2006 CONFERENCE WORKSHOP RESPONSES

Issue I: WAVE ENERGY

How and on what scale should Oregon move forward with proposals for research and commercialization on ocean wave energy conversion?

Table 1:

(Names of leaders/participants are not included. Table numbers do not correspond to original table numbers at the conference.)

There should be lots of emphasis on energy production.

There are obvious economic benefits. But a careful systematic process is necessary. A new industry should not be on a fast track without full understanding of all impacts especially potential adverse or downside impacts.

Energy production must be brought along carefully; scale up but make careful analysis including environmental impacts and cost/benefit considerations.

The cumulative impacts won’t be known for some time; exercise caution.

Economics will prove out but natural resource impacts require some level of diligence to better address biological considerations and environmental impacts.

It is suggested that a team approach with engineers and natural scientists (at OSU) be used.

Is county oversight needed?  Federal and State oversight should be adequate/sufficient. The role of the county should be taxation and franchise fees not site selection.

Table 2:

The buoy parks should be considered to be marine reserves (actual or de facto). Wave energy needs a good deal of research and thought. There may be more fish, but that’s because of new structures being placed over soft sediment.

Encourage continued progress of the testing and evaluation; the offshore development needs to happen quickly; FERC should move quickly. Probably should start with a group of buoys not just a single one but make sure the multi-buoy park is closely studied. There needs to be someone or some group serving as a constructive critic/skeptic. Make sure same mistakes as occurred with dams are not repeated.

Someone needs to be assessing EMF impacts on fish and other organisms.

Before the “gold rush” to develop wave parks along the entire Oregon coast begins, the state needs to develop a carrying capacity for the coast. How many parks allowed; how/where they will be sited.

Table 3:

Proceed as rapidly as possible to test different technologies on a pilot scale.

Coordinate research, planners, regulatory and outreach efforts.

Address potential conflicts and integration with the fishing industry which is already stressed.

Integrate wave energy sites with other spatial set asides (sanctuaries or marine reserves).

Table 4:

How does this address or affect global warming? This should be assessed and researched.

Stay to guidelines; go slow; to go fast stay on a thoughtful course of progress and include research.

Development should stay at the state level—research costs, development costs are too much for a county to bear.  Federal level may dilute; county might be too expensive. Permits issued at the county level is ok.

State should provide overall context with planning goals.

There is a need to develop clean. local energy sources. If commercially viable proceed with greater emphasis. There needs to be collaboration with public/private groups with control at local of impact to streamline and be in touch with stakeholders.

Energy is a foreign policy issue. Feds need to be involved in at least the funding.

Table 5:

There are many trade-offs:  Research and development before deployment: This can generate efficiency and therefore reduce costs. It can evaluate environmental impacts.

Move quickly within these constraints.

Expand only if cost-effective and continue to promote power conservation simultaneously.

Wave energy is an exciting possibility; Oregon can become a leader in new technologies.

Table 6:

Wave energy is an example of a technology being used in our environment not initially thought of in the past.

The proposals in this morning’s presentation seemed reasonable.

The ability to find a portion of the coast for a wave energy park needs to be balance with other needs and uses.

Look into environmental and ecosystem impacts during the testing process.

Table 7:

Will there be contamination of effects: marine mammals, whales?

It’s environmentally friendly including the OSU equipment.

Needs to be integrated with reserve planning.

There are positives and negatives with this new technology.

Identify research protocols.

Be aware of technology of other nations.

Table 8:

Research should proceed with a variety of technologies at diverse sites so as to identify the best option for commercialization.

Care should be taken to protect the environment and preserve the natural beauty of our coast.

Possibly combine wave energy farms with marine protection areas which are off-limits to fishing.

Inevitable conflicts will arise over state and local (county) jurisdiction and need to be addressed up-front.

Table 9:

Move forward based on mandates for renewable energy sources. Policy is inevitable… technology needs to catch up.

The harsh nature of the marine environment suggests very significant maintenance issues for a wave energy array. This will be another element of a long learning curve.

There is a need to develop broader marine technology base within Oregon. There will be a spin off of marine technology needed to support wave energy; this may be an opportunity for community colleges. For example: sea deployment and maintenance of energy converters, cables, moorings, etc.

Wave energy development needs to be linked to ecological studies of its effects.

Table 10:

Five million dollars needed for research now.

A one to two year study will be needed to investigate impacts.

Identify specific interests of any negatively affected stakeholders.

Continue work to communicate with broad fishing community.

Provide ongoing information to public. For example: use Town Hall meetings convened by local organizations with invited “experts.”

An issue to contemplate: Ownership—public ownership vs. private commercialization.

First do a prototype and then scale up.

Keep a focus on how to really create good-paying jobs locally.

Foster the industry so that it develops in Oregon.

Document the process since it appears to be having good cooperation.

Table 11:

Oregon should move forward.

Progress with Gardiner site uses existing infrastructure, test technique there.

Pace is good; we need the energy source.

Pace may be too slow; we have an energy crisis and need to move forward.

Permit process is new; it may need some figuring out.

Initial process should one buoy then an array will allow information.

Even 12 buoys not enough; may need 24 to 36.

Focus on alternative fuels determines need.

Must get going to get over inertia and government bureaucracy.

Priority for a research facility at OSU.

Look at recent studies on fisheries and oil platforms particularly effects on vertical habits and recruitment.

Table 12:

Start with the prototype; continue contact with local council of stakeholders and agency folks.

Ongoing research and scientific monitoring needed then add more as data suggest.

(We are) very supportive with a couple of cautions.

Try at more than one location with more than one device.

Oregon should be a leader.

(We) agree with the presentation.

Start small in steps with caution; lots of unknowns.

Table 13:

Move forward on R &D.

Caution on commercialization; i.e. pilot project.

Coordinated plan with all stakeholders.

Review plan/model with community.

Impact from wave ‘take.’

Local stakeholder input is critical.

The challenge is to move forward cautiously and dampen the ‘Gold Rush’ mentality.

Table 14:

It could be a big boost to the local economy but there are numerous questions regarding seafloor impacts; noise plus other impacts on fish, mammals and on fisheries which depend on them. Also of concern is impact on views from shore.

Move forward carefully and make sure fishermen, and  other users get a seat at the table.

The state should take a stronger leadership role; not let one county take the lead for such an important state asset or encourage other local governments to get involved.

Wave energy should be science driven—test plot on a decent scale.

Glean science from other countries—don’t reinvent the wheel if not necessary.

Table 15:

Research should be coupled to impact.

Test prototypes and scaling from 1 – 12 using several locations.

Put in places with existing infrastructure.

Go county by county to give later counties the advantage of expansion.

Should know if small ones sprinkled around vs large ones more effective.

Statewide oversight needed.

Work with industry to define high transit areas’ some small boats might not be aware of them.

Use education to capture imagination to get people aware and involved.

Base movement forward on experience of other counties.

Know impact on marine life before large implementation.

Be a little skeptical of new technology.

Table 16:

Develop as soon as possible.

Determine scale based on ecological impacts.

Take advantage of flexibility.

Need a coalition of coastal communities. Coastal voice is underrepresented at county level; counties need a strong voice.

Governor could help make a coastal coalition with teeth a reality.

Source of the power will be on the coast; but the people pulling the strings are in the valley.

Check with the whales!

 

PDF Print Complete Copy of all 2006 Conference Workshop Responses

Back | Continue...