some developers have sought an exemption from FERC licensing requirements. FERC may exempt hydropower projects “which are 5 megawatts or less, that will be built at an existing dam, or projects that utilize a natural water feature for head or an existing project that has a capacity of 5 megawatts or less and proposes to increase capacity.” FERC has shown a willingness to grant short term exemptions that allow for the deployment and testing of new generation technology. Projects determined to be exempt from FERC licensing requirements must still comply with applicable state and federal environmental and resource protection laws.

Transmission

Another issue affecting the commercial viability of wave and tidal power is the ability and cost of bringing the power to the market. Like other types of renewable based generation, wave and tidal power resources are often located a significant distance from load centers and/or existing transmission systems. The construction costs and additional environmental impacts associated with constructing transmission lines to bring wave and tidal power to the grid can be a challenge to the viability of a project.

Read Full Post »