What are mhk technologies?

Download 0.89 Mb.
Size0.89 Mb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   27

What are MHK technologies?

Tethys, Information body of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), 2014, “Environmental Effects of Renewable Energy from the Sea,” http://tethys.pnnl.gov/, Accessed 5/3/2014

Marine and Hydrokinetic (MHK) or marine energy development in U.S. and international waters includes projects using the following devices:

Wave energy converters in open coastal areas with significant waves;

Tidal turbines placed in coastal and estuarine areas;

In-stream turbines in fast-moving rivers;

Ocean current turbines in areas of strong marine currents;

Ocean Thermal Energy Converters in deep tropical waters.


Observation One: No Disads!

The DOE’s new budget request cut MHK research and development by 25%

Sean O’Neill, ‘14, President, Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition, The American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), Non-profit collective of energy producers, The Outlook for Renewable Energy in America: 2014, http://www.acore.org/files/pdfs/ACORE_Outlook_for_ RE_2014.pdf, Accessed 4/26/2014

The operating experience is beginning to grow for the MHK industry throughout the world, and the U.S. has an opportunity to compete; however, it will require consistent support from the federal government. U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Moniz commented to Members of Congress in 2013 that he was looking to increase DOE-funding support for what he called the “forgotten renewables,” including marine hydrokinetic renewable energy. In contrast, the U.K. wave and tidal energy market alone is estimated to be worth over $1 billion USD by 2035. On March 3, 2014, DOE released its Fiscal Year 2015 budget submission, which proposes to increase the Energy and Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) budget by over 20%, but would cut MHK research and development (R&D) by 25%.

Despite a recent funding bump, it’s not enough to satisfy our SPECIFIC solvency advocates

Rosenfeld 6/18

Michael Roseneld is a reporter for Hydroworld.com, “How North America can Benefit from UK Know-How in Ocean Energy”, Hydro World, Jun. 18, 14 http://www.hydroworld.com/articles/hr/print/volume-33/issue-5/articles/how-north-america-can-benefit-from-uk-know-how-in-ocean-energy.html Accessed 6/22

The United Kingdom is known for its pioneering work in wave, tidal and ocean current energy. The U.S. and Canada have vast marine resources and would benefit from partnerships with UK companies in a number of ways, including building expertise, sharing lessons learned and fostering industry growth.

To date, the U.S. has not been able to replicate these types of "test beds" due to lack of funding, but the federal government is beginning to support more ocean energy projects. In March, DOE announced $10 million in funding to strengthen the U.S. marine and hydrokinetic (MHK) energy industry, which includes wave and tidal energy sources. As mentioned above, in August 2013, DOE announced an additional $16 million for 17 projects to help sustainably and efficiently capture energy from waves, tides and currents. The projects included marine and hydrokinetic system performance advancement, as well as environmental projects to study implications of deploying certain ocean energy technologies.

Plan: The United States Department of Energy should substantially increase deployment of ocean-based Marine and Hydrokinetic (MHK) technologies in United States territorial ocean spaces.

Advantage One: Climate Change

Climate change is happening now. We must rapidly deploy marine renewables to reduce fossil fuel emissions to avoid extreme climate change

Attrill, et al., June 19, ‘13

Martin Attrill, Professor and Director of Plymouth Marine Institute, Plymouth University Et al., June 19, 2013, “Marine Renewables,

Biodiversity and Fisheries,” Plymouth Marine Institute at Plymouth University, http://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/marine_ renewables_biodiver.pdf, Accessed 4/28/2014

It is necessary to rapidly deploy large quantities of marine renewable energy to reduce the carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning which are leading to ocean acidification, global warming and climatic changes. Done well and sensitively its deployment could be beneficial to marine wildlife compared to the alternative scenario of greater levels of climate change. This overview outlines current evidence and the following papers in this report go into greater detail. According to the Met Office in the UK, global emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) need to peak in 2016, with annual declines of 3.5% every year afterwards, in order to provide even a 50:50 chance of avoiding a 2 degree rise in global average temperatures. Yet despite major international meetings and agreements focused on reducing the output of GHGs, global emissions have continued to rise, indeed accelerate, over the last 10 years. Consequently, recent predictions of future global warming are now at the top end of models produced a decade ago or so and suggest that, without rapid action, temperatures may increase by 4 degrees or more above pre-industrial temperatures. Climate change is now a visible reality. Each year of the 21st century has ranked amongst the 14 hottest since record keeping began in 1880. Notable warming of the seas around NW Europe has been recorded over the last 30 years, with extensive spatial changes to plankton and fish assemblages, that have subsequently impacted top predators such as cod and seabirds. 2012 also saw the lowest ever cover of summer Arctic Sea ice. Sea level rise is now measurable, due to both thermal expansion and ice melt, with a global average rise of 3.3 mm/year between 1993-2009. This rate is accelerating: a 1m sea level rise by the end of the century in some areas is an increasing possibility, with major consequences for the integrity of lowlying coastal and wetland ecosystems. Finally, ocean acidification is becoming measurable, heading us on the predicted locked-in path to lower pH seas with severe consequences for organisms using CaCO3 (calcium carbonate) in their biology, such as reefs, molluscs and some key planktonic producers. It is thought that the current rate of acidification is 10-100 times faster than any time in the past 50 million years. Today’s change may be unlike any previous ocean pH change in Earth’s history. It is therefore clear that the marine environment is already being damaged by the increasingly apparent impacts of climate change; however it is not too late to make a difference to avoid more extreme impacts.

This is outstripping any benefits to warming. The newest IPCC report proves climate change will slow economic growth, increase poverty, and cause hunger flashpoints

Greg Ansley, April 1, 2014, “Academics warn human survival on the line,” New Zealand Herald, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11229788, Accessed 5/1/2014

In the most comprehensive study yet into the effects of rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns that global warming could undermine economic growth and increase poverty. The IPCC found the negative effects of climate change have already extended beyond any potential benefits of rising temperatures. They will worsen if global-average temperatures continue to rise by the expected lower limit of 2C by 2100 and could become catastrophic if temperatures rise higher than 4C. In a blunt and often pessimistic assessment of climate-change effects, the fifth since 1990, the IPCC scientists give a stark warning about what the world should expect if global temperatures rise as predicted without mitigation or adaptation. "In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans," says the report released after a final meeting in Yokohama, Japan. It says climate-change effects this century are tipped to slow economic growth, make poverty tougher, further erode food security, and prolong existing and create new poverty traps, the latter particularly in urban areas and "emerging hot spots of hunger". "Climate change is happening, there are big risks for everyone and no place in the world is immune from them," said Professor Neil Adger of Exeter University, one of the many lead authors of the report. Nearly 2000 experts from around the world contributed.

Warming of 4 degrees is inevitable, so we must reduce emissions now

The Potsdam Institute, November 2012, The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics, “Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4°C Warmer World Must be Avoided,” A report for the World Bank, http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/ files/Turn_Down_the_heat_Why_a_4_degree_centrigrade_warmer_world_must_be_avoided.pdf, Accessed 5/1/2014

The emission pledges made at the climate conventions in Copenhagen and Cancun, if fully met, place the world on a trajectory for a global mean warming of well over 3°C. Even if these pledges are fully implemented there is still about a 20 percent chance of exceeding 4°C in 2100. If these pledges are not met then there is a much higher likelihood—more than 40 percent—of warming exceeding 4°C by 2100, and a 10 percent possibility of this occurring already by the 2070s, assuming emissions follow the medium business-as-usual reference pathway. On a higher fossil fuel intensive business-as-usual pathway, such as the IPCC SRESA1FI, warming exceeds 4°C earlier in the 21st century. It is important to note, however, that such a level of warming can still be avoided. There are technically and economically feasible emission pathways that could still limit warming to 2°C or below in the 21st century. To illustrate a possible pathway to warming of 4°C or more, Figure 22 uses the highest SRES scenario, SRESA1FI, and compares it to other, lower scenarios. SRESA1FI is a fossil-fuel intensive, high economic growth scenario that would very likely cause mean the global temperature to exceed a 4°C increase above preindustrial temperatures. Most striking in Figure 22 is the large gap between the projections by 2100 of current emissions reduction pledges and the (lower) emissions scenarios needed to limit warming to 1.5–2°C above pre-industrial levels. This large range in the climate change implications of the emission scenarios by 2100 is important in its own right, but it also sets the stage for an even wider divergence in the changes that would follow over the subsequent centuries, given the long response times of the climate system, including the carbon cycle and climate system components that contribute to sea-level rise. The scenarios presented in Figure 22 indicate the likely onset time for warming of 4°C or more. It can be seen that most of the scenarios remain fairly close together for the next few decades of the 21st century. By the 2050s, however, there are substantial differences among the changes in temperature projected for the different scenarios. In the highest scenario shown here (SRES A1FI), the median estimate (50 percent chance) of warming reaches 4°C by the 2080s, with a smaller probability of 10 percent of exceeding this level by the 2060s. Others have reached similar conclusions. Thus, even if the policy pledges from climate convention in Copenhagen and Cancun are fully implemented, there is still a chance of exceeding 4°C in 2100. If the pledges are not met and present carbon intensity trends continue, then the higher emissions scenarios shown in Figure 22 become more likely, raising the probability of reaching 4°C global mean warming by the last quarter of this century.

Causes extinction—4 degree projections trigger

Roberts 13—citing the World Bank Review’s compilation of climate studies

- 4 degree projected warming, can’t adapt

- heat wave related deaths, forest fires, crop production, water wars, ocean acidity, sea level rise, climate migrants, biodiversity loss

David, “If you aren’t alarmed about climate, you aren’t paying attention” [http://grist.org/climate-energy/climate-alarmism-the-idea-is-surreal/] January 10 //mtc

We know we’ve raised global average temperatures around 0.8 degrees C so far. We know that 2 degrees C is where most scientists predict catastrophic and irreversible impacts. And we know that we are currently on a trajectory that will push temperatures up 4 degrees or more by the end of the century. What would 4 degrees look like? A recent World Bank review of the science reminds us. First, it’ll get hot: Projections for a 4°C world show a dramatic increase in the intensity and frequency of high-temperature extremes. Recent extreme heat waves such as in Russia in 2010 are likely to become the new normal summer in a 4°C world. Tropical South America, central Africa, and all tropical islands in the Pacific are likely to regularly experience heat waves of unprecedented magnitude and duration. In this new high-temperature climate regime, the coolest months are likely to be substantially warmer than the warmest months at the end of the 20th century. In regions such as the Mediterranean, North Africa, the Middle East, and the Tibetan plateau, almost all summer months are likely to be warmer than the most extreme heat waves presently experienced. For example, the warmest July in the Mediterranean region could be 9°C warmer than today’s warmest July. Extreme heat waves in recent years have had severe impacts, causing heat-related deaths, forest fires, and harvest losses. The impacts of the extreme heat waves projected for a 4°C world have not been evaluated, but they could be expected to vastly exceed the consequences experienced to date and potentially exceed the adaptive capacities of many societies and natural systems. [my emphasis] Warming to 4 degrees would also lead to “an increase of about 150 percent in acidity of the ocean,” leading to levels of acidity “unparalleled in Earth’s history.” That’s bad news for, say, coral reefs: The combination of thermally induced bleaching events, ocean acidification, and sea-level rise threatens large fractions of coral reefs even at 1.5°C global warming. The regional extinction of entire coral reef ecosystems, which could occur well before 4°C is reached, would have profound consequences for their dependent species and for the people who depend on them for food, income, tourism, and shoreline protection. It will also “likely lead to a sea-level rise of 0.5 to 1 meter, and possibly more, by 2100, with several meters more to be realized in the coming centuries.” That rise won’t be spread evenly, even within regions and countries — regions close to the equator will see even higher seas. There are also indications that it would “significantly exacerbate existing water scarcity in many regions, particularly northern and eastern Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia, while additional countries in Africa would be newly confronted with water scarcity on a national scale due to population growth.” Also, more extreme weather events: Ecosystems will be affected by more frequent extreme weather events, such as forest loss due to droughts and wildfire exacerbated by land use and agricultural expansion. In Amazonia, forest fires could as much as double by 2050 with warming of approximately 1.5°C to 2°C above preindustrial levels. Changes would be expected to be even more severe in a 4°C world. Also loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services: In a 4°C world, climate change seems likely to become the dominant driver of ecosystem shifts, surpassing habitat destruction as the greatest threat to biodiversity. Recent research suggests that large-scale loss of biodiversity is likely to occur in a 4°C world, with climate change and high CO2 concentration driving a transition of the Earth’s ecosystems into a state unknown in human experience. Ecosystem damage would be expected to dramatically reduce the provision of ecosystem services on which society depends (for example, fisheries and protection of coastline afforded by coral reefs and mangroves.) New research also indicates a “rapidly rising risk of crop yield reductions as the world warms.” So food will be tough. All this will add up to “large-scale displacement of populations and have adverse consequences for human security and economic and trade systems.” Given the uncertainties and long-tail risks involved, “there is no certainty that adaptation to a 4°C world is possible.There’s a small but non-trivial chance of advanced civilization breaking down entirely. Now ponder the fact that some scenarios show us going up to 6 degrees by the end of the century, a level of devastation we have not studied and barely know how to conceive. Ponder the fact that somewhere along the line, though we don’t know exactly where, enough self-reinforcing feedback loops will be running to make climate change unstoppable and irreversible for centuries to come. That would mean handing our grandchildren and their grandchildren not only a burned, chaotic, denuded world, but a world that is inexorably more inhospitable with every passing decade.

The status quo is headed for a climate catastrophe but it’s not too late! Every reduction is key

Dana Nuccitelli, August ’12, environmental scientist at a private environmental consulting firm in the Sacramento, Master's Degree in physics from the University of California at Davis, , “Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?,” http://www.skepticalscience.com/realistically-what-might-future-climate-look-like.html, Accessed 5/1/2014

We're not yet committed to surpassing 2°C global warming, but as Watson noted, we are quickly running out of time to realistically give ourselves a chance to stay below that 'danger limit'. However, 2°C is not a do-or-die threshold. Every bit of CO2 emissions we can reduce means that much avoided future warming, which means that much avoided climate change impacts. As Lonnie Thompson noted, the more global warming we manage to mitigate, the less adaption and suffering we will be forced to cope with in the future. Realistically, based on the current political climate (which we will explore in another post next week), limiting global warming to 2°C is probably the best we can do. However, there is a big difference between 2°C and 3°C, between 3°C and 4°C, and anything greater than 4°C can probably accurately be described as catastrophic, since various tipping points are expected to be triggered at this level. Right now, we are on track for the catastrophic consequences (widespread coral mortality, mass extinctions, hundreds of millions of people adversely impacted by droughts, floods, heat waves, etc.). But we're not stuck on that track just yet, and we need to move ourselves as far off of it as possible by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions as soon and as much as possible. There are of course many people who believe that the planet will not warm as much, or that the impacts of the associated climate change will be as bad as the body of scientific evidence suggests. That is certainly a possiblity, and we very much hope that their optimistic view is correct. However, what we have presented here is the best summary of scientific evidence available, and it paints a very bleak picture if we fail to rapidly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. If we continue forward on our current path, catastrophe is not just a possible outcome, it is the most probable outcome. And an intelligent risk management approach would involve taking steps to prevent a catastrophic scenario if it were a mere possibility, let alone the most probable outcome. This is especially true since the most important component of the solution - carbon pricing - can be implemented at a relatively low cost, and a far lower cost than trying to adapt to the climate change consequences we have discussed here (Figure 4).

Fossil fuel emissions are key

Vertessy & Clark March 13, ’12 Rob Vertessy, Acting Director of Australian Bureau of Meteorology, and Megan Clark, Chief Executive Officer at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, “State of the Climate 2012,” http://theconversation.edu.au/state-of-the-climate-2012-5831, Accessed 5/2/2014

Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions account for about 60% of the effect from anthropogenic greenhouse gases on the earth’s energy balance over the past 250 years. These global CO2 emissions are mostly from fossil fuels (more than 85%), land use change, mainly associated with tropical deforestation (less than 10%), and cement production and other industrial processes (about 4%). Australia contributes about 1.3% of the global CO2 emissions. Energy generation continues to climb and is dominated by fossil fuels – suggesting emissions will grow for some time yet. CO2 levels are rising in the atmosphere and ocean. About 50% of the amount of CO2 emitted from fossil fuels, industry, and changes in land-use, stays in the atmosphere. The remainder is taken up by the ocean and land vegetation, in roughly equal parts. The extra carbon dioxide absorbed by the oceans is estimated to have caused about a 30% increase in the level of ocean acidity since pre-industrial times. The sources of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere can be identified from studies of the isotopic composition of atmospheric CO2 and from oxygen (O2) concentration trends in the atmosphere. The observed trends in the isotopic (13C, 14C) composition of CO2 in the atmosphere and the decrease in the concentration of atmospheric O2 confirm that the dominant cause of the observed CO2 increase is the combustion of fossil fuels.

Marine renewables are fundamental to mitigating climate change. We need the plan to advance non-wind renewables

Oceana, ‘13, the largest international organization focused solely on ocean conservation, “Feature: Marine Renewable Energy,”

http://oceana.org/en/eu/media-reports/features/marine-renewable-energy, Accessed 4/28/2014

Marine renewable energy plays a fundamental role in reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions. In order to mitigate the effects of the climate change, it is essential to promote and develop this energy. Currently, only offshore wind energy has reached an acceptable level of development to be considered competitive. However, there are other less developed technologies that obtain energy from the seas and oceans, including wave and tidal energy, energy from currents, ocean thermal energy and salinity gradient energy.

Advantage Two: Ocean Biodiversity

MHK technologies protect ocean wildlife in multiple ways

Schaumberg and Grace-Tardy ’10 Peter J. Schaumberg, counsel and Ami M. Grace-Tardy, Winter 2010, associate, both with Beveridge & Diamond, P.C., “The Dawn of Federal Marine Renewable Energy Development,” Natural Resources & Environment, Vol. 24, No. 3, http://www.bdlaw.com/assets/htmldocuments/2010%20The%20Dawn%20of%20Federal%20Marine%20 Renewable%20Energy%20Development%20NRE%20P%20Schaumberg%20and%20A.%20Grace-Tardy.pdf, Accessed 4/28/2014

Not all potential impacts from marine renewable energy development are necessarily problematic. Some devices may actually have a positive impact on the marine environment by supporting new marine habitats. For example, floating wave energy devices could shelter fish and sea birds in areas that are off-limits to fishing due to the marine energy device. Likewise, new microecosystems for crustaceans and aquatic plants could flourish on seabed moorings connected to marine devices.

Marine renewables act as fish aggregating devices (FAD) creating artificial reefs that quickly boost ocean biodiversity and productivity

Manuela Truebano, et al., June 19, ‘13, Ph.D., Lecturer in Marine Biology at the Plymouth Marine Institute, Plymouth University, “Marine Renewables, Biodiversity and Fisheries,” Plymouth Marine Institute at Plymouth University, http://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/ downloads/marine_ renewables_biodiver.pdf, Accessed 4/28/2014

Floating devices have the capacity to act as FADs. The phenomenon of fish aggregating around floating objects has been exploited by fishermen for centuries. For recently deployed MRE devices, aggregation can occur over a short period of time, likely as a result of the benefits associated directly with the devices including food availability, shelter or the presence of a suitable spawning area; and indirectly such as the presence of mates. Given such rapid aggregation, devices could be concentrating fish from the vicinity, rather than increasing recruitment. While this is possible, there is a clear benefit in aggregating fish stocks if the area provides protection and food, and is free from fisheries pressure, as envisaged in the case of floating devices associated with or forming part of MRE developments. Species richness and assemblage size are known to correlate with the size of the FAD and thus larger installations, such as wave energy devices, have the potential to attract more species. In addition to floating devices, the deployment of different materials, whether especially designed concrete or steel units, or scrap materials such as car tires and shipwrecks, has been extensively used to enhance fisheries, protect or rehabilitate certain habitats, or to increase the recreational value of an area. Likewise, the monopiles and associated hard structures, used for support and scour protection, increase the amount of artificial hard substrate, thus increasing the area available for organisms to colonize. As in the case of FADs, there is some concern that MRE devices may be merely attracting organisms from the vicinity. However, there is evidence to suggest that such hard structures act as artificial reefs, providing a combination of refuge and food availability, and enhancing recruitment thus increasing productivity.


Sylvia A. Earle, November 1, ‘13Ph.D. in Marine Biology and National Geographic explorer-in-residence, ,”Indispensable Ocean: Aligning Ocean Health and Human Well-Being,” National Geographic News, http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/11/01/indispensable-ocean-aligning-ocean-health-and-human-well-being/, Accessed 5/1/2014

In a presentation at the World Bank headquarters in 2009, I began by showing the classic image of Earth from space and commented: “There it is—The World Bank. Throughout the history of humankind, we have been drawing down the assets, living on the capital without accounting properly for the losses.” This is especially true of the ocean, where impacts are less obvious than for terrestrial systems. Current policies and mind-sets globally were formed decades ago when it seemed the ocean was “too big to fail.” But failing it is, with about half the coral reefs, kelp forests, mangroves, sea grass meadows and coastal marshes globally gone or in serious decline, hundreds of coastal dead zones, steep reduction in numerous commercially exploited species of sharks, swordfish, tunas, cod, salmon and many others.  At the same time, the role of the ocean in governing climate, weather, production of oxygen, the carbon cycle, water cycle and overall planetary chemistry has come into clear focus.  Now we know:  If the ocean is in trouble, so are we.  It is time to take care of the ocean as if our lives depend on it —because they do.

Contention One: Solvency

Expanding MHK technologies through the DOE’s Wind and Water Program is essential to clean energy leadership, jobs, and new economic opportunities

Strategic Marketing Innovations 14

(SMI), March 24, 2014, “The U.S. MHK Industry Request for the DOE Water Power Program,” Fiscal Year 2015 Energy and Water Development Appropriations, http://www.strategicmi.com/press/FY15_Request_for_MHK_ EW_Approps_FINAL_3.21.14.pdf, Accessed 4/28/2014

The small businesses and universities striving to create a U.S.-based marine hydrokinetic (MHK) renewable energy industry respectfully request that Congress continue its recent investments in this emerging industrial sector. Funding of at least $50 million in the FY 2015 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill to support private sector MHK commercialization efforts through DOE’s Wind and Water Power Program is essential at this stage of the industry’s development. These investments facilitate research, development and deployment of internationally competitive MHK systems that are on the verge of commercial viability. This funding is the key mechanism available to support U.S. companies facing overseas competitors that receive a suite of subsidies, especially since MHK developers are not eligible for the tax benefits enjoyed by more mature conventional and renewable energy technologies. Members of the EU are investing almost $1 billion on MHK development and have made this technology a priority. By establishing a comparable effort in the U.S., we can grow a MHK industry that will provide new economic opportunities, high wage jobs and an abundant source of clean energy. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this request.

The Water Power Program is key to coordinate research and agency efforts

U.S. Dept. of Energy, June ‘11, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, “Water Power for a Clean Energy Future,”

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/water/pdfs/51315.pdf, Accessed 4/28/2014

The United States has abundant water power resources, enough to meet a large portion of the nation’s electricity demand. Conventional hydropower generated 257 million megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity in 2010 and provides 6-7% of all electricity in the United States. According to preliminary estimates from the Electric Power Resource Institute (EPRI), the United States has additional water power resource potential of more than 85,000 megawatts (MW). This resource potential includes making efficiency upgrades to existing hydroelectric facilities, developing new low-impact facilities, and using abundant marine and hydrokinetic energy resources. EPRI research suggests that ocean wave and in-stream tidal energy production potential is equal to about 10% of present U.S. electricity consumption (about 400 terrawatt-hours per year). The greatest of these resources is wave energy, with the most potential in Hawaii, Alaska, and the Pacific Northwest. The Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Water Power Program works with industry, universities, other federal agencies, and DOE’s national laboratories to promote the development and deployment of technologies capable of generating environmentally sustainable and cost-effective electricity from the nation’s water resources.

Only federal government-backed research and development leads to widespread MHK commercialization

(OREC) November ‘11, Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition, U.S. Marine and Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Roadmap, A National Strategy to Support U.S. Energy Security and Create Jobs through the Commercialization of Marine Renewable Energy Technologies, http://www.oceanrenewable.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/MHK-Roadmap-Final-November-2011.pdf, Accessed 4/26/2014

The Federal Government has an important role in supporting research and development of MHK technologies that must be implemented to achieve the commercial strategy and mobilize widespread deployment. Federal research investments can facilitate the commercialization efforts of the MHK industry in three important areas, including technology and technical information research and development, national test infrastructure and coordinated resource assessment and characterization of deployment sites. Although discussed separately here, in practice they will be closely intertwined.

Current MHK successes prove the need for federal coordination

(OREC) November ‘11, Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition, U.S. Marine and Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Roadmap, A National Strategy to Support U.S. Energy Security and Create Jobs through the Commercialization of Marine Renewable Energy Technologies, http://www.oceanrenewable.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/MHK-Roadmap-Final-November-2011.pdf, Accessed 4/26/2014

It is clear that the U.S. has taken the initiative to recognize and address many of the issues that serve as barriers not only to its competitive position in the international MHK sector, but to the domestic commercialization of the industry as well. It is apparent that U.S. MHK successes, though welcome, underscore the need for better coordination among U.S. state and federal agencies, the scientific and engineering communities and within the industry itself. As such, it is vital for the U.S. to continue to pursue technical R&D, building national testing infrastructure, refining the MHK policy framework to include guidelines for siting, permitting, adaptive management and phased deployment, leveraging existing workforce and manufacturing experience to develop and strengthen the MHK market, enacting economic and financial incentives to spur growth and private investment and lastly, the continuation of educating the public and employing best practices in the development and eventual commercialization of the industry. Given the wide recognition and acceptance of a sustainable energy future to achieve U.S. energy independence and increased reliability, the MHK industry is confident that the benefits of past and future investments will result in the timely commercialization of a vibrant MHK industry.

Sustained federal funding and coordination is essential to significantly increasing MHK energy. This reduces fossil fuel use and makes the industry competitive globally

(OREC) November ‘11, Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition, U.S. Marine and Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Roadmap, A National Strategy to Support U.S. Energy Security and Create Jobs through the Commercialization of Marine Renewable Energy Technologies, http://www.oceanrenewable.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/MHK-Roadmap-Final-November-2011.pdf, Accessed 4/26/2014

Structuring programs and competitive funding solicitations to align and focus resources that support deployments and in situ research will require coordination within and among federal, regional and state organizations. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has begun the process in its work with state and federal agencies, national labs, universities and non-governmental organizations like the Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition (OREC). Over the past five years, the U.S. Congress has also demonstrated its support for the industry through increased funding for the DOE Wind and Water Power Program. Sustained federal funding will help create thousands of high paying “green” jobs, hasten deployment of these technologies, give confidence to investors and help attract private capital to drive the industry forward. The Marine and Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Roadmap describes the issues, challenges and opportunities facing the U.S. MHK industry and provides a clear, logical path to the commercialization of technologies that contribute to a clean, sustainable and diverse electric generating capability. With the right support, the U.S. MHK renewable energy industry can be competitive internationally. With the right encouragement, MHK renewable energy technologies can help us reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and provide clean energy alternatives to fossil fueled power generating systems. And with the right public awareness, our coastline communities and shipyards can use MHK energy production as a springboard for sustainable economic development.

Marine renewables could supply power to almost 75% of the public by 2025

Schaumberg and Grace-Tardy ’10 Peter J. Schaumberg, counsel and Ami M. Grace-Tardy, Winter 2010, associate, both with Beveridge & Diamond, P.C., “The Dawn of Federal Marine Renewable Energy Development,” Natural Resources & Environment, Vol. 24, No. 3, http://www.bdlaw.com/assets/htmldocuments/2010%20The%20Dawn%20of%20Federal%20Marine%20 Renewable%20Energy%20Development%20NRE%20P%20Schaumberg%20and%20A.%20Grace-Tardy.pdf, Accessed 4/28/2014

Marine renewable energy could provide more than 10 percent of U.S. energy demand (based on 2004 levels). This estimate is especially encouraging because marine renewable energy would be produced where the United States is experiencing its most rapid population growth—our coasts. Electric Power Research Institute, Primer: Power from Ocean Wave and Tides (2007), available at www.aidea.org/aea/PDF%20files/OceanRiverEnergy/6-22-2007EPRIprimer.pdf. By 2025, it is expected that 75 percent of the U.S. population will live near the coast. Marine energy, therefore, could help power these high population centers without the need for extensive, new transmission systems. Marine renewable energy is also often more aesthetically pleasing than its onshore solar or wind counterparts. The visual impacts of marine energy can be minimal or nonexistent because, after construction, the devices may have a low profile, be completely submerged, or be over the horizon.

Even if the plan isn’t a long-term solution, expanding offshore renewables is key to meet our energy needs in the interim

Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, June ‘13, “Charting the Course: Securing the Future of America’s Oceans. Ocean priorities for the Obama administration and congress,” http://www.virginia.edu/colp/pdf/joint-ocean-commission-initiative-2013.pdf, Accessed 4/9/2014

The Obama Administration supports an “all of the above” approach to energy independence that includes many forms of energy exploration and production, both on land and offshore. Our oceans and coasts—with their vast reserves of oil and gas and promising opportunities for wind, wave, tidal, and thermal energy production—are a significant current and potential source of domestic energy, both traditional and renewable. In the long run, the United States needs a comprehensive national energy policy that includes ocean-based energy resources. In the meantime, the development, exploration, and siting of ocean energy sources will continue to be important for meeting U.S. energy needs and should be carried out in a safe, environmentally responsible, and economically balanced manner.

Contention Two: No War

Shared interests and cooperation solve

Robb 12

[Lieutenant, US Navy, “Now Hear This – Why the Age of Great-Power War Is Over”, US Naval Institute, http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2012-05/now-hear-why-age-great-power-war-over, RH]

In addition to geopolitical and diplomacy issues, globalization continues to transform the world. This interdependence has blurred the lines between economic security and physical security. Increasingly, great-power interests demand cooperation rather than conflict. To that end, maritime nations such as the United States and China desire open sea lines of communication and protected trade routes, a common security challenge that could bring these powers together, rather than drive them apart (witness China’s response to the issue of piracy in its backyard). Facing these security tasks cooperatively is both mutually advantageous and common sense. Democratic Peace Theory—championed by Thomas Paine and international relations theorists such as New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman—presumes that great-power war will likely occur between a democratic and non-democratic state. However, as information flows freely and people find outlets for and access to new ideas, authoritarian leaders will find it harder to cultivate popular support for total war—an argument advanced by philosopher Immanuel Kant in his 1795 essay “Perpetual Peace.” Consider, for example, China’s unceasing attempts to control Internet access. The 2011 Arab Spring demonstrated that organized opposition to unpopular despotic rule has begun to reshape the political order, a change galvanized largely by social media. Moreover, few would argue that China today is not socially more liberal, economically more capitalistic, and governmentally more inclusive than during Mao Tse-tung’s regime. As these trends continue, nations will find large-scale conflict increasingly disagreeable. In terms of the military, ongoing fiscal constraints and socio-economic problems likely will marginalize defense issues. All the more reason why great powers will find it mutually beneficial to work together to find solutions to common security problems, such as countering drug smuggling, piracy, climate change, human trafficking, and terrorism—missions that Admiral Robert F. Willard, former Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, called “deterrence and reassurance.” As the Cold War demonstrated, nuclear weapons are a formidable deterrent against unlimited war. They make conflict irrational; in other words, the concept of mutually assured destruction—however unpalatable—actually had a stabilizing effect on both national behaviors and nuclear policies for decades. These tools thus render great-power war infinitely less likely by guaranteeing catastrophic results for both sides. As Bob Dylan warned, “When you ain’t got nothing, you ain’t got nothing to lose.” Great-power war is not an end in itself, but rather a way for nations to achieve their strategic aims. In the current security environment, such a war is equal parts costly, counterproductive, archaic, and improbable.

Download 0.89 Mb.

Share with your friends:
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   27

The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2022
send message

    Main page