Maine may streamline tidal power permitting

The Maine legislature is considering a proposal to streamline the permitting process for some tidal energy projects. The bill, "An Act To Streamline the General Permit Process for Tidal Power", would relieve a perceived conflict between state and federal law over the permitting process.

Tidal energy has been harvested along the Maine coast for hundreds of years. While tide mills' heyday predated modern regulation of energy projects and their environmental impacts, anyone developing a modern tidal power project must navigate multiple layers of rules and requirements. The recent resurgence of interest in tidal energy has led to an often overlapping patchwork of regulations.

These rules can be hard to interpret, and occasionally lead to chicken-or-the-egg conundrums. For example, a 2009 Maine law created an expedited general permit process for certain small tidal power projects. Under that process, projects capable of generating up to 5 megawatts of power can qualify for an easier permitting path if their primary purpose is demonstrating or testing tidal technology. (By way of comparison, 5 megawatts is roughly equivalent to 6,705 horsepower - imagine what a tide miller could have done with that!)

Prior to filing a permit application with the Maine Department of Environmental Protection under the 2009 law, an applicant must first obtain a finding from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that the project will have no significant adverse impact on environmental quality. Unfortunately, before issuing that finding federal regulators want applicants to show that they are already seeking state approval. This regulatory conflict makes it hard for people who want to develop or redevelop a tidal resource to move forward.

To fix this problem, the DEP, Senator Mike Thibodeau of Waldo County, and Representative Joyce Maker of Calais proposed an amendment to Maine law. Their bill, known as LD 437, would enable the DEP to start processing an application without needing to wait for the federal environmental assessment. After a public hearing earlier this month, the legislature's Joint Standing Committee on Environment and Natural Resources voted to recommend that the bill ought to pass as amended.

Next steps for the tidal streamlining bill include consideration by the full Senate and House. Given the committee's vote, the bill seems likely to find further support in the two chambers. While its enactment may not launch a tide of new tidal power developments in Maine, relieving this piece of the regulatory tangle should help people test and demonstrate tidal power technologies old and new.

June 16, 2010 - a look into historic energy usage

The United States Energy Information Administration tells us that in 2008, Americans consumed 99.304 quadrillion Btu of "primary energy" resources.

How much is that? One quadrillion Btu, or "quad", is one thousand million million Btu, or 10^15 Btu. One quad is roughly the amount of energy contained in:
* 8,007,000,000 Gallons (US) of gasoline
* 293,071,000,000 Kilowatt-hours (kWh)
* 36,000,000 tons of coal
* 970,434,000,000 Cubic feet of natural gas
* 5,996,000,000 gallons of diesel oil
* 25,200,000 tons of oil

Dividing the 99.304 quads by the U.S. population, each American is responsible for 327 million Btu annually. Energy intensity, or the annual per capita consumption, peaked for America in 1978-1979 at 359 million Btu, but we've been moving back and forth above 311 million Btu since 1968.

How do these numbers compare to historic figures? US EIA has an interesting table showing estimated primary energy consumption for the U.S. for 1635-1945. The table shows 0.001 quad consumption in 1645, the first year for which data is provided. By 1835, the figure has broken above one quad (1.305 quad). Energy consumption grows fairly linearly through 1900 (9.587 quad), after which the figure shoots up sharply.

In 1835, the official U.S. population was 14.7 million. This gives an 1835 intensity of 88 million Btu -- about one quarter of today's per capita consumption.

Interestingly, I suspect these figures don't take into account the literal horsepower provided by livestock in 1835. How much more energy do we really consume today?