Today is the second day of the Energy Ocean International 2012 conference. The technical program for today includes panels on advances in wave and tidal energy projects, offshore winds, permitting and project finance. Today's sessions follow many of the themes discussed in yesterday's technical program. What new technologies are being developed that may enhance the cost-effectiveness of converting energy from the ocean realm into something humans can use?
For technology innovators, what does it take to test and demonstrate a new device, and ultimately convince a project developer that this technology is appropriate for their project?
For project developers, what are the processes needed to develop a successful project, including securing regulatory approvals, minimizing environmental impacts, and putting together a commercially viable financing package? Fundamentally, what does the future hold for ocean energy development? How and when can ocean energy projects be environmentally responsible and cost-effective? By bringing together the broad spectrum of stakeholders interested in ocean energy, perhaps these questions can be answered sooner rather than later.
Energy powers society; society's choices shape energy policy. A blog about our energy resources and the choices they present for society.
Showing posts with label environmental impacts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environmental impacts. Show all posts
Plymouth nuclear plant relicensing
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Two fish - the Atlantic sturgeon and the river herring - have been invoked to threaten the relicensing of a nuclear power plant in Plymouth, Massachusetts.
The Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, the only operating commercial nuclear power plant in Massachusetts, is a 688 MW boiling water nuclear reactor owned by Entergy. Originally commissioned in 1972 by utility Boston Edison, its original license had the maximum 40-year term allowed under the Atomic Energy Act. That license is due to expire on June 8, 2012.
Entergy applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license renewal, seeking the 20 year term allowed for relicensing. That case remains pending. Stakeholders have raised a number of concerns about the plant's relicensing. For example, Pilgrim Station is built around a General Electric Mark I reactor, the same type and design as used in the ill-fated Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant; like Fukushima, the Plymouth plant is located on the coast. While the Pilgrim plant was designed to handle anticipated natural disasters, some believe the U.S. nuclear industry should be reevaluated in light of the Fukushima incident.
Now, U.S. Congressman Ed Markey of Massachusetts has sent a letter to NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko requesting that the NRC not re-license Pilgrim Station "until all legal requirements stipulated by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) have been met." Specifically, Congressman Markey notes that two threatened fish species - the Atlantic sturgeon and the river herring - inhabit the waters near the plant but were not considered in a key assessment of threatened or endangered species likely to be affected by relicensure. His letter also notes that the National Marine Fisheries Service has not yet issued a written biological opinion proposing a plan to protect threatened or endangered species, nor has the NMFS issued a written concurrence with the NRC's biological opinion.
These species were known to live in the area in 2007 when the NRC wrote its biological assessment, but were not designated as threatened at that time. NMFS designated the Gulf of Maine distinct population segment of Atlantic Sturgeon as threatened in February 2012, and two species of river herring are currently candidates for listing.
Based on these newly designated statuses, Congressman Markey asked NRC not to re-license the Pilgrim project until after the development of a new biological assessment to include the sturgeon and herring, along with any conditions needed to protect those species.
The Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, the only operating commercial nuclear power plant in Massachusetts, is a 688 MW boiling water nuclear reactor owned by Entergy. Originally commissioned in 1972 by utility Boston Edison, its original license had the maximum 40-year term allowed under the Atomic Energy Act. That license is due to expire on June 8, 2012.
Entergy applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license renewal, seeking the 20 year term allowed for relicensing. That case remains pending. Stakeholders have raised a number of concerns about the plant's relicensing. For example, Pilgrim Station is built around a General Electric Mark I reactor, the same type and design as used in the ill-fated Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant; like Fukushima, the Plymouth plant is located on the coast. While the Pilgrim plant was designed to handle anticipated natural disasters, some believe the U.S. nuclear industry should be reevaluated in light of the Fukushima incident.
Now, U.S. Congressman Ed Markey of Massachusetts has sent a letter to NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko requesting that the NRC not re-license Pilgrim Station "until all legal requirements stipulated by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) have been met." Specifically, Congressman Markey notes that two threatened fish species - the Atlantic sturgeon and the river herring - inhabit the waters near the plant but were not considered in a key assessment of threatened or endangered species likely to be affected by relicensure. His letter also notes that the National Marine Fisheries Service has not yet issued a written biological opinion proposing a plan to protect threatened or endangered species, nor has the NMFS issued a written concurrence with the NRC's biological opinion.
These species were known to live in the area in 2007 when the NRC wrote its biological assessment, but were not designated as threatened at that time. NMFS designated the Gulf of Maine distinct population segment of Atlantic Sturgeon as threatened in February 2012, and two species of river herring are currently candidates for listing.
Based on these newly designated statuses, Congressman Markey asked NRC not to re-license the Pilgrim project until after the development of a new biological assessment to include the sturgeon and herring, along with any conditions needed to protect those species.
Keystone XL pipeline explained
Thursday, October 27, 2011
The proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline is drawing significant public attention. What is the Keystone XL project, and why is it controversial?
What is Keystone XL?
The Keystone XL project is a proposed extension of an existing crude oil pipeline. The $7 billion project would run from the Canadian province of Alberta to Texas, cutting across Saskatchewan, Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma along the way. TransCanada Corporation proposes Keystone XL to expand its existing Keystone pipeline network, a former natural gas pipeline repurposed to ship crude oil south to meet U.S. demand.
What is the controversy?
The U.S. is a major consumer of oil and petroleum-derived products.
All major linear infrastructure projects tend to draw interest. Significant projects, whether a pipeline for natural gas or oil, electric transmission line, or highway, often affect interests across a wide geographic range. Relatively local siting concerns, like finding the best route for a given project and minimizing its direct environmental impacts, are common when planning any major infrastructure development.
In Keystone XL's case, project opponents point to additional concerns about the project's broader environmental impacts. Some decry the proposal as increasing dependence on foreign oil, and believe the U.S. already has sufficient Canadian oil import capacity. Others note that the oil to be shipped south over Keystone XL will be largely derived from Alberta's "tar sands" or "oil sands", and that extraction and production of crude oil from these sources involves greater greenhouse gas emissions or other environmental impacts.
What is happening now?
Concerns over the Keystone XL project are manifesting in multiple forms. Protests have led to more than 1,000 arrests, including high-profile protestors like actress Darryl Hannah and NASA scientist James Hansen. States affected by the pipeline proposal are moving cautiously; next week the Nebraska Legislature will meet at the request of Governor Dave Heineman to address concerns over Keystone XL.
To develop the project, TransCanada must secure a presidential permit to import oil across the national border. While that permitting process initially appeared to be on track, 14 members of Congress have asked for a delay to allow an investigation into how the State Department performed its environmental review of the project.
The fate of the Keystone XL project depends on a number of factors, including whether it can secure a presidential permit as well as how states react. Part of the project's financing hinges on contracts to deliver crude oil as soon as 2014, and TransCanada is reportedly concerned that delay would jeopardize that financing structure.
What is Keystone XL?
The Keystone XL project is a proposed extension of an existing crude oil pipeline. The $7 billion project would run from the Canadian province of Alberta to Texas, cutting across Saskatchewan, Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma along the way. TransCanada Corporation proposes Keystone XL to expand its existing Keystone pipeline network, a former natural gas pipeline repurposed to ship crude oil south to meet U.S. demand.
What is the controversy?
The U.S. is a major consumer of oil and petroleum-derived products.
All major linear infrastructure projects tend to draw interest. Significant projects, whether a pipeline for natural gas or oil, electric transmission line, or highway, often affect interests across a wide geographic range. Relatively local siting concerns, like finding the best route for a given project and minimizing its direct environmental impacts, are common when planning any major infrastructure development.
In Keystone XL's case, project opponents point to additional concerns about the project's broader environmental impacts. Some decry the proposal as increasing dependence on foreign oil, and believe the U.S. already has sufficient Canadian oil import capacity. Others note that the oil to be shipped south over Keystone XL will be largely derived from Alberta's "tar sands" or "oil sands", and that extraction and production of crude oil from these sources involves greater greenhouse gas emissions or other environmental impacts.
What is happening now?
Concerns over the Keystone XL project are manifesting in multiple forms. Protests have led to more than 1,000 arrests, including high-profile protestors like actress Darryl Hannah and NASA scientist James Hansen. States affected by the pipeline proposal are moving cautiously; next week the Nebraska Legislature will meet at the request of Governor Dave Heineman to address concerns over Keystone XL.
To develop the project, TransCanada must secure a presidential permit to import oil across the national border. While that permitting process initially appeared to be on track, 14 members of Congress have asked for a delay to allow an investigation into how the State Department performed its environmental review of the project.
The fate of the Keystone XL project depends on a number of factors, including whether it can secure a presidential permit as well as how states react. Part of the project's financing hinges on contracts to deliver crude oil as soon as 2014, and TransCanada is reportedly concerned that delay would jeopardize that financing structure.
April 26, 2011 - Ivanpah solar deals with tortoise impacts
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Two weeks ago, I noted Google's investment in the 392 MW Ivanpah solar project in California's Mojave Desert, and how it benefited from $1.6 billion in Department of Energy loan guarantees. Developer BrightSource Energy started construction on Phase I of the Ivanpah project in October 2010, with two subsequent phases slated for development shortly thereafter. BrightSource's business plan also includes an initial public offering, which led the company to file an S-1 securities registration with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Ivanpah project has now hit a speedbump in the form of a tortoise. The desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) lives in the Mojave desert, including in the area where the Ivanpah project is proposed. As a result, BrightSource has apparently stopped work on the construction of Ivanpah's second and third phases.
BrightSource noted in its S-1 filing that "in April 2011, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, or BLM, advised us that it will require the issuance of a revised biological opinion by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, or FWS, prior to providing permission to proceed with the construction of Ivanpah’s second and third phases".
The Fish and Wildlife Service is reportedly developing that opinion now, which should be finalized over the summer.
 |
| Solar photovoltaic panels above Beaver Mountain ski area near Logan, Utah. |
BrightSource noted in its S-1 filing that "in April 2011, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, or BLM, advised us that it will require the issuance of a revised biological opinion by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, or FWS, prior to providing permission to proceed with the construction of Ivanpah’s second and third phases".
The Fish and Wildlife Service is reportedly developing that opinion now, which should be finalized over the summer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
