MMS Requests Comments on Regs for Offshore Renewables
03 January 2006
|
| Offshore wind energy potential for the US by depth. Source: NREL |
The Minerals Management Service (MMS), the federal agency chartered with oversight of offshore oil and gas, is requesting comments for a regulatory program to support the development of alternate-energy projects—including wind-, wave-, current- and solar-power—on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf.
This Advanced Notice of Public Rulemaking (ANPR) is the first step to developing the regulatory program authorized by the passage of the Energy Policy Act in 2005.
The Energy Policy Act authorizes the Department of the Interior (of which MMS is part) to grant leases, easements or rights-of-way on the OCS for the development and support of energy resources from sources other than oil and gas and to allow for alternate uses of existing facilities on the OCS. The Act also directed DOI, specifically MMS, to develop by mid-2006, a comprehensive program and regulations to implement the new authority.
The U.S. DOE estimates that US offshore wind generation alone offers more than 900,000 megawatts of capacity, an amount roughly equivalent to the total current installed U.S. electrical capacity, within 50 miles of the US coastline.
The Outer Continental Shelf under jurisdiction of the Federal Government is approximately the area between the states’s limits (3 nautical miles out) and a 200-nautical-mile limit. (There are exceptions in the OCS definition.)
The MMS renewable energy program does not apply to any area on the Outer Continental Shelf within the exterior boundaries of any unit of the National Park System, National Wildlife Refuge System, or National Marine Sanctuary System, or any National Monument. Nor does it permit granting of a lease, easement, or right-of-way in an area in which oil and gas development is prohibited by a moratorium.
Resources:
ANPR: Alternate Energy-Related Uses on the Outer Continental Shelf
MMS Renewables Website
A Framework for Offshore Wind Energy Development in the United States; DOE, GE, Massachusetts Technology Collaborative
Some European countries such as Norway is heading to this direction. But I guess the greatest obstacle is the cost. For instance, the windmill close to the Atlantic city is charging customers more for their alternative energy .
I think the financial incentive should come in two ways. One is the energy company and the other is the consumer. Lack of help from either one is not sufficient enough to promote the alternative energy.
Posted by: Alfred | 03 January 2006 at 03:40 PM
The Gulf stream off the carolina has the kinetic energy 50 million tons of water per second. What that is in gigawatts is beyond me but I suspect it is more than the average power use of the entire country if not the world. Putting megawatt size wind turbines under water is not beyond our technological capabilities.
Posted by: tom deplume | 03 January 2006 at 05:42 PM
Kinetic energy is not measured in tons. Neither is power.
900 gigawatts is an enormous amount of power, about 3/4 of the 1.2 TW theoretically available on the US landmass... and it's not in anybody's back yard.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 04 January 2006 at 11:47 AM
"900 gigawatts is an enormous amount of power ... and it's not in anybody's back yard."
You wish. But that is not the way it really is. Consider the Nantucket Soound wind farm proposal and its opposition by the supposedly enviromentalist Kennedy family.
Here is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in the NYTimes less than a month ago:
"As an environmentalist, I support wind power, including wind power on the high seas. I am also involved in siting wind farms in appropriate landscapes, of which there are many. But I do believe that some places should be off limits to any sort of industrial development. I wouldn't build a wind farm in Yosemite National Park. Nor would I build one on Nantucket Sound, which is exactly what the company Energy Management is trying to do with its Cape Wind project."
Not In His Backyard.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz | 06 January 2006 at 08:06 AM
todays haul of NIMBYs
Wired News 06/01/06:
The whole state of New York is experiencing such a serious power crunch that Gov. George Pataki has taken drastic measures to help combat energy-supply problems and decrease the Empire State's ecological footprint.
Part of his plan includes dotting the rural upstate lake region with windmill farms because they provide clean and practically free energy once they're installed. It sounds like an excellent solution, unless you dislike the look of hulking white shafts supporting giant propellers on your horizon.
Some residents fear their property value will take a hit if they have windmills for neighbors, and they have not been shy about letting state officials hear their complaints.
A vocal anti-turbine movement is led by the billionaire founder of Paychex. Tom Golisano, who recently registered as a Republican and is challenging Pataki for the governor office, finances a group called Save Upstate New York.
The activities of Save Upstate and like-minded groups make front-page news in local papers at least once a week. They hold anti-turbine rallies and meetings where they discuss windmills' potential dangers and drawbacks. They complain about the potential effect on their property values and the aesthetic impact on the area's scenic countryside.
Other complaints are a little further from reality. In a recent symposium held by the Concerned Citizens for Steuben County, one speaker compared the sound of the spinning blades and whirring machinery (which most people find inaudible from fairly close distances) to the noises Nazi troops tortured Jews with during the holocaust.
Group members also warned of health problems ranging from strokes caused by the sunlight as it pulsates through the spinning turbine blades to mange in cattle. Others claimed that women living near the wind farms are having as many as five menstrual cycles a month.
"So I guess my final question is: Who do I sue if I have any health problems or my property value decreases because of this project?" asked Patricia Oakes, a Hartsville, New York, resident at a recent meeting.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz | 06 January 2006 at 10:58 AM
The NIMBYs would probably be happy if they got a chunk of the rent, and even Kennedy isn't going to whine about a turbine so far off-shore that it's not even visible. Read that PDF, it's very interesting.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 06 January 2006 at 12:25 PM
Why are large environmentally risky offshore oil platforms tolerated all over the world and clean offshore windmills would not be? If the six sisters and oil lobbies did such a good PR job why green power supporters couldn't do as much to make those beautiful clean wind mills very acceptable?
Posted by: Harvey D | 06 January 2006 at 07:11 PM
"The NIMBYs would probably be happy if they got a chunk of the rent, and even Kennedy isn't going to whine about a turbine so far off-shore that it's not even visible."
Somebody won't get a big enough ut of the swag and will cry foul. Some Kennedy will always be offended. I will always bet on stupidity.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz | 06 January 2006 at 08:03 PM
Kennedys - bunch of jerks ...
"As an environmentalist, I support wind power, including wind power on the high seas. I am also involved in siting wind farms in appropriate landscapes, of which there are many. But I do believe that some places should be off limits to any sort of industrial development. I wouldn't build a wind farm in Yosemite National Park. Nor would I build one on Nantucket Sound, which is exactly what the company Energy Management is trying to do with its Cape Wind project."
NIMBY snydrome indeed!
America needs another oil refinery, and I suggest we site it next to his million-dollar family compound!
"Why are large environmentally risky offshore oil platforms tolerated all over the world and clean offshore windmills would not be?"
Er, oil drilling is *not* tolerated offshore US, but *should be*. There are no environmental risks to drilling for natural gas offshore, yet that too is fobidden, even though there is hundred of billions worth of NG off California coast.
We should do both: Windmill farms and oil platforms.
Posted by: Patrick | 08 January 2006 at 01:44 PM
Here is another link - www.oceanrenewable.com and www.oceanrenewable.pbwiki.com which is gathering comments for the MMS rulemaking on behalf of offshore renewable developers.
Posted by: Carolyn Elefant | 18 January 2006 at 05:37 PM