Europe is ahead of the United States in harnessing offshore wind.
Image: Flickr/Wessex Archaeology
It took more than a decade for Cape Wind, a 468-megawatt offshore wind project destined for the Nantucket Sound, to find its way through an unfinished regulatory labyrinth of government permits and sign-offs.
Now, with developments up and down the Eastern Seaboard paving the way for a raft of new offshore wind projects, regulators, analysts and a nascent industry are looking for ways to expedite the process.
In part, the length of the regulatory procedure stems from the plurality of agencies involved, said Alison Bates, a graduate student at the University of Delaware who has studied Cape Wind's journey. "This is a complicated problem," she said. "There are lots of interagency relationships that need to happen. They're relying on getting things on other people's desks."
Proponents of the project have pointed to regulatory procedures in other countries, primarily in Western Europe, where a single government agency is designated to oversee the leasing, permitting and regulation of offshore wind projects. Unlike the United States, which has yet to set foundations for an initial installation, the European Union already boasts 5 gigawatts of installed capacity -- equivalent to five large nuclear power plants.
The U.S. government's approach, particularly in terms of leasing prospective offshore wind sites, is more closely related to its experience with offshore oil and gas, said Jeremy Firestone, a professor of marine studies working with Bates at the University of Delaware.
Of course, the United States must take into account unique considerations based on its own geography and marine environments, he cautioned. "The E.U. has less of a marine mammal issue -- you don't have migrations of great whales in the North Sea," he said. "Scenic vistas tend to be a larger issue for the U.S. We have the potential that installations could affect submerged [indigenous] settlements. These are the kinds of issues we have to consider."
A custody battle between 2 agencies
A major factor in Cape Wind's delay dates back to 2005, when jurisdiction for permitting the project shifted from the Army Corps of Engineers to the Department of the Interior.
Already several years into the process, the Army Corps had completed a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) and opened it to public comment. However, a provision of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 "retained a role for the Army Corps of Engineers ... but grants ultimate authority over offshore wind energy development to the Secretary of Interior," according to a 2009 report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Ironically, the amendment in question was intended to clear up ambiguities in the regulatory process, thus streamlining future regulations, according to the CRS report.
Rather than accept the Army Corps review, Interior opted to conduct its own environmental impact statement -- a process that would not be complete until 2009.
Even with its permits in hand, Cape Wind's future is not assured. It still faces legal action from citizens groups on the Nantucket Sound, and more importantly, needs to secure financing. It has successfully secured buyers for 75 percent of its power from two transmission operators, NSTAR and National Grid.
'Backbone' gets future appendages
And suddenly, it has competition for designation as first out of the gate. Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) took steps this month to speed leasing off the coast of Virginia. In Maryland, Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) successfully pushed a measure through the state Senate mandating that the state purchase a portion of its power from offshore turbines.
An ambitious project to connect many of these proposed projects via a submerged transmission "backbone" took an important step forward earlier this year when it selected New Jersey for the first leg of its journey.
See what we're tweeting about
13 Comments
Add CommentIf nuclear power plants can get a streamlined build & operations permit from one agency, how come a technology that is FAR less risky has to jump through all these hoops and take a DECADE to get approved? Why is the government picking winners in the energy sector?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd I just don't understand the complaints of the people on Nantucket about the wind turbines on their horizon ruining their view. I've seen massive offshore oil rigs go up and I've seen a lone coal power plant fill an entire valley with browncloud smog like I was in LA. I've also seen the MASSIVE Tar Sands operations in northeastern Alberta and the aftermath of mountaintop removal mining in West Virginia. So how come the rest of us have to deal with the ugliness of fossil fuels while Nantucket residents think the tiniest little sliver of their view out on the horizon is more important? I mean, fossil fuel companies are usually the ones ultimately funding and organizing these anti-wind groups, but the arrogance of some of the folks on Nantucket still just boggles the mind!
sault
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are far more than one agency that delay the construction of nuclear power plants. That is also why they take so long to get approved and built. Everyone wants electricity, but nobody likes any type of power plant in their backyard. (human nature)
Yeah, not so much...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The NRC licenses ALL individuals who either operate or supervise the operation of the controls of a commercially owned nuclear power reactor..." (My emphasis in CAPS)
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operator-licensing.html
Private groups can bring lawsuits against whatever they want, but that doesn't mean "There are[sic] far more than one agency that [can] delay the construction of nuclear power plants."
If you don't even know that the NRC is the SOLE licensing agency for nuclear reactors, how can you even think of participating in this debate without key pieces of information like this?
All I want is the playing field to be level. If offshore wind has to jump through many more regulatory hurdles than other energy sources, then that's just not fair.
Actually wind generation, 100% dependent on subsidy is far riskier than nukes. Its also a giant waste of money like this project at 55 cents a kwh all in, since real science shows that wind with its inefficient gas backup run inefficiently produces more GHG's than just skipping the wind a putting in efficient gas or better yet 4 cent a kwh nukes in the first place.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, keep spewing anti-renewable propaganda with NOTHING to back you up! Still afraid to provide links to those climate denier websites where you get this garbage? And too bad the nuclear industry wouldn't even exist if the government didn't provide a backstop for its MASSIVE potential liabilities in the event of a meltdown.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNIMBY
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh yes, much riskier! You have to worry about turbine meltdown, wind fallout, not to mention wind spills.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy would I need to provide links to a full time employed Big Oil shill?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI ask them to call their employer to see if they can provide links from reputable sources showing the contrary. The numbers to show 55 cent a kwh from cape wind are right here in the article.
As for liability nuclear is the safest power on earth never killing a soul - a perfect record unlike wind and solar that kill thousands annually with the air pollution from their required gas backup and in future from their deadly toxic forever end of life waste leaching into landfills. Nary a one would be built if insurance was required to cover that liability.
Here's an article on the Cape Cod wind turbines:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/26/cape-cod-community-considers-taking-down-wind-turbines-after-illness-noise/?test=latestnews
Yeah, I know Sault, you don't like Fox News, but don't shoot the messenger.
Latest Big offshore Wind Farm in Germany - started production 10 yrs after first application, 3 yrs after 1st construction, and $18k per kwavg!!! Not including long-distance triple over-sized transmission. At least double the worst case, inflated price, first-of-a-kind GenIII nuclear in the USA. And after 2 MONTHS of operation all six 5MW wind turbines failed and have to be replaced.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLevelized cost of latest offshore Wind for delivery in 2017 is an INCREDIBLE 33 cents per kwh, vs GenIII Nuclear at 11 cents. That is until the Nuclear is paid off in 20 yrs and then generates power at 2 cents a kwh for another 40-80yrs vs the Wind is already dead and buried by year 15.
instituteforenergyresearch.org/2012/08/22/electric-generating-costs-a-primer/
The fact that you call Faux "News" a messenger instead of a propaganda apparatus is telling. There has NEVER been any link between wind turbines and negative health effects. Telling people that wind turbines can harm their health has WAY more impact than ACTUAL wind farms could ever have:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The development of new wind farms in many parts of the world has been thwarted by public concern that subaudible sound (infrasound) generated by wind turbines causes adverse health effects. Although the scientific evidence does not support a direct pathophysiological link between infrasound and health complaints, there is a body of lay information suggesting a link between infrasound exposure and health effects...Healthy volunteers, when given information about the expected physiological effect of infrasound, reported symptoms that aligned with that information, during exposure to both infrasound and sham infrasound. Symptom expectations were created by viewing information readily available on the Internet, indicating the potential for symptom expectations to be created outside of the laboratory, in real world settings. Results suggest psychological expectations could explain the link between wind turbine exposure and health complaints."
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2013-07740-001/
Why to you ALWAYS fail to back up any of your claims? The only number I saw was that Cape Wind will have a 468MW capacity. And I know you don't care whether this is a first-of-a-kind wind farm or not, or that it's been held up in regulatory limbo for 8 years...and I'm sure you'll try to cook the books on the cost to build it with all the silly mumbo jumbo you always make up about clean energy too. Spare us, please...we've heard it all before...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnce again our resident Big Oil representative hogging the comment space for his patrons, with his odious spew.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSault is well known on this site to be both illiterate and innumerate. Perhaps he should call up a real engineer down at Big Oil HQ for assistance.
The average capacity factor for British offshore wind is 25%. So 25%, 468B nameplate, cost $2.6B, finance cost 15% without subsidies. Then add 25 cents a KWH for 5 times sized transmission grid and gas backup. Comes to 63 cents a kwh more than my original estimate of 55 cents.
Cost of VC Summer nuke 4 cents a kwh if built by public power.