Making Waves: A Look at Marine and Hydrokinetic Energy

“Waves crashing on Aberdeen Beach,” Flikr, J. Mclellon.

By: Sarah Brusseau

Seventy percent of the Earth’s surface is covered by water. 14 of the world’s largest cities sit on coastlines. Fifty percent of all Americans live within 50 miles of a coast. Oceans are essential for food, advances in medicine, and transportation; in fact, the ocean economy produces $282 billion in goods and services just in the United States each year. Most importantly, oceans are critical to providing us oxygen. Half of the world’s oxygen supply comes from the oceans, and oceans absorb 25% of carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels. Water is an invaluable resource, but the United States is not using it to its full potential.

In 2019, the United States consumed about 4.127 billion kilowatt-hours (kWH) of electricity. The primary energy source, totaling a little more than 60% of electricity generation, was fossil fuels (petroleum, natural gas, and oil). Fossil fuels are not only harmful to the environment but can also cause serious public health concerns. Air pollution and soot from coal plants can cause asthma, heart attacks, and respiratory disease. Additionally, if the world is going to meet the Paris Agreement’s goal of keeping the global temperature increase less than 2°C temperature above pre-industrial levels, serious changes must occur, and we can no longer burn fossil fuels for energy.

Fortunately, renewable energy sources can replace fossil fuels. Renewable energy sources include solar, hydroelectric, and wind. In 2019, nuclear energy generated 20% of the United States electricity, and renewable energy accounted for 18%. Currently, 6.6% of the electricity used in the United States is generated from hydropower; the most commonly known hydropower technology is a dam. However, there is a new, emerging technology that is capable of producing enough energy to meet the entire United States energy demand of 4,127 billion kWh of electricity per year. The solution is Marine and Hydrokinetic energy.

Marine and Hydrokinetic (MHK) energy is the energy generated from moving water, such as waves, ocean currents, rivers and tides. As the water moves, MHK technologies and devices can harness the energy, just as a wind turbine can capture wind and turn it into energy. There are two primary types of MHK devices: wave energy converters and tide energy converters. Wave energy converters are found on, or near, the surface of the ocean. The most popular types of wave energy converters are point absorbers, which move with the waves; these often take the shape of buoys in the water.

Tidal energy converters are located underwater and appear in turbine form. As currents move past, the turbines spin, similar to wind turbines. In order to harness MHK energy, the devices are connected to cables that connect to an electrical grid.

According to the Department of Energy (DOE), MHK energy is an untapped resource because the technologies are still at a very fundamental development stage. MHK technologies are expensive to produce. Water is 800 times denser than air and metal corrodes in salt water, therefore companies and manufacturers must create devices that are structurally sound enough to survive the ocean. The devices must also provide minimal disruptions to marine animals and their ecosystems. [It is important to note that those who think about long-term sustainability goals must balance harms against each other. If we want to omit fossil fuels, but the necessary approach may result in marine mammal death, is the approach worth it?]

The process to obtain a permit or license for a MHK study and test site is intense and long. The Federal Power Act of 1920 mandated the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to be the lead federal agency to issue preliminary permits and licenses for MHK projects. According to a DOE specialist, it takes between 4 and 10 years to obtain a preliminary permit. A preliminary permit allows an entity to study a potential site to house a MHK facility. The MHK preliminary permit is issued for up to 4 years and requires status reports every 6 months. Obtaining a preliminary permit does put the permittee on the top of the list to receive a license, though, which allows the development, operation, and construction of a MHK facility. A MHK license is good between 30 and 50 years.

In order to obtain a permit, additional federal agencies, and state and local governments must also approve of the possible project. One federal agency, the Bureau of Ocean Management (BOEM), has strict requirements. All potential projects must pass stringent NEPA requirement and complete an Environmental Impact Statement. These requirements are the reason for the extreme length of time it takes to obtain a preliminary permit.

Currently, there are 3 MHK projects with preliminary permits and 3 with licenses in the United States. A well-known project is in Igiugig, Alaska where an in-stream river MHK device is in place to harness power from the river’s current. This single device is able to provide up to half of the village’s electricity. Another interesting project currently awaiting a preliminary permit is the $35 million PacWave testing facility. The PacWave system houses 20 wave energy converters that are all connected to one electrical grid. This testing facility will be able to study the different wave energy converters, may test tidal energy converters, and can hopefully be a launching point for the development of more cost-effective MHK technologies.

Because of the increased need of clean, renewable energy systems, it would be beneficial to streamline the permitting process. The United States can look to other countries with established MHK projects for guidance. For example, The Netherlands issues a decision to a possible permittee within six months of receiving an application for a permit. And Sweden has a specific court to issue permits upon receipt of an Environmental Impact Assessment. FERC and BOEM could also work with other federal agencies to establish a single permitting process, to avoid additional time and redundancies. The harm to the environment should be the main priority when evaluating MHK test sites and devices, but should the harm be weighed against the severe environmental devastation stemming from the burning of fossil fuels?

The permitting and licensing scheme for MHK projects should evolve as the development of MHK emerging technologies continues.