PG&E WaveConnect Program Final Report

The PG&E WaveConnect project was intended to demonstrate the technical and economic viability of wave power in the open ocean adjacent to PG&E's service territory. WaveConnect was conceived as a multi-stage development process leading to long-term megawatt-scale wave power production. The first-stage tasks consisted of site selection, permitting, pilot plant design, and assessment of technology and commercial readiness. The second stage would have included development of infrastructure, undersea cabling, and deployment of wave energy conversion devices (WECs). In the third stage, the most promising WEC devices would have been deployed in larger quantities and connected to the grid. This report documents the findings of Stage One. Site Selection: After studying the wave energy potential, grid interconnection and other project infrastructure along the California coast, PG&E selected two sites: one near Eureka, called the Humboldt WaveConnect (HWC) project, and another near Vandenberg Air Force Base, called the Central Coast WaveConnect project (CCWC). Permitting: FERC issued PG&E preliminary permits for HWC in 2008 and for CCWC in 2010. PG&E chose to use FERC's Pilot Project Licensing Process, which was intended to streamline licensing to allow relatively quick and easy installation, operation, and environmental testing for pilot projects. Permitting, however, proved to be complicated, time-consuming and expensive, mainly because of the uncertain impacts of WEC devices. PG&E learned that even under the PPLP the project would still require a full analysis under CEQA, including an EIR, as well as Monitoring and Adaptive Management Programs and other requirements that had significant cost and scheduling implications. A majority of efforts were expended on permitting activities. Pilot Plant Design: PG&E prepared a conceptual design for a 5-MW pilot test facility at the Humboldt site, which consisted of an off-shore deployment area where WECs of different designs and from different device manufacturers could be tested. PG&E was to provide permitting, subsea cables, and on-shore facilities necessary to connect WaveConnect to an existing PG&E substation, while the WEC manufacturers would provide, operate and maintain their devices during the test period. Technology and Commercial Readiness: PG&E issued a Request for Information to the wave power industry to assess the technical and commercial capabilities of WEC manufacturers. Sixteen manufacturers responded, representing the four best-known and most mature designs. PG&E found that WECs are early-stage devices with evolving designs and little real-world operating experience. These characteristics made environmental impacts difficult to assess, which complicated permitting efforts. It also made a megawatt-scale demonstration project difficult to support because early stage WECs are costly and have limited track records for performance and reliability. Results: PG&E withdrew its FERC DPLA for HWC in November 2010 and surrendered its preliminary permit for CCWC in May 2011, effectively discontinuing the project for the following combination of reasons: Permitting issues were much more challenging than originally anticipated. Stage One project funding of 6 million proved insufficient to complete the necessary development and permitting work. During Stage One development, PG&E determined that permitting costs would be 2 million to $5 million greater than originally budgeted. The cost of developing a five-year, 5-MW pilot project at Humboldt Bay is much greater than the$15 million to 20 million originally estimated. Even assuming that vendors provide WEC devices at no cost to the utility, which was the proposed strategy with WaveConnect, PG&E concluded that a pilot project comparable to HWC would cost approximately 47 million. If WEC devices were purchased for such a project, its total cost would be on the order of $90 million. It is unclear when or if wave power will become competitive with renewable energy alternatives. Significant additional investment in design, testing and demonstration will be needed to improve designs and reduce costs. Using a vendor-provided installed cost goal of$2500/kW for mature WECs in five to 10 years, PG&E concluded that their LCOE would be in the range of $175-$250/MWh, which is not competitive with current or near-term renewable alternatives such as wind or solar photovoltaics. Although PG&E discontinued the project and no WEC devices were deployed, WaveConnect advanced PG&E's understanding of the technological, engineering, permitting, environmental, economic, stakeholder, and related issues involved in undertaking any wave power project now or in the future. As WEC technologies mature, and regulatory and permitting agencies grow more familiar with their environmental impacts, PG&E believes that wave power will merit further evaluation, demonstration and deployment

Genesis and spread of multiple reassortants during the 2016/2017 H5 avian influenza epidemic in Eurasia

Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) viruses of the H5 A/goose/Guangdong/1/96 lineage can cause severe disease in poultry and wild birds, and occasionally in humans. In recent years, H5 HPAI viruses of this lineage infecting poultry in Asia have spilled over into wild birds and spread via bird migration to countries in Europe, Africa, and North America. In 2016/2017, this spillover resulted in the largest HPAI epidemic on record in Europe and was associated with an unusually high frequency of reassortments between H5 HPAI viruses and cocirculating low-pathogenic avian influenza viruses. Here, we show that the seven main H5 reassortant viruses had various combinations of gene segments 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6. Using detailed time-resolved phylogenetic analysis, most of these gene segments likely originated from wild birds and at dates and locations that corresponded to their hosts' migratory cycles. However, some gene segments in two reassortant viruses likely originated from domestic anseriforms, either in spring 2016 in east China or in autumn 2016 in central Europe. Our results demonstrate that, in addition to domestic anseriforms in Asia, both migratory wild birds and domestic anseriforms in Europe are relevant sources of gene segments for recent reassortant H5 HPAI viruses. The ease with which these H5 HPAI viruses reassort, in combination with repeated spillovers of H5 HPAI viruses into wild birds, increases the risk of emergence of a reassortant virus that persists in wild bird populations yet remains highly pathogenic for poultry

Capacity shortfalls hinder the performance of marine protected areas globally

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are increasingly being used globally to conserve marine resources. However, whether many MPAs are being effectively and equitably managed, and how MPA management influences substantive outcomes remain unknown. We developed a global database of management and fish population data (433 and 218 MPAs, respectively) to assess: MPA management processes; the effects of MPAs on fish populations; and relationships between management processes and ecological effects. Here we report that many MPAs failed to meet thresholds for effective and equitable management processes, with widespread shortfalls in staff and financial resources. Although 71% of MPAs positively influenced fish populations, these conservation impacts were highly variable. Staff and budget capacity were the strongest predictors of conservation impact: MPAs with adequate staff capacity had ecological effects 2.9 times greater than MPAs with inadequate capacity. Thus, continued global expansion of MPAs without adequate investment in human and financial capacity is likely to lead to sub-optimal conservation outcomes

PG&E WaveConnect Program Final Report

The PG&E WaveConnect project was intended to demonstrate the technical and economic viability of wave power in the open ocean adjacent to PG&E's service territory. WaveConnect was conceived as a multi-stage development process leading to long-term megawatt-scale wave power production. The first-stage tasks consisted of site selection, permitting, pilot plant design, and assessment of technology and commercial readiness. The second stage would have included development of infrastructure, undersea cabling, and deployment of wave energy conversion devices (WECs). In the third stage, the most promising WEC devices would have been deployed in larger quantities and connected to the grid. This report documents the findings of Stage One. Site Selection: After studying the wave energy potential, grid interconnection and other project infrastructure along the California coast, PG&E selected two sites: one near Eureka, called the Humboldt WaveConnect (HWC) project, and another near Vandenberg Air Force Base, called the Central Coast WaveConnect project (CCWC). Permitting: FERC issued PG&E preliminary permits for HWC in 2008 and for CCWC in 2010. PG&E chose to use FERC's Pilot Project Licensing Process, which was intended to streamline licensing to allow relatively quick and easy installation, operation, and environmental testing for pilot projects. Permitting, however, proved to be complicated, time-consuming and expensive, mainly because of the uncertain impacts of WEC devices. PG&E learned that even under the PPLP the project would still require a full analysis under CEQA, including an EIR, as well as Monitoring and Adaptive Management Programs and other requirements that had significant cost and scheduling implications. A majority of efforts were expended on permitting activities. Pilot Plant Design: PG&E prepared a conceptual design for a 5-MW pilot test facility at the Humboldt site, which consisted of an off-shore deployment area where WECs of different designs and from different device manufacturers could be tested. PG&E was to provide permitting, subsea cables, and on-shore facilities necessary to connect WaveConnect to an existing PG&E substation, while the WEC manufacturers would provide, operate and maintain their devices during the test period. Technology and Commercial Readiness: PG&E issued a Request for Information to the wave power industry to assess the technical and commercial capabilities of WEC manufacturers. Sixteen manufacturers responded, representing the four best-known and most mature designs. PG&E found that WECs are early-stage devices with evolving designs and little real-world operating experience. These characteristics made environmental impacts difficult to assess, which complicated permitting efforts. It also made a megawatt-scale demonstration project difficult to support because early stage WECs are costly and have limited track records for performance and reliability. Results: PG&E withdrew its FERC DPLA for HWC in November 2010 and surrendered its preliminary permit for CCWC in May 2011, effectively discontinuing the project for the following combination of reasons: Permitting issues were much more challenging than originally anticipated. Stage One project funding of 6 million proved insufficient to complete the necessary development and permitting work. During Stage One development, PG&E determined that permitting costs would be 2 million to $5 million greater than originally budgeted. The cost of developing a five-year, 5-MW pilot project at Humboldt Bay is much greater than the$15 million to 20 million originally estimated. Even assuming that vendors provide WEC devices at no cost to the utility, which was the proposed strategy with WaveConnect, PG&E concluded that a pilot project comparable to HWC would cost approximately 47 million. If WEC devices were purchased for such a project, its total cost would be on the order of $90 million. It is unclear when or if wave power will become competitive with renewable energy alternatives. Significant additional investment in design, testing and demonstration will be needed to improve designs and reduce costs. Using a vendor-provided installed cost goal of$2500/kW for mature WECs in five to 10 years, PG&E concluded that their LCOE would be in the range of $175-$250/MWh, which is not competitive with current or near-term renewable alternatives such as wind or solar photovoltaics. Although PG&E discontinued the project and no WEC devices were deployed, WaveConnect advanced PG&E's understanding of the technological, engineering, permitting, environmental, economic, stakeholder, and related issues involved in undertaking any wave power project now or in the future. As WEC technologies mature, and regulatory and permitting agencies grow more familiar with their environmental impacts, PG&E believes that wave power will merit further evaluation, demonstration and deployment

The impact of pre-school on adolescents’ outcomes:evidence from a recent English cohort

This paper investigates the relationship between attendance at pre-school school and, children's outcomes into early adulthood. In particular, we are interested in: child cognitive, development at ages 11, 14 and 16; intentions towards tertiary education; economic activity in early, adulthood; and a group of non-cognitive outcomes such as risky health behaviour; and personality, traits. Using matching methods to control for a very rich set of child and family characteristics, we find, evidence that pre-school childcare moderately improves results in cognitive tests at age 11 and 14 and, 16. Positive effects are especially noticeable for girls and children from disadvantaged socio-economic, backgrounds. Results for non-cognitive outcomes are weaker: we do not find any significant evidence, of improvement in psychological well-being, petty crime involvement, or on almost all health, behaviours. While the cognitive effects may well serve to reduce lifecycle inequalities there is no, support here for other important social benefits

The impact of microfinance on household livelihoods: Evidence from rural Eritrea

This study examined the impact of microfinance on the livelihoods of households in rural Eritrea. It specifically sought to find out whether the Saving and Microcredit Programme (SMCP), introduced by the Eritrean Government in 1996 to support the poorest of the poor, had a significant impact on the livelihood of its clients. The study employed logistic regression and propensity score matching estimation techniques. The findings reveal that households that participated in the SMCP had reported significantly higher profits from their microenterprises, had more valuable assets, higher consumption expenditure, significantly improved nutrition and increased savings. The findings have important social and economic policy implications regarding the role of finance in rural development in an African context