ReportWire

Tag: Wind farm

  • New England offshore wind project in Trump’s crosshairs

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — The Trump administration is signaling that it will likely cancel a federal permit for a regional offshore wind project, drawing a rebuke from state leaders and environmentalists who said such a decision would set back the state’s climate change goals and cost thousands of good-paying jobs.

    The U.S. Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management said in a new court filing last week that it is reconsidering federal approval of Avangrid’s New England Wind 1 project. The 719-megawatt project called for generating enough electricity to power more than 400,000 homes in the state.


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm%96 7656C2= 286?4J’D 4@FCE 7:=:?8 4@>6D 😕 C6DA@?D6 E@ 2 =2HDF:E 7:=65 3J prz 7@C (92=6D[ 2 }2?EF4<6E32D65 8C@FA @AA@D65 E@ @77D9@C6 H:?5[ H9:49 DF65 E96 x?E6C:@C s6A2CE>6?E E@ @G6CEFC? E96 A6C>:E :DDF65 E@ }6H t?8=2?5 (:?5[ 2C8F:?8 E96 AC@;64E E9C62E6?D E96 4C:E:42==J 6?52?86C65 }@CE9 pE=2?E:4 C:89E H92=6]k^Am

    kAmqFE E96 286?4J’D >@G6 E@ <:== E96 DE2E6’D 7:CDE @77D9@C6 H:?5 AC@;64E 5C6H 4C:E:4:D> 7C@> v@G] |2FC2 w62=6J[ H9@ D2:5 }6H t?8=2?5 (:?5 2?5 2?@E96C AC@;64E – $@FE9 r@2DE (:?5 – H@F=5 A@H6C >@C6 E92? ` >:==:@? 9@>6D 2?5 3FD:?6DD6D 2?5 4C62E6 E9@FD2?5D @7 ;@3D]k^Am

    kAm“w2G:?8 2=C625J F?56C8@?6 J62CD @7 6IA6CE C6G:6H[ E96D6 AC@;64ED 2C6 AC:>65 E@ =@H6C 4@DED 2?5 :>AC@G6 C6=:23:=:EJ[” w62=6J D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E %9FCD52J] “%96C6 😀 23D@=FE6=J ?@ ?665 7@C E96 %CF>A p5>:?:DEC2E:@? E@ C6@A6? A6C>:EE:?8 AC@46DD6D 2?5 56?J ;@3D[ :?G6DE>6?E 2?5 6?6C8J E@ E96 DE2E6D]”k^Am

    kAm$6?D] t=:K236E9 (2CC6? 2?5 t5 |2C<6J :DDF65 2 ;@:?E DE2E6>6?E D2J:?8 :7 E96 %CF>A 25>:?:DEC2E:@? 42?46=D }6H t?8=2?5 (:?5 `[ :E “H:== 36 <:==:?8 F?:@? ;@3D[ C2:D:?8 6?6C8J 4@DED[ 9FCE:?8 8C:5 C6=:23:=:EJ[ 2?5 F?56C>:?:?8 p>6C:42? 4@>A6E:E:G6?6DD]”k^Am

    kAm“%96 }6H t?8=2?5 (:?5 ` AC@;64E 8@E 2 8C66? =:89E 7C@> E96 7656C2= 8@G6C?>6?E[ 3FE E96 %CF>A 25>:?:DEC2E:@? @?=J H2?ED E@ E9C@H FA DE@A D:8?D 2?5 DA665 3F>AD E@ AC6G6?E E96 4@?DECF4E:@? @7 277@C523=6[ p>6C:42?>256 6?6C8J[” E96J D2:5] “%CF>A 2?5 9:D 423:?6E ?665 E@ 6?5 E96:C H2C @? p>6C:42? 6?6C8J 2?5 ;@3D]”k^Am

    kAm%96 &]$] s6A2CE>6?E @7 %C2?DA@CE2E:@? C646?E=J 42?46=65 Sefh >:==:@? 😕 7656C2= 7F?5:?8 7@C 2 5@K6? :?7C2DECF4EFC6 AC@;64ED E92E H@F=5 DFAA@CE }6H t?8=2?5 (:?5 2?5 @E96C AC@;64ED[ D2J:?8 E96 A=2?D “H6C6 ?@E 2=:8?65 H:E9 E96 8@2=D 2?5 AC:@C:E:6D @7 E96 25>:?:DEC2E:@?]”k^Am

    kAm%96 4FED :?4=F565 2 7656C2= 8C2?E 7@C E96 $2=6> ~77D9@C6 (:?5 %6C>:?2= AC@;64E[ H9:49 8@E F?56CH2J =2DE DF>>6C 27E6C C646:G:?8 7F?5:?8 2?5 DE2E6 2?5 7656C2= A6C>:ED]k^Am

    kAm%C2?DA@CE2E:@? $64C6E2CJ $62? sF77J D2:5 E96 286?4J 😀 “AC:@C:E:K:?8 C62= :?7C2DECF4EFC6 :>AC@G6>6?ED @G6C 72?E2DJ H:?5 AC@;64ED E92E 4@DE >F49 2?5 @776C =:EE=6[” 255:?8 E92E E96 7F?5:?8 H:== 36 C65:C64E65 E@ FA8C256 A@CED 2?5 @E96C AC@;64ED 2:>65 2E “C6DE@C:?8 p>6C:42’D >2C:E:>6 5@>:?2?46 2?5 AC6G6?E:?8 H2DE6]”k^Am

    kAm%96 Sb__ >:==:@? $2=6> ~77D9@C6 (:?5 %6C>:?2=[ 2 A2CE?6CD9:A 36EH66? rC@H=6J (:?5 $6CG:46D[ $2=6> 2?5 E96 |2DD249FD6EED r=62? t?6C8J r6?E6C[ 42==D 7@C C656G6=@A:?8 2 ca24C6 D:E6 7@C>6C=J @44FA:65 3J 2 4@2= 2?5 @:=7:C65 A@H6C A=2?E]k^Am

    kAm%96 A=2?D 42== 7@C FD:?8 E96 D:E6 2D 2 DE28:?8 2C62 7@C 2DD6>3=:?8 2?5 EC2?DA@CE:?8 H:?5 EFC3:?6 4@>A@?6?ED E@ }6H t?8=2?5 (:?5 2?5 @E96C @77D9@C6 H:?5 72C>D]k^Am

    kAm%CF>A D:8?65 2? 6I64FE:G6 @C56C D9@CE=J 27E6C E2<:?8 @77:46 😕 y2?F2CJ[ 564=2C:?8 2? 6?6C8J “DE2E6 @7 6>6C86?4J” 2?5 E6>A@C2C:=J A2FD:?8 =62D6D 2?5 A6C>:ED 7@C H:?5 6?6C8J AC@;64ED] w:D 25>:?:DEC2E:@? 😀 7@4FD65 @? AC@>@E:?8 7@DD:= 7F6= 6?6C8J D@FC46D @G6C C6?6H23=6D]k^Am

    kAmt2C=:6C E9:D >@?E9[ E96 qFC62F @7 ~462? t?6C8J |2?286>6?E 92=E65 4@?DECF4E:@? @? #6G@=FE:@? (:?5[ 2 ?62C=J 4@>A=6E6 @77D9@C6 H:?5 AC@;64E ?62C #9@56 xD=2?5]k^Am

    kAm(@C< H2D DE@AA65 2=D@ @? t>A:C6 (:?5[ 2 }6H *@C< @77D9@C6 H:?5 AC@;64E[ 3FE =2E6C C6DF>65 27E6C }6H *@C< $6?] r9F4< $49F>6C 2?5 v@G] z2E9J w@49F=[ 3@E9 s6>@4C2ED[ :?E6CG6?65]k^Am

    kAm}:4< zC2<@77[ 2 D6?:@C 2EE@C?6J 2E E96 r@?D6CG2E:@? {2H u@F?52E:@?[ D2:5 E96 %CF>A 25>:?:DEC2E:@?’D 677@CED E@ <:== @77D9@C6 H:?5 😀 “D23@E28:?8 @FC 6?6C8J 7FEFC6—8FEE:?8 2 G:E2= D@FC46 @7 C6=:23=6 =@42=[ 4=62? A@H6C 2?5 H62<6?:?8 @FC 23:=:EJ E@ >66E 8C@H:?8 6?6C8J 56>2?5D[ 2== E@ D6CG6 E96 :?E6C6DED @7 E96 7@DD:= 7F6= :?5FDECJ]”k^Am

    kAmx? |2J[ pEE@C?6J v6?6C2= p?5C62 r2>A36== 2?5 `e @E96C s6>@4C2ED 492==6?865 E96 2FE9@C:EJ @7 !C6D:56?E %CF>A E@ 6?7@C46 2 y2?] a_ 6I64FE:G6 @C56C E92E 92=E65 H:?5 6?6C8J AC@;64ED 2=@?8 E96 t2DE r@2DE 7C@> |2:?6 E@ }6H y6CD6J]k^Am

    kAm|2DD249FD6EED 92D D6E D@>6 @7 E96 E@F896DE 6?G:C@?>6?E2= C68F=2E:@?D 😕 E96 4@F?ECJ H:E9 2 8@2= @7 C6249:?8 “?6EK6C@” 8C66?9@FD6 82D 6>:DD:@?D C6=2E:G6 E@ `hh_ =6G6=D 3J a_d_] %@ >66E E9@D6 8@2=D[ E96 DE2E6 92D D6E 2 8@2= E@ 86?6C2E6 2E =62DE d[e__ >682H2EED @7 @77D9@C6 H:?5 A@H6C 3J a_af]k^Am

    kAm%96 DE2E6 😀 H@C<:?8 H:E9 #9@56 xD=2?5 @? E9C66 AC@;64ED E@E2=:?8 a[efg >682H2EED @7 @77D9@C6 H:?5[ H9:49 :?4=F56D E96 }6H t?8=2?5 (:?5 a AC@;64E] (96? 4@>A=6E65[ E96 H:?5 EFC3:?6D H:== 36 42A23=6 @7 AC@G:5:?8 6?@F89 6=64EC:4:EJ E@ A@H6C >@C6 E92? `]c >:==:@? 9@>6D]k^Am

    kAmxE’D 2=D@ A2CE @7 E96 !@H6C &A }6H t?8=2?5 :?:E:2E:G6 H:E9 r@??64E:4FE[ |2:?6[ }6H w2>AD9:C6[ #9@56 xD=2?5 2?5 ‘6C>@?E 2?5 D6G6C2= FE:=:E:6D – H9:49 42==D 7@C 6IA2?5:?8 :?E6C4@??64E:@? A@:?ED 7@C F?56CD62 423=6D E92E H:== 6G6?EF2==J 3C:?8 A@H6C 7C@> @77D9@C6 H:?5 EFC3:?6D E@ E96 C68:@?2= 8C:5]k^Am

    kAm%H@ >2;@C @77D9@C6 H:?5 56G6=@A6CD 😕 |2DD249FD6EED – r@>>@?H62=E9 (:?5 2?5 $96== 2?5 ~462? (:?5D }@CE9 p>6C:42 – E6C>:?2E65 E96:C A@H6C AFC492D6 28C66>6?ED H:E9 E96 DE2E6’D FE:=:E:6D 😕 a_ab[ 4:E:?8 DFAA=J 492:? :DDF6D 2?5 @E96C 4@?46C?D E92E 92G6 >256 :E E@@ 5:77:4F=E E@ 7:?2?46 E96 AC@;64ED]k^Am

    kAmr9C:DE:2? |] (256 4@G6CD E96 |2DD249FD6EED $E2E69@FD6 7@C }@CE9 @7 q@DE@? |65:2 vC@FAUCDBF@jD ?6HDA2A6CD 2?5 H63D:E6D] t>2:= 9:> 2E k2 9C67lQ>2:=E@i4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>Qm4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>k^2m]k^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • DOT pulls plug on funding for Salem wind project

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — Gov. Maura Healey and other state leaders are blasting the Trump administration for clawing back $33.8 million in federal funding for a Salem project to support offshore wind development, saying the move jeopardizes hundreds of jobs and the state’s climate change goals.

    The U.S. Department of Transportation on Friday canceled $679 million in federal funding for a dozen infrastructure projects that would support offshore wind, saying the plans “were not aligned with the goals and priorities of the administration.”


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm%96 4FED :?4=F565 2 7656C2= 8C2?E 7@C E96 $2=6> ~77D9@C6 (:?5 %6C>:?2= AC@;64E[ H9:49 8@E F?56CH2J =2DE DF>>6C 27E6C D64FC:?8 7F?5:?8 2?5 86EE:?8 DE2E6 2?5 7656C2= A6C>:ED]k^Am

    kAm“(2DE67F=[ H:?5 AC@;64ED 2C6 FD:?8 C6D@FC46D E92E 4@F=5 @E96CH:D6 8@ E@H2C5D C6G:E2=:K:?8 p>6C:42’D >2C:E:>6 :?5FDECJ[” %C2?DA@CE2E:@? $64C6E2CJ $62? sF77J D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E] “%92?A[ H6 2C6 AC:@C:E:K:?8 C62= :?7C2DECF4EFC6 :>AC@G6>6?ED @G6C 72?E2DJ H:?5 AC@;64ED E92E 4@DE >F49 2?5 @776C =:EE=6]”k^Am

    kAm%96 s~% D2:5 E96 7656C2= 7F?5:?8 H:== 36 C65:C64E65 E@ FA8C256 A@CED 2?5 @E96C AC@;64ED 2:>65 2E “C6DE@C:?8 p>6C:42’D >2C:E:>6 5@>:?2?46 2?5 AC6G6?E:?8 H2DE6]”k^Am

    kAmqFE w62=6J 42==65 E96 564:D:@? E@ AF== 324< E96 7F?5D 7C@> E96 $2=6> E6C>:?2= AC@;64E 2 “D=2A 😕 E96 7246” E@ E96 6DE:>2E65 g__ H@C<6CD H9@ 4@F=5 =@D6 E96:C ;@3D :7 E96 AC@;64E 😀 D4C2AA65] $96 D2:5 :E 2=D@ ;6@A2C5:K6D 2?J 7FEFC6 ;@3D E:65 E@ E96 724:=:EJ 2?5 @77D9@C6 H:?5 AC@5F4E:@?]k^Am

    kAm“%96C6 😀 ?@E9:?8 H2DE67F= 23@FE E9:D AC@;64E[ H9:49 92D 366? DFAA@CE65 3J 3@E9 2 s6>@4C2E:4 2?5 #6AF3=:42? 8@G6C?@C[” w62=6J[ 2 s6>@4C2E[ D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E] “%96 C62= H2DE6 96C6 😀 E96 %CF>A p5>:?:DEC2E:@? 42?46=:?8 E6?D @7 >:==:@?D @7 5@==2CD 7@C 2 AC@;64E E92E 😀 2=C625J F?56CH2J E@ :?4C62D6 @FC 6?6C8J DFAA=J 2?5 DFAA@CE 9F?5C65D @7 H@C<6CD 2?5 E96:C 72>:=:6D]”k^Am

    kAm|2?J @7 E96 AC@;64ED 27764E65 3J E96 7F?5:?8 42?46==2E:@? 2C6 DE28:?8 2C62D E92E H@F=5 36 FD65 E@ 3F:=5 @77D9@C6 H:?5 EFC3:?6D] ~E96C DE2E6D :>A24E65 :?4=F565 r2=:7@C?:2[ ‘:C8:?:2[ }6H *@C< 2?5 }6H y6CD6J] %96 =2C86DE 8C2?E 42?46=65 H2D 7@C E96 wF>3@=5E q2J ~77D9@C6 (:?5 😕 r2=:7@C?:2[ H:E9 23@FE Scaf >:==:@? 😕 7656C2= DFAA@CE H:E95C2H?]k^Am

    kAm“x? F?=2H7F==J 2?5 D6?D6=6DD=J 4FEE:?8 9F?5C65D @7 >:==:@?D 😕 7656C2= 7F?5:?8 E@ @77D9@C6 H:?5 AC@;64ED[ %CF>A ;FDE D:8?65 2 562E9 H2CC2?E 7@C E9@FD2?5D @7 F?:@? ;@3D ?2E:@?H:56 2?5 8F2C2?E665 E92E 72>:=:6D’ 6?6C8J 3:==D H:== 4@?E:?F6 E@ D@4C2E[ D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E]k^Am

    kAm%96 Sb__ >:==:@? $2=6> ~77D9@C6 (:?5 %6C>:?2=[ 2 A2CE?6CD9:A 36EH66? rC@H=6J (:?5 $6CG:46D[ $2=6> 2?5 E96 |2DD249FD6EED r=62? t?6C8J r6?E6C[ 42==D 7@C C656G6=@A:?8 2 ca24C6 D:E6 7@C>6C=J @44FA:65 3J 2 4@2= 2?5 @:=7:C65 A@H6C A=2?E] %96 D:E6 H@F=5 D6CG6 2D 2 DE28:?8 2C62 7@C 2DD6>3=:?8 2?5 EC2?DA@CE:?8 H:?5 EFC3:?6 4@>A@?6?ED E@ @77D9@C6 H:?5 72C>D]k^Am

    kAmxE H2D?’E :>>65:2E6=J 4=62C H92E E96 :>A24E @7 E96 7F?5:?8 4FED H@F=5 36 @? E96 AC@;64E[ H9:49 3C@<6 8C@F?5 =2DE pF8FDE H:E9 A=2?D E@ 36 4@>A=6E65 3J a_af] p rC@H=6J DA@<6DA6CD@? 5:5?’E :>>65:2E6=J C6DA@?5 E@ 2 C6BF6DE 7@C 4@>>6?E]k^Am

    kAmx? yF=J[ $2=6> |2J@C s@>:?:4< !2?82==@ 2?5 E96 E6C>:?2= AC@;64E’D 56G6=@A6CD 925 6IAC6DD65 4@?7:56?46 E92E 4@?DECF4E:@? H@F=5 AC@4665 56DA:E6 %CF>A’D 677@CED E@ D4FEE=6 E96 @77D9@C6 H:?5 :?5FDECJ]k^Am

    kAm%CF>A 92D AF3=:4=J C2:=65 282:?DE H:?5 72C>D 2D “3:C5<:==:?8 >@?DEC@D:E:6D” 2?5 D:8?65 2? 6I64FE:G6 @C56C D9@CE=J 27E6C E2<:?8 @77:46 y2?F2CJ[ 564=2C:?8 2? 6?6C8J “DE2E6 @7 6>6C86?4J” 2?5 E6>A@C2C:=J A2FD:?8 =62D6D 2?5 A6C>:ED 7@C H:?5 6?6C8J AC@;64ED] w:D 25>:?:DEC2E:@? 😀 7@4FD65 @? AC@>@E:?8 7@DD:= 7F6= 6?6C8J D@FC46D @G6C C6?6H23=6D]k^Am

    kAmt2C=:6C E9:D >@?E9[ E96 qFC62F @7 ~462? t?6C8J |2?286>6?E 92=E65 4@?DECF4E:@? @? #6G@=FE:@? (:?5[ 2 ?62C=J 4@>A=6E6 @77D9@C6 H:?5 AC@;64E ?62C #9@56 xD=2?5]k^Am

    kAm(@C< H2D DE@AA65 2=D@ @? t>A:C6 (:?5[ 2 }6H *@C< @77D9@C6 H:?5 AC@;64E[ 3FE =2E6C C6DF>65 27E6C }6H *@C< $6?] r9F4< $49F>6C 2?5 v@G] z2E9J w@49F=[ 3@E9 s6>@4C2ED[ :?E6CG6?65]k^Am

    kAmx? |2J[ pEE@C?6J v6?6C2= p?5C62 r2>A36== 2?5 `e @E96C s6>@4C2ED 492==6?865 E96 2FE9@C:EJ @7 !C6D:56?E %CF>A E@ 6?7@C46 2 y2?] a_ 6I64FE:G6 @C56C E92E 92=E65 H:?5 6?6C8J AC@;64ED 2=@?8 E96 t2DE r@2DE 7C@> |2:?6 E@ }6H y6CD6J]k^Am

    kAm%96 pvD D2:5 %CF>A’D 564:D:@? E@ :?567:?:E6=J A2FD6 7656C2= H:?56?6C8J 2AAC@G2=D 😀 “F?=2H7F=” 2?5 42==65 @? 2 7656C2= ;F586 E@ 3=@4< E96 @C56C 2?5 C6DE@C6 A6C>:ED 7@C E96 AC@;64ED]k^Am

    kAmr9C:DE:2? |] (256 4@G6CD E96 |2DD249FD6EED $E2E69@FD6 7@C }@CE9 @7 q@DE@? |65:2 vC@FAUCDBF@jD ?6HDA2A6CD 2?5 H63D:E6D] t>2:= 9:> 2E k2 9C67lQ>2:=E@i4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>Qm4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>k^2m]k^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • States vow to fight Trump official’s stop-work order on offshore wind farm

    [ad_1]

    The Democratic governors of Rhode Island and Connecticut promised on Saturday to fight a Trump administration order halting work on a nearly complete wind farm off their coasts that was expected to be operational next year.

    The Revolution Wind project was about 80% complete, with 45 of its 65 turbines already installed, according to the Danish wind farm developer Ørsted, when the US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management sent the firm a letter on Friday ordering it to “halt all ongoing activities”.

    “In particular, BOEM is seeking to address concerns related to the protection of national security interests in the United States,” wrote Matt Giacona, the agency’s acting director, adding that Ørsted “may not resume activities” until the agency has completed a review of the project.

    Giacona said that the project, which had already cleared years of federal and state reviews, now needs to be re-examined in light of Donald Trump’s order, on the first day of his second term, to consider “terminating or amending any existing wind energy leases”.

    Giacona, whose prior work as a lobbyist for the offshore oil industry alarmed consumer advocates, also said that the review was necessary to “address concerns related to the protection of national security interests of the United States”. He did not specify what those national security concerns are.

    Rhode Island’s governor, Dan McKee, criticized the stop-work order and said he and Connecticut’s governor, Ned Lamont, “will pursue every avenue to reverse the decision to halt work on Revolution Wind”, which was “just steps away from powering more than 350,000 homes”.

    Senator Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat, connected the decision to Trump’s reported pitch last year to oil industry executives to trade $1bn in campaign donations for regulatory favors. “When the oil industry showed up at Mar-a-Lago with a set of demands in exchange for a $1 billion of campaign support for Trump, this is what they were asking for: the destruction of clean energy in America,” Murpy said in a statement.

    “This is a story of corruption, plain and simple. President Trump has sold our country out to big corporations with the oil and gas industry at the top of the list,” the senator added. “I will work with my colleagues and Governor Lamont to pursue all legal paths to get this project back on track.”

    Since returning to office, Trump has taken sweeping actions to prioritize fossil fuels and hinder renewable energy projects. Throughout his time in public office, Trump has repeatedly brought up his visceral hatred for wind power, apparently prompted by his belief that offshore turbines spoil the views at his golf courses, and his embrace of the bizarre theory that “the noise causes cancer”.

    Trump recently called wind and solar power “THE SCAM OF THE CENTURY!” in a social media post and vowed not to approve wind or “farmer destroying Solar” projects.

    Rhode Island’s attorney general, Peter Neronha, said in a statement on Saturday that, without the Revolution Wind project, the state’s Act on Climate law, which aims to use renewable energy to battle global warming, “is dead in the water”.

    Scientists agree that nations need to rapidly embrace renewable energy to stave off the worst effects of climate change, including extreme heat and drought; larger, more intense wildfires and supercharged hurricanes, typhoons and rainstorms that lead to catastrophic flooding.

    Construction on Revolution Wind began in 2023, and the project was expected to be fully operational next year. Ørsted says it is evaluating the financial impact of stopping construction and considering legal proceedings.

    Revolution Wind is located more than 15 miles (24km) south of the Rhode Island coast, 32 miles (51km) south-east of the Connecticut coast and 12 miles (19km) south-west of Martha’s Vineyard. Rhode Island is already home to one offshore wind farm, the five-turbine Block Island Wind Farm.

    Revolution Wind was expected to be Rhode Island and Connecticut’s first commercial-scale offshore wind farm, capable of powering more than 350,000 homes. The densely populated states have minimal space available for land-based energy projects, which is why the offshore wind project is considered crucial for the states to meet their climate goals.

    Related: BP agrees to sell US onshore wind business as it shifts back to oil

    Wind power is the largest source of renewable energy in the US and provides about 10% of the electricity generated in the nation.

    Green Oceans, a non-profit that opposes the offshore wind industry, and sued in federal court last year to stop the 83,798-acre (33,912-hectare) Revolution Wind project on environmental grounds, applauded the decision. “We are grateful that the Trump Administration and the federal government are taking meaningful action to preserve the fragile ocean environment off the coasts of Rhode Island and Massachusetts,” the non-profit said in a statement.

    This is the second major offshore wind project the Trump White House has halted. Work was previously stopped on Empire Wind, a New York offshore wind project, but construction was allowed to resume after New York’s governor, Kathy Hochul, and senator Chuck Schumer intervened.

    “This administration has it exactly backwards. It’s trying to prop up clunky, polluting coal plants while doing all it can to halt the fastest growing energy sources of the future – solar and wind power,” Kit Kennedy, managing director for the power division at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement. “Unfortunately, every American is paying the price for these misguided decisions.”

    The Associated Press contributed reporting

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Region is betting big on offshore wind. Can it deliver?

    Region is betting big on offshore wind. Can it deliver?

    [ad_1]

    PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Dozens of hard hats and yellow safety vests were neatly placed on folding chairs. A giant American flag hung from the rafters of a hangar-sized fabrication building. And cellophane-wrapped cookies with blue icing spelling out “Revolution Wind, powered by Ørsted and Eversource,” added the final celebratory touch.

    After a rough year for the fledgling U.S. offshore wind industry, the crowd of union leaders, energy company representatives, state and federal officials, media, and other guests at the Port of Providence on June 13 were marking the final assembly of the advanced foundation components for the Revolution Wind project, a 700-megawatt offshore wind farm currently under construction 12 miles southwest of Martha’s Vineyard that will deliver energy to Rhode Island and Connecticut.

    Rhode Island Gov. Dan McKee called the now-bustling port – packed with offshore wind turbine components and hosting a gleaming new crew service vessel built for Ørsted, the Danish offshore wind giant, docked nearby – “an example of what can happen all around the country.” The construction progress “marks a pivotal moment, not just for Rhode Island but our country’s offshore wind industry,” McKee added.

    Other governors across New England are banking big on the mammoth turbines being installed off the coast to not only keep the lights on as the region moves toward cleaner electricity, but also to meet a surge in power demand from electric vehicles and a shift to electrified home heating.

    The region’s push into offshore wind comes amid longstanding apprehension by federal regulators and the nation’s electric reliability watchdog over New England’s dependence on natural gas power generation, worrisome when paired with its constrained pipeline capacity during extreme cold.

    Whether the hundreds of turbines planned to spring up off the coast – and the major grid upgrades needed to get that power to where it’s needed – can reliably meet those expectations will come down in large part to timing, experts say.

    That includes not just how fast developers, who are facing supply chain problems and sometimes stiff local resistance and have complained about permitting delays, can get turbines built, but also when the expected demand increase from an electrified future materializes.

    Also in the mix: how quickly the system is able to inject the power produced offshore and whether it can handle the dips in output that can come with variable generation, said John Moura, director of reliability assessment at the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, which sets and enforces standards for the American power system.

    “They can build and design this, it’s really about time, money, and the will to do that,” Moura said. “The timing piece is the part we’re most concerned with.”

    ‘Moving in the same direction’

    The New England Independent System Operator runs the electric grid for Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, ensuring that there’s enough electric supply to match demand in real time. What helps make that somewhat easier than in regions overseen by other multi-state regional transmission organizations is broad alignment among its member states on energy policy.

    All six have clean power goals. Rhode Island is pushing for 100 percent renewable power by 2030. Connecticut is requiring 100 percent zero carbon power by 2040.

    Massachusetts wants to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. In June, Vermont’s legislature overrode a gubernatorial veto to enact a 100 percent renewable energy by 2035 standard.

    Maine is aiming to get to 80 percent percent renewable power by 2030 and 100 percent by 2050.

    New Hampshire is something of an outlier, but even it has a renewable energy portfolio standard that requires utilities to purchase increasing amounts of renewable energy certificates.

    “They’re all more or less moving in the same direction,” said Matt Kakley, a spokesman for ISO New England. That can make debates over longer term transmission planning and improving processes to determine who pays for what less fraught than elsewhere.

    Even before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s landmark order on transmission planning and cost allocation earlier this year, there was broad agreement among New England states on a new framework that was approved by FERC in July to plan for state renewable goals and how to allocate costs of associated network upgrades.

    “Our hope is that this kind of allows us to get to work on as a region, on some of the stuff that we know is coming,” Kakley said. If the states’ decarbonization goals are to be met, Kakley said, that means an estimated doubling of electricity use in New England over the next 30 years and a tripling of the winter energy peak.

    “On the transmission side, we’re in good shape right now,” Kakley said. “However, we know, if we’re going to move to a system that’s largely powered by offshore wind, that’s going to trigger the need for upgrades, not in the initial wave but when you start looking at the bigger quantities.”

    ‘It just defies logic’

    Despite those trends, there’s been reason to worry that offshore wind development might lag. For the past year, developers have struggled with supply chain problems and spiking costs driven by inflation, forcing some East Coast projects to be canceled or renegotiated.

    The projects have also been in some cases vehemently opposed by coastal communities and dogged by (spurious, according to marine mammal experts and federal agencies) accusations that they’re harming whales, along with lawsuits from fishermen and, in at least one case, preservationists worried about losing ocean views.

    This month, part of a blade broke off of a turbine that was part of Vineyard Wind 1, the nation’s first commercial scale offshore wind project, leaving fiberglass and foam debris to wash up on Nantucket beaches.

    The Maine Lobstermen’s Association, which represents hundreds of people who make a living hauling the famous crustacean out of the water for diners around the world, has been a major opponent of offshore wind potentially encroaching on fishing areas.

    The federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, which oversees offshore wind leases areas, is moving forward with a lease sale in the Gulf of Maine that largely excludes the areas used by the state’s lobster boats.

    But Patrice McCarron, the group’s policy director, isn’t backing off of criticizing the proposal.

    “Nobody in the fishing industry thinks the Gulf of Maine is a good place to develop offshore wind,” she said in an interview in June at the organization’s cramped offices in Kennebunk. “It’s one of the most productive ecosystems in the world. It supports one of the most valuable fisheries, if not the most valuable fishery in the nation, which is lobster.”

    A distorted view

    People who might not have seen offshore wind development up close can have a distorted sense of what it is in practice, she added.

    “If you don’t fish, you think of offshore wind as being something very green, something that’s going to solve climate change, something that’s good for the environment. If you’re a fisherman, you think about what it actually is, you know, 800-plus foot turbines floating on concrete blocks that are 300 feet by 300 feet with turbine blades that are at the length of a football field.”

    McCarron said the fishing industry also worries about loss of habitat, impacts on marine species, potential vibrations and other effects and, the uncertainty of floating offshore wind technology, which is what would be developed in the deep waters of the Gulf of Maine but is relatively rare still. (One offshore wind executive told States Newsroom that Gulf of Maine turbines aren’t expected to happen for about a decade.)

    “I don’t like the term ‘coexist,’” she said. “It just defies logic that you would industrialize a place that is so special and that fishermen have done such a great job of taking care of and stewarding. Nobody wants to see this built.”

    Solid fundamentals

    Less than 100 miles south of McCarron’s office, wind developers, state and federal officials, and others with ties to the industry were still optimistic on the prospects for offshore wind at a conference in Boston organized by Reuters.

    However, panels with names like “How to navigate growing pains,” “Risk mitigation,” “How to overcome critical supply chain bottlenecks,” “Confronting transmission complexities,” and “How to deal with misinformation” spoke to the rough seas companies pushing offshore wind projects have had to sail over the past year.

    There were also official as well as side-channel conversations about the election and what kind of blow a second Trump administration might deal to offshore wind.

    But the through line of the conference was that the fundamentals underlying offshore wind – a large untapped source of relatively steady clean energy close to the coastal cities that are big drivers of electric demand – remain strong. And state and local officials are still keen on the jobs and economic impact that can come from standing up a new American industry.

    “I would look to Virginia, as for me, giving me some optimism for the industry, for the future,” said Diane Leopold, chief operating officer of Virginia-based utility giant Dominion Energy, which is building the 2,600-megawatt Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project off the coast of Virginia Beach, the largest offshore wind farm under construction in the U.S.

    Bipartisan support

    Leopold touted the project’s strong bipartisan support. “It supports climate change. Large businesses in the state want renewable energy. We have a fast-growing load in the state, and offshore wind produces a lot of megawatt hours and it creates a diversity of supply that really helps grid reliability. And then, of course, offshore wind creates an enormous number of jobs and a lot of local economic activity.”

    Chris Wissemann, CEO of Diamond Offshore Wind, a developer, said the industry is on the path to recovery, with states and developers now negotiating agreements that include mechanisms to adjust prices to respond to inflation and other problems.

    “This has been a sobering event that is maybe once in a generation,” he said. “To a great extent what we’re doing in offshore wind as a country we haven’t done since nuclear power in the 60s and 70s and all of those projects were essentially ratepayers paid whatever they cost to build because you were doing them for the public benefit. I think a little of that needs to come into this market.”

    European companies, he added, sold regulators on the promise that they could build as easily as in Europe. “This has been sobering to a lot of the Europeans catching on that the U.S. is a bit different: building the supply chain here and getting things permitted, dealing, honestly, with our political dysfunction. It’s a real issue, right?”

    [ad_2]

    By Robert Zullo | New Hampshire Bulletin

    Source link

  • Check out the giant ship critical to building the world’s biggest offshore wind farm

    Check out the giant ship critical to building the world’s biggest offshore wind farm

    [ad_1]

    The Jan De Nul Group’s Voltaire in waters off China in Dec. 2022. As wind turbines get bigger, the vessels that install them are having to change, too.

    VCG | Visual China Group | Getty Images

    A project to build a facility described as “the world’s largest offshore wind farm” took a big step forward this month by producing its first power.

    Located in the North Sea, over 130 kilometers off England’s northeast coast, the Dogger Bank Wind Farm still has some way to go before it’s fully operational, but the installation and powering up of its first turbine is a major feat in itself.

    That’s because GE Vernova’s Haliade-X turbines stand 260 meters tall — that’s higher than San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge — and have blades measuring 107 meters.

    Turbine installation at Dogger Bank has required a huge amount of planning and preparation, with the Voltaire — a specialist vessel designed and built by the family-owned Jan De Nul Group — playing a key role.

    With a lifting capacity of 3,200 metric tons, the Voltaire — named after the 18th-century French philosopher — will have installed a total of 277 Haliade-X turbines when its work is complete.

    This image, from Dec. 2022, shows Jan De Nul Group’s Voltaire in China. A specialist installation vessel, the Voltaire has a lifting capacity of over 3,000 metric tons.

    VCG | Visual China Group | Getty Images

    Described by Dogger Bank as the “largest offshore jack-up installation vessel ever built,” in many ways, it’s the pinnacle of an extensive supply chain involving numerous businesses and stakeholders.

    The logistics are complex and multi-layered, with water depth a particular issue.

    The sea in the Dogger Bank Offshore Development Zone is up to 63 meters deep, meaning the Voltaire’s ability to work in deeper waters is crucial. 

    This is where its four legs come into play.

    According to Jan De Nul, the legs of the Voltaire — which was built at the COSCO Shipping Shipyard in China — enable it to lift itself above the water’s surface.

    With each leg measuring roughly 130 meters in length, they highlight the scale of equipment required to install huge offshore wind turbines like GE’s Haliade-X.

    In an online Q&A before installations at Dogger Bank began, Jan De Nul’s Rutger Standaert spoke of their importance. “Thanks to those legs, the Voltaire can effectively operate at a water depth of 80 meters,” Standaert, who is manager of vessel construction at the business, said.

    He noted that the Voltaire’s capabilities would enable installations further out to sea, allowing it to play a key role in the emerging floating offshore wind sector.

    “Off the Scottish coast, for example, expensive floating windfarms are often the only way to tap into offshore wind,” he said. “The water is too deep for fixed windfarms, but the Voltaire can offer new opportunities.”

    Thinking big

    Once completed, the Dogger Bank Wind Farm will have a total capacity of 3.6 gigawatts (GW) and be able to power as many as six million homes per year, according to its developers.

    Work on the project is taking place over three phases: Dogger Bank A, B, and C. A fourth phase of the wind farm known as Dogger Bank D has also been proposed, and would increase its capacity even further.

    Read more about electric vehicles, batteries and chips from CNBC Pro

    Søren Lassen is head of offshore wind research at Wood Mackenzie, a research and consultancy group. He described Dogger Bank as “a huge project, especially if you combine the three phases.”

    “It is a project that requires a lot of preparation,” he told CNBC. “There’s the logistics in terms of having the vessels to do the installation … and then of course, you also have the logistics in terms of getting the components to the marshaling port.”

    Both of these aspects were being made “a lot more complicated” by the use of next-generation turbines and a next-generation installation vessel, Lassen said.

    “You have … a lot of innovation that goes into this. And not only do you need a new vessel or new components, you also need new factories to build those components.”

    As such, a slew of upgrades and adjustments were needed to “reverberate throughout the entire value chain” for operations to run smoothly, he added.

    Bigger turbines, bigger challenges?

    This image, from June 2023, shows tower sections of GE’s Haliade-X wind turbine at a site in the U.S.

    David L. Ryan | The Boston Globe | Getty Images

    Thanks to their sheer size, larger turbine designs have created a specific set of needs for the offshore wind sector and sites like the Dogger Bank Wind Farm.

    “From cranes to vessels, we use a number of specially designed pieces of equipment to transport the Haliade-X turbines that will be used in this project,” a spokesperson for GE Offshore Wind said in a statement sent to CNBC.

    Wood Mackenzie’s Lassen stressed the importance of having dedicated transportation vessels, noting that the towers of turbines need to be broken into three or four sections in order to fit on board.  

    Massive blades represent the biggest challenge, he said, as they have to be laid flat. “And that just means that you need a very, very long transportation vessel, [and] that you need to stack them up accordingly.”

    Blades of the Haliade-X turbine stacked on top of each other at a site in the U.S. The past few years have seen companies develop increasingly large wind turbines.

    David L. Ryan | The Boston Globe | Getty Images

    Meanwhile, delays or bottlenecks can have far-reaching — and expensive — consequences.

    Lassen cited the example of blades not being delivered on time, which leads to vessels having to “go away and then come back half a year later to do the installation. This is very costly, of course.”

    And delays also lead to lost revenue.

    “These projects are going out [and] generating a lot of power from the day that they’re being installed, pretty much,” Lassen added.

    “So any delays [and] you’re also losing a lot of revenue, especially right now when the power prices are really, really high.”

    The bigger picture

    Offshore wind farms are set to play a significant role in reducing emissions and hitting net zero goals in the years ahead — but a supply chain that’s well-run and reliable will be key to the industry’s success.

    This is set to cost serious money. According to Wood Mackenzie, a base case of 30 GW of installations per year by 2030 — excluding China — will require investment of around $27 billion by 2026 to build out supply chains.

    “The supply chain needs to invest,” Lassen said, adding that it also needed capital, certainty and concrete, firm orders. However, cost pressures mean there is currently uncertainty over projects planned for 2025, 2026 and 2027.

    “Any delays to these projects takes away volume from the supply chain, and the supply chain needs that volume to convert it into revenue to build new factories,” Lassen explained.

    It is crucial that projects planned for the next few years go ahead, he added. “That helps the underlying supply chain ramp up so they can build the capacity [for] ’27, ’28, ’29 and well into the 2030s as well.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Recycling ‘end-of-life’ solar panels, wind turbines, is about to be climate tech’s big waste business

    Recycling ‘end-of-life’ solar panels, wind turbines, is about to be climate tech’s big waste business

    [ad_1]

    Solarcycle CTO Pablo Dias and COO Rob Vinje show a solar panel laminate after it’s been cleanly separated from the glass to investors and partners. The laminate is where most of the value is contained in a panel, like silver, silicon, and copper.

    Solarcycle

    The growing importance of wind and solar energy to the U.S. power grid, and the rise of electric vehicles, are all key to the nation’s growing need to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, lower carbon emissions and mitigate climate change.

    But at the same time, these burgeoning renewable energy industries will soon generate tons of waste as millions of photovoltaic (PV) solar panels, wind turbines and lithium-ion EV batteries reach the end of their respective lifecycles.

    As the saying goes, though, one man’s trash is another man’s treasure. Anticipating the pileup of exhausted clean-energy components — and wanting to proactively avoid past sins committed by not responsibly cleaning up after decommissioned coal mines, oil wells and power plants — a number of innovative startups are striving to create a sustainable, and lucrative, circular economy to recover, recycle and reuse the core components of climate tech innovation.

    Wind and solar energy combined to generate 13.6% of utility-scale electricity last year, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), and those numbers will undoubtedly rise as renewable energy continues to scale up. Some leading utilities across the nation are far ahead of that pace already.

    Meanwhile, sales of all-electric vehicles rose to 5.8% of the total 13.8 million vehicles Americans purchased in 2022, up from 3.2% in 2021. And with the Environmental Protection Agency’s newly proposed tailpipe emissions limits and power plant rules, EV sales could capture a 67% market share by 2032 and more utilities be forced to accelerate their power generation transition.

    Solarcycle is a prime example of the companies looking to solve this climate tech waste problem of the future. Launched last year in Oakland, California, it has since constructed a recycling facility in Odessa, Texas, where it extracts 95% of the materials from end-of-life solar panels and reintroduces them into the supply chain. It sells recovered silver and copper on commodity markets and glass, silicon and aluminum to panel manufacturers and solar farm operators.

    “Solar is becoming the dominant form of power generation,” Solarcycle CEO Suvi Sharma said, citing an EIA report stating that 54% of new utility-scale electric-generating capacity in the U.S. this year will come from solar. “But with that comes a new set of challenges and opportunities. We have done a phenomenal job making solar efficient and cost-effective, but really have not done anything yet on making it circular and dealing with the end-of-life [panels].”

    Keeping solar panels out of landfills

    The average lifespan of a solar panel is about 25 to 30 years, and there are more than 500 million already installed across the country, Sharma said, ranging from a dozen on a residential home’s rooftop to thousands in a commercial solar farm. With solar capacity now rising an average of 21% annually, tens of millions more panels will be going up — and coming down. Between 2030 and 2060, roughly 9.8 million metric tons of solar panel waste are expected to accumulate, according to a 2019 study published in Renewable Energy.

    Currently, about 90% of end-of-life or defective solar panels end up in landfills, largely because it costs far less to dump them than to recycle them. “We see that gap closing over the next five to 10 years significantly,” Sharma said, “through a combination of recycling becoming more cost-effective and landfilling costs only increasing.”

    Indeed, the market for recycled solar panel materials is expected to grow exponentially over the next several years. A report by research firm Rystad Energy stated they’ll be worth more than $2.7 billion in 2030, up from only $170 million last year, and accelerate to around $80 billion by 2050. The Department of Energy’s National Renewable Laboratory (NREL) found that with modest government support, recycled materials can meet 30%-50% of solar manufacturing needs in the U.S. by 2040.

    Both the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) provide tax credits and funding for domestic manufacturing of solar panels and components, as well as research into new solar technologies. Those provisions are intended to cut into China’s dominant position in the global solar panel supply chain, which exceeds 80% today, according to a recent report from the International Energy Agency.

    One recipient of this federal funding is First Solar, the largest solar panel manufacturer in the U.S. Founded in 1999 in Tempe, Arizona, the company has production facilities in Ohio and another under construction in Alabama. It has been awarded $7.3 million in research funds to develop a new residential rooftop panel that is more efficient than current silicon or thin-film modules.

    First Solar has maintained an in-house recycling program since 2005, according to an email from chief product officer Pat Buehler. “We recognized that integrating circularity into our operations was necessary to scale the business in a sustainable way,” he wrote. But rather than extracting metals and glass from retired panels and manufacturing scrap, “our recycling process provides closed-loop semiconductor recovery for use in new modules,” he added.

    Massive wind turbines, blades are almost all recyclable

    Retired wind turbines present another recycling challenge, as well as business opportunities. The U.S. wind energy industry started erecting turbines in the early 1980s and has been steadily growing since. The American Clean Power Association estimates that today there are nearly 72,000 utility-scale turbines installed nationwide — all but seven of them land-based — generating 10.2% of the country’s electricity.

    Although the industry stalled over the past two years, due to supply chain snags, inflation and rising costs, turbine manufacturers and wind farm developers are optimistic that the tide has turned, especially given the subsidies and tax credits for green energy projects in the IRA and the Biden administration’s pledge to jumpstart the nascent offshore wind sector.

    The lifespan of a wind turbine is around 20 years, and most decommissioned ones have joined retired solar panels in landfills. However, practically everything comprising a turbine is recyclable, from the steel tower to the composite blades, typically 170 feet long, though the latest models exceed 350 feet.

    Between 3,000 and 9,000 blades will be retired each year for the next five years in the U.S., and then the number will increase to between 10,000 and 20,000 until 2040, according to a 2021 study by NREL. By 2050, 235,000 blades will be decommissioned, translating to a cumulative mass of 2.2 million metric tons — or more than 60,627 fully loaded tractor trailers.

    How the circular renewable energy economy works

    Players in the circular economy are determined not to let all that waste go to waste.

    Knoxville-based Carbon Rivers, founded in 2019, has developed technology to shred not only turbine blades but also discarded composite materials from the automotive, construction and marine industries and convert them through a pyrolysis process into reclaimed glass fiber. “It can be used for next-generation manufacturing of turbine blades, marine vessels, composite concrete and auto parts,” said chief strategy officer David Morgan, adding that the process also harvests renewable oil and synthetic gas for reuse.

    While processing the shredded materials is fairly straightforward, transporting massive turbine blades and other composites over long distances by rail and truck is more complicated. “Logistics is far and away the most expensive part of this entire process,” Morgan said.

    In addition to existing facilities in Tennessee and Texas, Carbon Rivers plans to build sites in Florida, Pennsylvania and Idaho over the next three years, strategically located near wind farms and other feedstock sources. “We want to build another five facilities in the U.K. and Europe, then get to the South American and Asian markets next,” he said.

    In the spirit of corporate sustainability — specifically not wanting their blades piling up in landfills — wind turbine manufacturers themselves are contracting with recycling partners. In December 2020, General Electric’s Renewable Energy unit signed a multi-year agreement with Boston-based Veolia North America to recycle decommissioned blades from land-based GE turbines in the U.S.

    Veolia North America opened up a recycling plant in Missouri in 2020, where it has processed about 2,600 blades to date, according to Julie Angulo, senior vice president, technical and performance. “We are seeing the first wave of blades that are 10 to 12 years old, but we know that number is going to go up year-on-year,” she said.

    Using a process known as kiln co-processing, Veolia reconstitutes shredded blades and other composite materials into a fuel it then sells to cement manufacturers as a replacement for coal, sand and clay. The process reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 27% and consumption of water by 13% in cement production.

    “Cement manufacturers want to walk away from coal for carbon emissions reasons,” Angulo said. “This is a good substitute, so they’re good partners for us.”

    GE’s wind turbine competitors are devising ways to make the next generation of blades inherently more recyclable. Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy has begun producing fully recyclable blades for both its land-based and offshore wind turbines and has said it plans to make all of its turbines fully recyclable by 2040. Vestas Wind Systems has committed to producing zero-waste wind turbines by 2040, though it has not yet introduced such a version. In February, Vestas introduced a new solution that renders epoxy-based turbine blades to be broken down and recycled.

    Electric vehicle lithium-ion battery scrap

    Lithium-ion batteries have been in use since the early 1990s, at first powering laptops, cell phones and other consumer electronics, and for the past couple of decades EVs and energy storage systems. Recycling of their valuable innards — lithium, cobalt, nickel, copper — is focused on EVs, especially as automakers ramp up production, including building battery gigafactories. But today’s EV batteries have a lifespan of 10-20 years, or 100,000-200,000 miles, so for the time being, recyclers are primarily processing battery manufacturers’ scrap.

    Toronto-based Li-Cycle, launched in 2016, has developed a two-step technology that breaks down batteries and scrap to inert materials and then shreds them, using a hydrometallurgy process, to produce minerals that are sold back into the general manufacturing supply chain. To avoid high transportation costs for shipping feedstock from various sites, Li-Cycle has geographically interspersed four facilities — in Alabama, Arizona, New York and Ontario — where it’s deconstructed. It is building a massive facility in Rochester, New York, where the materials will be processed.

    “We’re on track to start commissioning the Rochester [facility] at the end of this year,” said Li-Cycle’s co-founder and CEO Ajay Kochhlar. Construction has been funded by a $375 loan from the Department of Energy (DOE), he said, adding that since the company went public, it’s also raised about $1 billion in private deals.

    A different approach to battery recycling is underway at Redwood Materials, founded outside of Reno, Nevada, in 2017 by JB Straubel, the former chief technology officer and co-founder of Tesla. Redwood also uses hydrometallurgy to break down batteries and scrap, but produces anode copper foil and cathode-active materials for making new EV batteries. Because the feedstock is not yet plentiful enough, the nickel and lithium in its cathode products will only be about 30% from recycled sources, with the remainder coming from newly mined metals.

    Former Tesla CTO JB Straubel tackles battery recycling with Redwood Materials

    “We’re aiming to produce 100 GWh/year of cathode-active materials and anode foil for one million EVs by 2025,” Redwood said in an email statement. “By 2030, our goal is to scale to 500 GWh/year of materials, which would enable enough batteries to power five million EVs.”

    Besides its Nevada facility, Redwood has broken ground on a second one in Charleston, South Carolina. The privately held company said it has raised more than $1 billion, and in February it received a conditional commitment from the DOE for a $2-billion loan from the DOE as part of the IRA. Last year Redwood struck a multi-billion dollar deal with Tesla’s battery supplier Panasonic, and it’s also inked partnerships with Volkswagen Group of America, Toyota, Ford and Volvo.

    Ascend Elements, headquartered in Westborough, Massachusetts, utilizes hydrometallurgy technology to extract cathode-active material mostly from battery manufacturing scrap, but also spent lithium-ion batteries. Its processing facility is strategically located in Covington, Georgia, a state that has attracted EV battery makers, including SK Group in nearby Commerce, as well as EV maker Rivian, near Rutledge, and Hyundai, which is building an EV factory outside of Savannah.

    Last October, Ascend began construction on a second recycling facility, in Hopkinsville, Kentucky, using federal dollars earmarked for green energy projects. “We have received two grant awards from the [DOE] under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law that totaled around $480 million,” said CEO Mike O’Kronley. Such federal investments, he said, “incentivizes infrastructure that needs to be built in the U.S., because around 96% of all cathode materials are made in East Asia, in particular China.”

    As the nation continues to build out a multi-billion-dollar renewable energy supply chain around solar, wind and EVs, simultaneously establishing a circular economy to recover, recycle and reuse end-of-life components from those industries is essential in the overarching goal of battling climate change.

    “It’s important to make sure we keep in mind the context of these emerging technologies and understand their full lifecycle,” said Garvin Heath, a senior energy sustainability analyst at NREL. “The circular economy provides a lot of opportunities to these industries to be as sustainable and environmentally friendly as possible at a relatively early phase of their growth.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Planned wind farm told it will need to shut down for five months a year to protect parrots

    Planned wind farm told it will need to shut down for five months a year to protect parrots

    [ad_1]

    An Orange-Bellied Parrot perched on the edge of a feeding bowl. The species is listed as being critically endangered.

    Margot Kiesskalt | Istock | Getty Images

    Plans for a major new wind farm in Australia were given the thumbs up this month — on the provision its turbines go offline for five months a year to protect a parrot species.

    In an environmental assessment report of the Robbins Island Renewable Energy Park, Tasmania’s Environment Protection Authority said its board had “determined to approve the proposal” for the project, which could have as many as 122 wind turbines and is overseen by ACEN Australia.

    One of the approval conditions relates to the Orange-bellied parrot, which the Australian government says is critically endangered.

    “Unless otherwise approved in writing by the EPA Board, all WTG [wind turbine generators] must be shut down during the northern OBP migration period (1 March to 31 May inclusive) and the southern OBP migration period (15 September to 15 November inclusive),” the EPA document says.

    Read more about energy from CNBC Pro

    In a statement last week, EPA board chair Andrew Paul said the organization had concluded that “significant mitigation measures” were needed in relation to “potential impacts on the orange-bellied parrot population.”

    This was due to “the limited knowledge about the importance of Robbins Island in the annual northern and southern migrations” as well as a need to account for a National Recovery Plan for the species.

    “This has led to the inclusion of [project approval] condition FF6 which imposes shutdown periods during the migrations totaling five months when the turbines cannot operate,” Paul added.

    Robbins Island is located in waters off the northwest coast of Tasmania, a large island and Australian state. If all goes to plan, the total capacity of the proposed wind farm could be as much as 900 megawatts.

    CNBC contacted ACEN Australia via the Robbins Island project’s website, but did not receive a response prior to publication. The Ayala Corporation, parent company of ACEN Australia majority-owner ACEN Corporation, did not respond to a CNBC request for comment.

    In a Facebook post, project developers said they welcomed approval from the EPA, adding that further approvals were needed from the Circular Head Council and the Commonwealth Government’s Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. These were expected in early 2023, they said.

    In comments reported by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, ACEN Australia Chief Operating Officer David Pollington described the switch-off condition as “completely unexpected.”

    The firm would “need to consider our options going forward,” the ABC report quoted Pollington as saying.

    Stock picks and investing trends from CNBC Pro:

    Amid global plans to ramp up wind power capacity in the years ahead, the interaction of wind turbines with the natural world — including marine and bird life — is likely to become a key area of debate.

    The U.K.-based Royal Society for the Protection of Birds warns that wind farms “can harm birds through disturbance, displacement, acting as barriers, habitat loss and collision,” adding that “impacts can arise from a single development and cumulatively multiple projects.”

    The U.S. Energy Information Administration has said that some wind projects and turbines can result in bat and bird casualties.

    “These deaths may contribute to declines in the population of species also affected by other human-related impacts,” it notes. “The wind energy industry and the U.S. government are researching ways to reduce the effect of wind turbines on birds and bats.”

    Brussels-based industry body WindEurope says the effects of projects can be prevented “by adequately planning, siting, and designing wind farms.”

    “The impact of wind farms on birds and bats is extremely low compared to the impact of climate change and other human activity,” it adds.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Renewables to overtake coal and become world’s biggest source of electricity generation by 2025, IEA says

    Renewables to overtake coal and become world’s biggest source of electricity generation by 2025, IEA says

    [ad_1]

    Wind turbines in the Netherlands. A report from the International Energy Agency “expects renewables to become the primary energy source for electricity generation globally in the next three years, overtaking coal.”

    Mischa Keijser | Image Source | Getty Images

    Renewables are on course to overtake coal and become the planet’s biggest source of electricity generation by the middle of this decade, according to the International Energy Agency.

    The IEA’s Renewables 2022 report, published Tuesday, predicts a major shift within the world’s electricity mix at a time of significant volatility and geopolitical tension.

    “The first truly global energy crisis, triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, has sparked unprecedented momentum for renewables,” it said.

    “Renewables [will] become the largest source of global electricity generation by early 2025, surpassing coal,” it added.

    According to its “main-case forecast,” the IEA expects renewables to account for nearly 40% of worldwide electricity output in 2027, coinciding with a fall in the share of coal, natural gas and nuclear generation.

    The analysis comes at a time of huge disruption within global energy markets following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February.

    The Kremlin was the biggest supplier of both natural gas and petroleum oils to the EU in 2021, according to Eurostat. However, gas exports from Russia to the European Union have slid this year, as member states sought to drain the Kremlin’s war chest.

    Read more about energy from CNBC Pro

    As such, major European economies have been attempting to shore up supplies from alternative sources for the colder months ahead — and beyond.

    In a statement issued alongside its report, the IEA highlighted the consequences of the current geopolitical situation.

    “The global energy crisis is driving a sharp acceleration in installations of renewable power, with total capacity growth worldwide set to almost double in the next five years,” it said.

    “Energy security concerns caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have motivated countries to increasingly turn to renewables such as solar and wind to reduce reliance on imported fossil fuels, whose prices have spiked dramatically,” it added.

    In its largest-ever upward revision to its renewable power forecast, the IEA now expects the world’s renewable capacity to surge by nearly 2,400 gigawatts between 2022 and 2027 — the same amount as the “entire installed power capacity of China today.”

    Wind and solar surge ahead

    The IEA expects electricity stemming from wind and solar photovoltaic (which converts sunlight directly into electricity) to supply nearly 20% of the planet’s power generation in 2027.

    “These variable technologies account for 80% of global renewable generation increase over the forecast period, which will require additional sources of power system flexibility,” it added.

    However, the IEA expects growth in geothermal, bioenergy, hydropower and concentrated solar power to stay “limited despite their critical role in integrating wind and solar PV into global electricity systems.”

    Read more about electric vehicles from CNBC Pro

    Fatih Birol, the IEA’s executive director, said the global energy crisis had kicked renewables “into an extraordinary new phase of even faster growth as countries seek to capitalise on their energy security benefits.”

    “The world is set to add as much renewable power in the next 5 years as it did in the previous 20 years,” Birol said.

    The IEA chief added that the continued acceleration of renewables was “critical” to keeping “the door open to limiting global warming to 1.5 °C.”

    The 1.5 degree target is a reference to 2015′s Paris Agreement, a landmark accord that aims to “limit global warming to well below 2, preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels.”

    Cutting human-made carbon dioxide emissions to net-zero by 2050 is seen as crucial when it comes to meeting the 1.5 degrees Celsius target.

    Earlier this year, a report from the International Energy Agency said clean energy investment could be on course to exceed $2 trillion per year by 2030, an increase of over 50% compared to today.

    [ad_2]

    Source link