Give Wind a Break

By Wanter Uja, Law Clerk

Wind energy is generating a lot of controversy because while most parts of a wind turbine can be recycled or at least repurposed on another wind farm, the turbine blades are a different story. Roughly 90% of a wind turbine can be recycled since they are made out of steel, copper and other materials that can be broken down. Made out of resin and fiber glass, turbine blades are built to withstand hurricane winds and cannot be easily recycled; as such, not many options exist to recycle them. The current methods of disposing wind turbine blades include burning them and burying them in landfills, neither of which are necessarily environmentally friendly. Some researchers have determined that over the next 20 years, roughly 720,000 tons of blade material will be disposed of, and this number does not include the new high capacity versions.

Wind turbines are built to last between 20-25 years, but since their efficiency reduces as their mechanical parts—including the blades—degrade, they have to be retired sometimes just 14 years after they are installed. As it stands, about 870 blades have been dumped in a municipal Wyoming landfill. The non-recyclability of these blades seems to run counter to the greenness of wind energy, and therein lies the problem. Given the rapid development of wind energy, it is understandable how this might be worrisome, especially considering the need to switch to non-emitting sources of energy in the coming years.

It is, however, important to look at energy production holistically. First of all, wind turbine blades are landfill-safe and represent only a small fraction of the overall solid waste contained in municipal landfills. Secondly, the company Global Fiber Glass Solutions has started the slow but steady process of breaking down fiber glass into pellets that can be used for construction, sparking the interest of numerous manufacturers. One of those manufacturers is IKEA, which has pledged to use only recycled plastic by 2030. This presents a potential opportunity to recycle used wind turbine blades into new materials and products.

More importantly, regardless of how seemingly environmentally unfriendly the disposal of wind turbine blades is, wind energy cannot and indeed should not be traded for other fossil fuels. It is now settled that if there is to be any chance of slowing down climate change, there must be a shift to renewables by 2035. Production of electricity from coal, for example, causes more harm to the environment than burying turbine blades. Burning coal in coal-fired power plants produces fly ash that is usually disposed of in waterways with a permit or in landfills. Coal contains trace elements of acidic matter like uranium, arsenic and mercury, including other substances that are toxic to human life. Fly ash, which comes from combustion of this coal, is more concentrated and especially dangerous to groundwater. Furthermore, particles from fly ash can become lodged in your lungs and trigger asthma and inflammation, and has been known to even cause death. Fly ash is especially harmful because the chemicals in the ash are able to escape and move through the environment.

Although natural gas produces methane emissions, there is no question that it produces way fewer emissions than coal. However, in addition to the fact that drilling gas wells disturbs vegetation, people, wildlife and sometimes water resources, gas flaring releases carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and many other toxic compounds. Natural gas is wrought with examples of methane release due to shoddy leaking pipes. Methane, an extremely potent greenhouse gas, endangers the lives of people when it is released into the atmosphere. Hydraulic fracturing has also been linked to infertility, miscarriages and birth defects.

The world’s leading scientists have agreed that climate change is being hastened by the release of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, most of which are emitted from electricity production. Mitigation and adaptation plans include a shift to renewable or non-emitting energy resources. Flowing from the above, it is clear that burying wind turbine blades poses far less risk to the environment than the continued use of fossil fuels.

While acknowledging that burying turbine blades in perpetuity is not ideal, these blades as stated are landfill safe, and with the growth and development of wind energy, technology will advance that will enable them to be recycled faster and/or repurposed to some other use.  In the meantime, give wind a break—it is good for our planet.

Offshore Wind: Costs and Considerations for Future Development

By Joni Sliger, Energy Fellow

A floating wind turbine near Portugal.
Credit: Senu Sirnivas / NREL

As I reported last week, offshore wind energy will soon be flowing to the residents of Block Island, Rhode Island. Yet some continue to question the costs of Block Island Wind Farm (BIWF): will this project benefit the electricity consumers as much as it benefits the industry?

Financing renewable energy projects is no small feat. Developers typically need to lock in a contract proving to stockholders and regulators that the investment will be recovered. In part, financial difficulties explain some of the failed offshore wind projects of the past, such as Oregon’s WindFloat Pacific. The WindFloat Pacific project would have created floating offshore wind turbines near Coos Bay, Oregon (where the ocean floor is too deep for anchored turbines like at BIWF). Competing with low electricity prices from cheap hydroelectric, however, the project was unable to secure a contract from a power purchaser. (Note though that hydroelectric power generation has its environmental problems and is not a guaranteed long-term electricity source.) Without such a contract and lacking regulatory approval, the Windfloat Pacific Project stalled.

At Block Island, BIWF did not have to compete with cheap hydroelectric power. Instead, the islanders rely on imported diesel fuel, costing about $0.50/kwh currently, or five times the average electricity rate in the U.S. of $0.10/kWh. Under BIWF’s contract with utility National Grid, rate-paying islanders’ current electricity prices will drop to $0.30/kWh. Mainlanders, in contrast, who receive the excess wind energy, will face above-market rates in order to finance the $440 project. But some continue to question whether the price difference for the islanders reflects the whole story and will truly result in greater savings for the islanders or the state. (For an inside look at some of the intricacies of ratemaking, you can read about one of the Public Utility Commission meetings discussing BIWF here.)

According to the Rhode Island Public Radio, the true value of BIWF will not be clear for several years. While analysts can consider the current price of diesel fuel (the island’s previous fuel source) and compare it to the contractual price for offshore wind energy, the price of diesel varies. Long-term price stability is one of many benefits of renewable energy sources. Renewables offer additional benefits as well, many of which have not historically been considered in ratemaking, such as lower emissions and greater independence from global markets. For example, consider this proposal to build offshore wind farms in order to mitigate hurricane damage by reducing wind speed at a projected net cost of...zero. Yet whatever the net cost of a project, it is the upfront cost that can be daunting to developers, utilities, and regulators.

Fortunately, according to a new study just published in Nature Energy, the cost of each type of wind energy (onshore, offshore, and offshore floating) is projected to drop substantially in the coming decades. From 2014 to 2030, experts project a 24-30% reduction in costs; by 2050, they project a total reduction of 35-41%. While future costs are difficult to predict with much accuracy, the study surveyed 163 experts, the largest elicitation study on energy ever conducted. 

In addition to rising market confidence and falling market prices, offshore wind also has the benefit of the federal government’s attention: the Department of Energy and Department of the Interior recently released the National Offshore Wind Strategy: Facilitating the Development of the Offshore Wind Industry in the United States. Calling offshore wind energy development a “significant opportunity” for the nation, the report identifies 34 actions for the DOE and DOI to take in order to “facilitate responsible, robust, and sustainable offshore wind development in the United States.” With supportive governance, competitive market prices, and visionary developers already taking the plunge into offshore wind development, offshore wind energy may soon be coming soon to a coast near you. 

An Introduction to Offshore Wind: The Energy That Piqued My Interest

By Joni Sliger, Policy Extern

Credit: Siemens AG and NREL

As a policy extern with GEI, I am very interested in researching Oregon’s policies and possibilities for a renewable energy future. After all, state energy policies are what first piqued my interest in the field of energy law.

While studying Global Environmental Change & Sustainability at Johns Hopkins University, I got involved with a campaign to amend Maryland’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to add offshore wind energy. The campaign brought together labor unions interested in wind turbine manufacturing jobs, public health groups interested in transitioning Maryland (and Baltimore especially) off asthma-inducing fossil fuels, and students and environmentalists like myself interested in ensuring a sustainable energy future without volatile fuel prices and without huge greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, the campaign did not succeed before I graduated in 2012. However, the following term, the legislature finally passed a law to amend the RPS.

Most RPSs require utilities to obtain a certain percentage of retail electricity sales from eligible renewable energy sources. Instead of merely adding offshore wind energy to the list of eligible resources, Maryland’s Offshore Wind Energy Act of 2013 created what is known as a “carve-out.” The carve-out requires that, within the percentage from renewables mandated by the RPS, a certain percentage must come specifically from offshore wind energy, beginning in 2017.

While an RPS provides investors with the certainty that a market exists for renewable energy, an RPS carve-out provides even greater certainty for a particular type of power. That is critically important for an emerging technology like offshore wind. At least, the technology is still emerging in the United States; Europe, in contrast, has already invested in offshore wind energy projects with a combined capacity of 8,000 megawatts, according to 2014 data from the European Wind Energy Association. Meanwhile, the very first offshore wind farm in the U.S.—Block Island Wind Farm in Rhode Island—began construction just this past July. While the U.S. farm is not yet operational, wind enthusiasts like myself can still celebrate the construction as a sign of progress.

Some scientists has referred to offshore wind energy as a “missed opportunity” for the United States. But the opportunity has not passed. Offshore wind is coming. There have been growing pains, but as highlighted by last week’s Summit on Offshore Wind Energy, the White House is looking to streamline the permitting process. In its press release, the White House announced the creation of an Interagency Working Group on Offshore Wind to coordinate the permitting process. The Summit also announced the funding of a multi-state project in the Northeast, the creation of an International Offshore Wind Regulators Forum to learn from experiences abroad, and the recent approval of two more areas for leasing to developers.

The United States might be late to the offshore wind party, but the possibilities are strong. The Department of Energy says the nation could obtain 86,000 MW from offshore wind by 2050.  Last week, the American Wind Energy Association hosted a conference on Offshore Wind in Baltimore, Maryland. The event brought together industry leaders that are optimistic about offshore development. After all, plans are underway to build a 500 MW farm off the coast of Ocean City, Maryland. Maryland’s amended RPS was a major incentive for this project; the developers will be applying for the offshore energy credits this month.

I am thrilled to see offshore wind energy finally taking off in the U.S. Obtaining permits and financing may have slowed the industry’s development, but those obstacles have not stopped it. We need this renewable energy, and we are on our way to getting it. “Wind is here,” noted one commentator, “and [so is] the ripple effect.”