Study outlines Virginia offshore energy prospects

[Fledermaus]

The development of a turbine manufacturing industry along Virginia's coast is key to creating jobs and reducing the costs of offshore wind energy, according to the most detailed analysis yet of the state's offshore wind prospects.

The report by the Virginia Coastal Energy Research Consortium concludes that the development of an offshore supply industry in Hampton Roads would generate thousands of jobs and reduce the estimated kilowatt hour cost of energy generated by wind turbines off the coast.

"The greatest upside opportunity for reducing the cost of offshore wind energy in Virginia is to attract major elements of a Mid-Atlantic offshore wind supply chain to the state," the report, Virginia Offshore Wind Studies, states.

Using existing coastal facilities, the manufacture of huge components needed to capture winds off the Virginia coast would create thousands of jobs, the study found.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9FFGV600.htm

[Dogmudgeon]

1. What, Virginia can't develop unless the manufacturing is in-state?

If they're going to be building several thousand of these turbines, they could at least start before the in-state manufacturing plants are in place. In a few years, a growing dearth of manufacturing capability will be the main bottleneck to wind energy development, and the attention will be on increasing manufacturing capacity. A state with an ongoing program to place turbines would be at the front of the list.

According to the article, though, Virginia is only aiming for 3,200 MW. That would yield an output comparable to a nuclear or coal plant, or two gas-filed plants. With all that coastline, I'd think that 3200 MW would be a down payment.

--d!

[Fledermaus]

2. ???

The shipbuilding and port facilities in Hampton Roads are well positioned to manufacture, stage and install foundations, towers and turbines anywhere on the Mid-Atlantic continental shelf," wrote George Hagerman, who led the research.

-- Turbine manufacturing in Virginia would decrease the capital costs of wind projects by 15 percent and generate an investment of $403 million in the local economy.

-- Within two decades, 9,700 to 11,600 jobs could be created with the development of 3,200 megawatts of offshore wind.

In Virginia, Gov. Bob McDonnell has pushed for offshore energy development, including wind power, and a coalition of industry groups and seacoast mayors are lobbying for offshore wind.

"Virginia has a really unique asset when it comes to offshore winds," said Maureen Matsen, the governor's energy adviser. "We have a relatively shallow continental shelf but with very strong winds. That's a very unusual combination."

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9FFGV600.htm

[Dogmudgeon]

3. It seems as though they are requiring 100% in-state sourcing

Virginia may be "well positioned to manufacture, stage and install foundations, towers and turbines anywhere on the Mid-Atlantic continental shelf" (Hagerman), but they still need the actual companies, engineering, and plants. The study seems to require that Virginia do it all in-state. I'm not sure that ANY wind project in the USA is 100% in-state. In fact, there is a lot of international business involvement from Siemens, Areva, Iberdrola, Mitsubishi, etc.

So my point is: why wait? There is an existing wind energy construction industry. And with the 20-50% annual growth wind is enjoying, capital will soon be attracted to Virginia rather than Virginia having to go chasing it, so prospective Virginia-based wind companies will benefit from priming the financial pump. Waiting will only make it more difficult.

--d!

[kristopher]

4. You are putting a lot of things into the article that aren't there.

Why do you assume:

they are waiting?

they are going to require 100% in state manufacturing?

that the study was predicated on 100% of manufacturing being instate?



This is a STUDY, not a regulatory regime.

[Dogmudgeon]

5. Actually, I *was* responding to the article

I'm surprised I have to defend a reaction to a news article, twice. Press releases and short-item reporting tend to leave a lot of details out. The study was reported with the perspective of building manufacturing capacity first, then eventually wind turbines.

If you are able to track down the report, and want to post about it, I'll be happy to read it, but I don't think there is really much to argue over. I simply found it quite odd that it was presented the way it was.

--d!

[kristopher]

6. No you were not.

As usual you are trying to paint renewable energy in some sort of bad light. As this episode demonstrates, you don't care if your remarks are true or not, only that they cause negative feelings. You WANT to create memes that cause doubt and uncertainty about renewable energy - it is the only strategy that nuclear has available.