Resource Library -- latest additions

Documents presented here are not the product of nor are they necessarily endorsed by National Wind Watch. This resource library is provided to assist anyone wishing to research the issue of industrial wind power and the impacts of its development. The information should be evaluated by each reader to come to their own conclusions about the many areas of debate.

---

Act relating to wind energy plants

Author:  Potter, David

H.677.

This bill proposes to require standard setbacks, noise limits, and other requirements for wind energy plants that exceed 0.49 megawatts, to allow nearby property owners to waive these requirements, and to require that the Act 250 district commissions and appropriate municipal panels be the permit review authorities for wind energy plants not owned by Vermont electric utilities.

Sec. 1. 30 V.S.A. § 8008 is added to read:

§ 8008. WIND TOWER SITING REQUIREMENTS; ENFORCEMENT

(a) Applicability. This section applies to a plant that generates electricity using wind energy as a fuel source and has a plant capacity in excess of 0.49 megawatts (MW). The requirements of this section shall apply to any proceeding for approval of such a plant under chapter 151 of Title 10, chapter 117 of Title 24, or section 248 of this title, in addition to all other applicable criteria.

(b) Definitions. As used in this section:

(1) “dBA” means a decibel measure of overall sound level under American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Sl.4 that is designed to reflect the response of the human ear. Lower frequency sounds are given less weight than those in the mid-range of human perception. The resulting measure is said to be A-weighted, and the units are dBA.

(2) “dBC” means a decibel measure of overall sound level under ANSI S1.4 that is similar to dBA but does not de-emphasize low frequencies to the extent that dBA does. The resulting measure is said to be C-weighted, and the units are dBC.

(3) “Height” means the total distance measured from the grade of a property as it exists prior to the construction of a wind turbine or related facility at the base to the highest point of a wind turbine or related facility. In the case of a wind turbine, this includes the length of the blade at its highest possible point.

(4) “Kamperman-James Guidelines” means the proposed wind turbine siting sound limits contained on page 10 of George W. Kamperman, INCE, Bd. Cert. Emeritus, and Richard R. James, INCE, “Simple guidelines for siting wind turbines to prevent health risks” (July 27, 2008) (Rev 1.0).

(5) “L90” means background sound, defined over a continuous ten-minute period to be the average sound level during the quietest one continuous minute of the ten minutes. The term refers to sound that is normally present at least 90 percent of the time, and excludes any sound generated by a plant subject to this section. L90 may be measured relative to A-weighting or C-weighting, in which case it is denoted LA90 or LC90.

(6) “Leq” means frequency-weighted equivalent sound level. The term is defined to be the steady sound level that contains the same amount of acoustical energy as the corresponding time-varying sound. Leq may be measured relative to A-weighting or C-weighting, in which case it is denoted LAeq or LCeq.

(7) “Occupied building” means any structure that is or is likely to be occupied by persons or animals and includes dwellings, commercial buildings, other business structures, hospitals, places of worship, schools, stables, and barns. This term shall include a structure on which construction has commenced at the time a complete application for a plant subject to this section is filed, if the structure otherwise meets the provisions of this subdivision (8).

(8) “Rotor” means an element of a wind turbine that acts as a multibladed airfoil assembly extracting, through rotation, kinetic energy directly from the wind.

(9) “Shadow flicker” means alternating changes in light intensity caused by the moving blade of a wind turbine casting shadows on the ground and stationary objects, such as a window at a dwelling.

(10) “Wind turbine” means a mechanical device that captures the energy of the wind and converts it into electricity. The primary components of a wind turbine are the rotor or other component that extracts energy from the wind, the electrical generator, and the tower. This term does not include wiring to connect the wind turbine to the grid.

(c) Setbacks. At a minimum, a wind turbine shall be set back horizontally:

(1) One and one-quarter miles from an occupied building, if the elevation change between the wind turbine and the occupied building is equal to or less than 500 feet.

(2) Two miles from an occupied building, if the elevation change between the wind turbine and the occupied building exceeds 500 feet.

(3) One-half mile from the closest boundary of the parcel on which the wind turbine will be located.

(4) One-third of a mile from any public highway or right-of-way and from any above-ground utility line or facility. However, this subdivision shall not apply to an electric line that directly connects a wind turbine to a substation or other utility facility.

(d) Sound limits. At a minimum, a plant subject to this section shall comply with each of the following:

(1) Audible sound limit. No plant shall be located so as to generate postconstruction sound levels that exceed preconstruction background sound levels by more then 5 dBA.

(2) Low frequency sound limit. The LCeq and LC90 sound levels from a wind turbine at the receiving property shall not exceed the lower of either:

(A) An LCeq-LA90 greater than 20 dB outside any occupied building; or

(B) A sound level of 50 dBC (LC90) from a wind turbine, without other ambient sounds, for a parcel the closest boundary of which is located one mile or more from a state highway or Class 1 or 2 town highway, or of 55 dBC (LC90) for a parcel with a boundary closer than one mile to such a highway.

(3) General sound limit. Sound from a plant subject to this section shall not exceed 35 dBA within 30 meters of any occupied building.

(4) Demonstrating compliance with sound limits. Use of the Kamperman-James Guidelines shall be required in demonstrating compliance with the sound limits of this subsection.

(e) Other requirements.

(1) A plant subject to this section shall comply with the interconnection requirements of the Independent System Operator of New England, Inc. or the interconnection rules of the board, as applicable.

(2) The applicant shall perform and submit with the application an analysis of shadow flicker effect for each wind turbine and proposed measures to mitigate or eliminate such effect.

(3) Roads and power lines associated with the plant shall be the minimum feasible length as determined by the permitting authority. Rights-of-way for such roads and lines shall be the minimum feasible width as determined by the permitting authority.

(4) A wind turbine shall have no lighting except those lights necessary to meet the requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration.

(5) The application shall include the depreciation schedule that the applicant will use for each wind turbine and other component of a plant.

(6) The application shall include a plan for replacement or removal of each wind turbine in the event of the turbine’s failure, including a failure due to natural disaster.

(7) The application shall include a decommissioning and site restoration plan containing the following information and meeting the following requirements:

(A) The plan shall provide for the removal from the project parcels and lawful disposal or disposition of all wind turbines and other structures, hazardous materials, electrical facilities, and all foundations. The plan shall provide for the removal or appropriate supervision and control of all access roads. The plan shall provide for the restoration of the project parcels to a condition as close as reasonably possible to that which existed before construction of the plant.

(B) The plan shall provide for the decommissioning of the site on the expiration or revocation of the permit or abandonment of the plant. The plant shall be deemed abandoned if its operation has ceased for 12 consecutive months.

(C) The plan shall include provision for the posting of a third party bond to assure completion of decommissioning and site restoration, in the amount of the full estimated costs of decommissioning and site restoration adjusted for inflation and in accordance with the plan as approved by the permitting authority.

(D) The plan shall include written authorization from the applicant and all owners of all project parcels for each municipality in which the plant is located, the permitting authority, or a designee of such municipality or authority to access the project parcels and implement the decommissioning and site restoration plan, in the event that the permittee fails to implement the plan. The written authorization shall be in a form approved by the permitting authority and recorded in the land records of each municipality in which the plant is located. …

Download original bill as introduced: “H.677 – An act relating to wind energy plants”

---

Danish wind power ’stalled’ since 2002

Author:  Danish Wind Industry Association

Note that 2002 was the last year that any substantial on-shore wind power was erected in Denmark. The small changes since then have mostly been due to replacing existing machines with larger ones.

Off-shore, after the Horns Rev facility in 2002 and Nysted (Rødsand) in 2003, there was no development until the addition of Horns Rev II in 2009. Rødsand II (200 MW) may be completed in 2010.

---

True Cost of Electricity from Wind Is Always Underestimated and Its Value Is Always Overestimated

Author:  Schleede, Glenn

Probably the most common wind energy question that I receive from analysts, reporters, and interested citizens deals with the cost of electricity from wind. The frequency of the question is understandable since estimates provided by the wind industry, federal and state agencies and contractors, and the media understate the true cost and ignore the fact that electricity from wind is very low in value.

Typically, those asking the question would like a simple way to compare the cost of electricity from wind with the cost of electricity from other sources. Unfortunately, that isn’t possible. For those who insist:

• The first short answer is that the true financial cost of electricity from wind is huge compared to electricity from reliable generating sources.
• The second short answer is that the cost of electricity from wind should not be compared with the cost of electricity from reliable generating sources because the value of electricity from wind is much lower.

Pervasive misunderstanding of the true cost and value of electricity from wind

In fact, few people in the general public, media or government know the facts about the high true cost and low true value of electricity from wind. For example, not long ago, the delegate to the General Assembly representing our district in Virginia stated repeatedly during a telephonic “town hall” that electricity from wind “is now competitive” with electricity from coal. The delegate has a degree in electrical engineering and a long record of accomplishments in electronics. His statement is consistent with claims often made by wind industry lobbyists but, unfortunately, the statement is false.

The delegate’s false statement is understandable since the US Department of Energy (DOE), DOE’s National “Laboratories” and other contractors (all paid with tax dollars), the wind industry; and other wind energy advocates have, for years, issued false and misleading claims about the cost and value of electricity from wind.

Critically important among the elements of true cost that are often understated or ignored by wind energy advocates is the huge cost of tax breaks and subsidies provided to the wind industry. Initially, tax breaks and subsidies for wind energy were justified on grounds that they were necessary to help an emerging technology compete with existing technologies for producing electricity until the technology was more thoroughly developed and demonstrated.

Federal, state and local government tax breaks and subsidies for wind energy have become so prevalent that it’s virtually certain that the politicians and regulators who provide them have no understanding of their magnitude and cost. It’s also virtually certain that they have not weighed benefits and costs. If they really have done either, there is no question but that they have decided to put the special interest of the wind industry ahead of the interests of taxpayers and electric customers who are paying for their largess.

Wind industry lobbyists have been exceedingly effective in winning huge tax breaks and subsidies from governments. When initially proposed, wind energy advocates argued that tax breaks and subsidies were necessary to permit a relatively “new and developing technology” to gain a foothold in competition with other sources of energy for producing electricity. However, industry demands for continuation, expansion and extension of subsidies have made it clear that there are no longer any serious expectations that wind energy is competitive or that improvements in the technology will eventually make it competitive.

Instead, it appears that the only hope that wind energy would become economically competitive with traditional energy sources is if the cost of electricity from traditional sources were driven much higher – with all the adverse impacts on electric customers and local and national economies that result from high electricity prices.

Improving public, media and political leaders’ understanding of wind energy costs and value

The false claims and the widespread misunderstanding about the full, true costs and the low value of electricity from wind demonstrate that it is time to focus on the facts. It would be “nice” if this could be done in a brief paper but brief papers have not been effective in getting through to people (particularly those in government and the media) who should be presenting the public and our political leaders with accurate information. Therefore, it apparently is necessary to “explain the basics” which, unfortunately, requires a long paper that delves into the details about the cost and value of electricity from wind.

Accordingly, this paper provides details on all the key factors that must be taken into account when making honest estimates of the true cost and value of electricity from wind energy. This paper will not provide numbers that can be compared because the development of valid and reliable cost and value data requires detailed information and assumptions that vary widely among “wind farms,” the generation mix and electricity supply and demand situation within electric grid control areas, and other factors.

Hopefully, once the factors that affect true cost and value of electricity from wind are understood, analysts, investors, reporters, and others interested in honest comparisons of costs and value will be able to make realistic estimates of at least the costs per kilowatt (kW of) wind generating capacity.

But, as explained below, reliable estimates of the cost per kilowatt-hour (kWh of) electricity produced by wind farms will still not be possible because such estimates are entirely dependent on factors that are and will remain unknown. Assumptions (i.e., guesses) made by those who claim they know the cost per kWh of electricity from wind can easily be in error by a factor of two or more.

Whether estimating the true cost of wind generating capacity or cost of electricity produced from wind, the cost of federal, state, and local tax breaks and subsidies are dominant factors. There is no longer any serious doubt but that tax breaks and subsidies – not environmental, energy, or economic benefits — are the primary reasons that “wind farms” are being built.

Six points critical to an accurate understanding of the high true cost and low value of electricity from wind

Comparing the “cost” of electricity from wind with the “cost” of electricity from reliable generating units is a classic “apples to oranges” comparison (or perhaps crab apples to oranges!). The things being compared may “look” similar but, in fact, are vastly different. In summary, and as detailed below, those making comparisons of the cost of electricity from wind often overlook four critically important facts:

• The full, true cost of electricity from wind is seldom revealed because of massive federal, state, and local government tax breaks and subsidies for “wind farm” owners.
• No one really knows the true cost per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of producing electricity from wind turbines because all such calculations are always based on assumptions (i.e., guesses).
• The value of electricity that is produced by wind turbines is much lower than the value of electricity from reliable generating units because the output from wind turbines is intermittent, volatile, unreliable and most likely to be produced when least needed.
• The value of wind turbine generating capacity is much lower than the value of the capacity of reliable generating units because wind turbines produce electricity only when the wind is blowing in the right speed range so they cannot be counted on when electricity demand reaches peak levels.

Point 1: There is a fundamental difference between wind turbines and reliable electric generating units.

There is a vast difference between electric generating units that produce electricity only intermittently, such as wind turbines, and reliable generating units that can be counted on to produce electricity when it is needed. To be more specific:

1. Electricity cannot be stored in significant amounts and, therefore, must be produced as it is needed (or “demanded”) by customers. Demand for electricity by customers – whether residential, commercial, or industrial — varies widely by time of day, day of week, season of the year, prevailing weather and temperature, strength of the economy, and other factors
2. Managers of electric grids are responsible for assuring that enough electricity is always available to meet customers’ demand and, while doing this, must keep the gird in balance (in terms of supply & demand, voltage and frequency) . To do this, grid managers must always have available and under their control generating units that are:
   1. Reliable, that is, the unit(s) must be available or operable and have necessary fuel so that it can be counted on to produce electricity when its output is needed, and
   2. Dispatchable, that is, the unit(s) must be subject to the grid manager’s control so that it can be brought on line (i.e., begin production) or taken off line (i.e., stop production), and, for a unit on line, it can be ramped up or down (i.e., increasing or decreasing its output).

   In addition to keeping the grid in balance at all times, grid managers must also have reliable and dispatchable generating capacity in reserve , which capacity can be called upon immediately if there is an unplanned outage of one or more on line generating units (or transmission lines), or if there is a significant, unexpected increase in electricity demand.

The wind industry often pretends that this operating reserve of generating capacity should be or is a “free good” that should be available for its use – preferably at no cost — to make up for the fact that their wind turbines can’t be counted on to produce electricity when it is promised or needed (i.e., the turbines have little or no real capacity value), especially at the time of peak electricity demand. However, cutting into a grid’s operating reserve means that there would be less of a reserve available to its real purpose.

3. Wind turbines are not reliable or dispatchable. They produce electricity only when the wind is blowing within the right speed range (shown in footnote #1). Their output is intermittent, volatile, largely unpredictable, and unreliable. If wind turbines are connected to the grid serving the control area, the grid manager must have reliable generating capacity immediately available to “back up” the intermittent, volatile and unreliable output from wind turbines and keep the grid in balance.
4. Generating units that qualify as reliable and dispatchable are those with turbine-generators powered by natural gas, oil, coal, nuclear energy and hydropower. How quickly a generating unit can be brought on line or ramped up or down varies widely, depending on such factors as the generating technology (e.g., using steam turbine or gas turbine), the energy source, and the age and condition of the unit.

Point 2: Wind turbines have little or no “capacity value.”

A critically important factor affecting the true value of the capacity of any generating unit is how much of the unit’s “rated” or “nameplate” capacity can definitely be counted on to be available to generate electricity and how much it can definitely be counted to produce at the time of peak electricity demand in the control area. This measure is referred to in the electric industry as the unit’s “capacity value.”

In fact, regardless of their “rated” or “nameplate” capacity, wind turbines can’t be counted on to produce any electricity at the time it is most needed; i.e., when electricity demand reaches peak levels. Therefore, wind turbines really have little or no real “capacity value,” as that term is used in the electric industry.

Because wind turbines have little or no real “capacity value,” electric grid managers responsible for assuring the reliability of electric service must, instead, look to other generating units – i.e., those that are reliable and dispatchable for the capacity that is needed at the time of peak electricity demand. In most areas of the US, peak electricity demand is likely to occur in late afternoon on hot, weekdays in July or August.

When attempting to compare either the cost or value of electricity from wind turbines, it is important to recognize that the fact that wind turbines produce little or no electricity most of the time means that their “rated” or “nameplate” capacity is not comparable in value to the “rated” or “nameplate” capacity of a reliable generating unit. (A clear example of the “crabapple to orange” analogy.)

Point 3: Electricity produced by wind turbines – i.e., the kilowatt-hours (kWh) – has less real value than electricity produced by reliable generating units.

The true value of a kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity depends on when it is produced. Specifically, a kWh of electricity produced during periods of high or peak electricity demand has much higher value than a kWh produced when demand is low (e.g., during nighttime hours in most areas of the US).

This, too, is a critically important fact when attempting to compare either cost or value of electricity from wind turbines with electricity from reliable, dispatchable generating units. The fact is that electricity from wind turbines has a lower value per kWh because that electricity is not only intermittent, volatile, largely unpredictable and unreliable, but it is also most likely to be produced at night and in colder months when wind speeds are adequate to spin the blades, not at times of high or peak electricity demand.

Point 4: Large parts of the true capital and operating costs of electricity from wind are hidden because massive federal, state and local tax breaks and subsidies shift much of its true cost from “wind farm” developers and owners to taxpayers and electric customers.

Wind industry officials and lobbyists as well as the politicians, regulators, and other government officials, government contractors, and non-government organizations (NGOs) that support wind industry interests, often understate greatly the true cost of “wind farms” and electricity produced from “wind farms.” Sadly, some electric utility officials also participate in hiding the true costs of electricity from wind.

When initially proposed, the rationale for providing tax breaks and subsidies for wind energy was to help a relatively new technology for producing electricity compete with established electric generating technologies until advances in technology would permit wind to compete without subsidies.

However, the massive tax breaks and subsidies now available and the wind industry’s well-financed lobbying efforts to preserve, expand, and extend them makes clear that there is no longer any serious expectation that electricity from wind will become competitive or that significant advances in wind technology are likely to ever permit wind to become a competitive source of electricity.

The US Energy Information Administration (EIA), in an April 2008 report, indicated that federal tax breaks and subsidies during 2007 averaged $0.2337 per kWh of electricity produced by wind during 2007. However, that EIA report underestimated the true cost of the tax breaks and subsidies for wind because it:

• Failed to take into account either the value of 5-year double declining balance accelerated depreciation (described below) that is available for “wind farm” equipment, but not available for reliable generating units.
• Did not cover, of course, over $1 billion in additional tax breaks and subsidies for wind energy awarded in 2009 by the US Departments of Energy and Treasury (authorized by various “stimulus” measures) allegedly to create jobs in the US. As indicated below, a significant share of these awards were for projects owned by foreign entities, covered equipment manufactured in other countries, or flowed to owners of “wind farms” were already under construction or completed.
• Did not cover state and local tax breaks and subsidies for “wind farm” owners.

Among the many federal, state and local tax breaks and subsidies that reduce “wind farm” developers’ and owners’ costs — while shifting those costs to ordinary taxpayers and electric customers – are the following:

1. Federal tax breaks and subsidies.
   1. Accelerated Depreciation (MACRS). Nearly all the capital cost of a “wind farm” – whether financed with equity or debt — can be recovered through deductions from otherwise taxable income using 5-year double declining balance accelerated depreciation (5-yr.-200%DB). These deductions from taxable income reduce tax liability at the owner’s marginal tax rate, usually $35 for each $100 deduction. All of the eligible capital cost can be written off (“recovered”) over 6 tax years at the following rates – illustrated with $100,000,000 in eligible capital cost:

      	Deduction from taxable income		Further reduction in income tax liability (in addition to PTC)
      Tax Year	% of Capital investment	Amount
      1st	20%	$20,000,000	$ 7,000,000
      2nd	32%	$32,000,000	$11,200,000
      3rd	19.2%	$19,200,000	$ 6,720,000
      4th	11.52%	$11,520,000	$ 4,032,000
      5th	11.52%	$11,520,000	$ 4,032,000
      6th	5.76%	$ 5,760,000	$ 2,016,000
      Totals	100%	$100,000,000	$35,000,000

      Note that these deductions from otherwise taxable income and from tax liability could be taken regardless of whether the $100 million “wind farm” investment is financed with debt or equity.

      Note also that, in addition to the further reduction in tax liability, this generous accelerated depreciation deduction for federal income tax purposes has two other huge benefits; specifically:

      1. Prompt recovery of all the owner’s equity investment. Quite likely, the equity investment by “wind farm” owners and their “tax partners” would be no more than 30% with the remaining borrowed to reduce its cost. As the table above shows, all of the equity investment would be recovered thru depreciation deductions early in the second tax year and in less than 1 year if the project begins operating late in the first tax year. With no remaining equity investment, the owners’ return on equity would be infinite.
      2. A large interest-free loan. The depreciation deduction continues even though all equity has been recovered. Thus, in effect, the owners receive an interest free loan, courtesy of US taxpayers for an amount equal to the debt financing.

   2. Wind Production Tax Credit (PTC). A “wind farm” owner is eligible for a Wind PTC, currently $0.021 per kilowatt-hour (kWh), for electricity produced during the 1st 10 years of operation. The new expiration date for the PTC was extended to December 31, 2012. If the illustrative $100 million project had turbines with the combined, “rated” capacity of 50 megawatts (MW) and they operated at a 30% capacity factor, the turbines would produce 131,400,000 kWh of electricity each year, the owners would receive a tax credit (a direct deduction form tax liability) of $2,759,400 per year during the first 10 years of operation, thus reducing federal income tax liability by $27,594,000 over 10 years.

   3. Investment Tax Credit (ITC). “Stimulus” legislation enacted during 2008 and 2009 permits “wind farm” owners to choose an investment tax credit (i.e., a direct deduction from taxes otherwise due) equal to 30% of capital costs in lieu of the Production Tax Credit. If the “wind farm” owner does not have sufficient tax liability to use all of the ITC deduction, unused amounts can be carried forward and deducted in future years. This tax break is available for projects placed in service during 2009 and 2010 or where construction has started by 2010 and placed in service before the end of 2012. The newly authorized ITC has substantial benefits for “wind farm” owners compared to the PTC because (i) the benefit is available immediately rather than over a 10- year period and (ii) the benefit is based on capital cost and, therefore, is available regardless of the amount of electricity produced by the “wind farm.”

   4. Cash Grant in Lieu of ITC. The generous 2008-2009 “stimulus” legislation also made “wind farm” developers eligible for the ITC to elect to receive a cash grant of equal value from the US Treasury in lieu of the ITC. During September 2009, The US Departments of Treasury and Energy awarded grants for “wind farm” projects totaling about $900 million. $546 million or nearly 60% of the total was awarded to the Spain-based firm, Iberdrola. The Iberdrola CEO has indicated that he expects to win another $470 million in grants from Treasury and DOE during 2010.

      Creating jobs was, allegedly, a key reason for the $787 billion “stimulus” legislation but most of “wind farm” projects included in the $1 billion in grants awarded by Treasury and DOE on September 1 and September 22, 2009, were for (a) projects that were already completed, nearly completed or already fully committed to by the grant recipients, (b) were equipped with turbines manufactured primarily in other countries, and (c) were owned by foreign-based companies. Furthermore, “wind farms” result in very few new jobs, certainly fewer than would be created by similar investments in reliable generating units powered by traditional energy sources.

      (Clearly, any claim that the huge expenditure of tax dollars that were given to owners of “wind farms” would provide significant job and economic benefits in the US cannot be taken seriously.)

   5. Loosened requirements for tax breaks and subsidies. The same stimulus legislation also relaxed a number of restrictions on that had applied to the tax breaks and subsidies. A report recently released by DOE’s Lawrence Berkeley National “Laboratory” (LBNL) – while objectionable in several respects – provides a useful summary of generous tax breaks and subsidies now available for “wind farms.”

   6. US Department Agriculture Grants. While not targeting large commercial “wind farms,” a variety of renewable energy production incentives, grants, loans, and low interest bond arrangements are available for certain wind energy projects. These are also summarized in the LBNL report cited above. Some of these arrangements are available for large wind turbine projects owned by Rural Electric cooperatives and public power organizations owned by state and local governments.

   7. DOE Loan Program. A DOE loan program intended to encourage the commercialization of “innovative energy technologies” was first authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and then was substantially expanded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Billions in loans and loan guarantees are available for various renewable energy (including wind) and energy efficiency projects. One wind project (Nordic Windpower) has been approved via this program for a $16 million loan. Final regulations for this DOE program were issued on December 7, 2009.

   8. Additional US Department of Energy (DOE) Subsidies. The DOE provides several additional subsidies to the wind industry, all financed with tax dollars, including:
      1. Some $60 to $100 million per year for “wind energy R&D” contracts and grants.
      2. Additional millions in taxpayer dollars for “studies,” “analyses,” “reports,” and other wind energy promotional information prepared by or for DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (DOE-EERE), DOE’s National Energy “Laboratories,” state energy offices, and other DOE contractors and grantees.
         While the National “laboratories” undoubtedly perform some objective work that is based on scientific methods and engineering principles, much of the information issued by these organizations that deals with wind energy is demonstrably biased, misleading, and even false. These “laboratory” activities are more akin to those carried out by trade associations that typically provide one-sided information (or propaganda) that is used to influence the public, media and government officials.
      3. More taxpayer dollars flowing though DOE and NREL to support various state government wind promotional activities and to state “wind working groups,” consisting of wind industry representatives and other wind energy advocates (but seldom, if ever, include representatives from citizen groups opposed to “wind farms”) that work in support of wind industry objectives.

   9. Mandated use of “renewable” energy by Federal Agencies. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires the following amounts of total electricity consumed by the Federal Government to come from renewable energy:
      • No less than 3% in fiscal years 2007-2009
      • No less than 5% in fiscal years 2010-2012
      • No less than 7.5% in fiscal year 2013 and thereafter

      Presidential Executive Order 13423, issued in January 2007, requires that at least one-half of the required electricity from renewable energy come from “new renewable sources.” In fact, much of the electricity from “renewable energy” purchased by federal agencies comes from wind turbines. Like mandated state “green energy” programs, this federal requirement in effect requires that federal agencies pay premium prices for part of the electricity they use, thus creating a special, high priced market that is available to “wind farms.” The higher-than-market premiums that must be paid for electricity from wind are another subsidy for the wind industry. The higher prices are paid from agency appropriations which are financed through tax dollars.

   10. Public lands managed by the US Bureau of Land Management and US Forest Service. Both agencies have policies and regulations dealing with the construction of “wind farms” and related transmission facilities on public lands that they manage. More than 300 MW of wind turbine capacity is now located on BLM-managed lands. Typically, rents charged by BLM and USFS are lower than those charged for comparable private lands.

   11. Tax breaks and subsidies for “wind farm” equipment manufacturers. One 2009 economic “stimulus” measure established a new $2.3 billion investment tax credit “to encourage the development of a U.S.-based renewable energy manufacturing sector. In any taxable year, the investment tax credit is equal to 30% of the qualified investment required for an advanced energy project that establishes, re-equips or expands a manufacturing facility that produces …” something considered by the US Treasury and Energy Departments as an energy efficiency, conservation, or renewable energy technology, including wind energy.

       The application process conducted during the fall of 2009 resulted in the selection of dozens of projects that apparently exhausted the $2.3 billion authorization. Projects selected for this new tax break included 33 projects involving wind turbines, bearings, towers, and blades totaling more than $250,000,000. Treasury and DOE have announced that no more applications are being accepted for this program. However, President’s FY 2011 budget requests an additional $5 billion for the program.

2. State tax breaks and subsidies for “wind farm” owners. Many state governments have adopted generous tax breaks and subsidies that benefit “wind farm” developers and owners – adding more to the costs that are shifted from developers and owners to ordinary taxpayers and electric customers and “hidden” in their tax bills and monthly electric bills. The specific tax breaks and subsidies vary widely among states. Information for each state can be found at a taxpayer financed web site, Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency, www.dsireusa.org. Among the scores of “incentives” for industrial scale “wind farms” provided by at least one and often more states are:
   1. State production tax credits (e.g., Iowa)
   2. Exemptions from all or part of property taxes (e.g., Iowa, West Virginia, New York)
   3. Artificially low assessments on wind turbines (e.g., Illinois)
   4. Exemptions from sales tax on “wind farm” equipment and materials (e.g., Minnesota)
   5. Low-cost loans (e.g., industrial development bonds)
   6. Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) that typically prescribed some percentage of a distribution utility’s sales must consist of electricity produced from wind or some other “renewable” energy source (about 20 states).
   7. Purchases of, or markets for, “green energy” certificates earned by producers of electricity from wind (e.g., Massachusetts).
   8. “Green energy” programs by electric distribution companies that offer electricity produced from wind at a premium price – either required or encouraged by state PUC or legislature (many states).
   9. Payments for “green energy attributes” using revenue collected via a “systems benefit charge” (effectively, a tax) added to electric bills (e.g., New York).
   10. Higher allowed earnings for electric utility investments in renewable energy facilities (e.g., Virginia)

   At least four of the above state requirements (6, 7, 8 and 9) have the effect of creating a special market where owners of “wind farms” and other renewable energy facilities can sell their electricity at above market prices. Of course, the electricity actually used by customers paying extra for “green” electricity is highly unlikely to be produced by a “renewable” energy facility. The owners can receive the higher, above market prices for the electricity they produce even if their facilities are not producing at the time the electricity is being used.

   Utilities’ “green energy” programs are seldom self supporting. That is, the amounts collected in premiums from customers who agree to pay extra are not adequate to cover (i) the higher costs of the “green energy” and (ii) the utility’s cost of administering the “green” program. Costs not recovered from premium payments are merely passed along to all of the utility’s customers.

3. Local government and economic development agency tax breaks and subsidies. Some local government and economic development officials believe that construction of “wind farms” in their areas will provide new jobs and other economic benefits. Actual benefits tend to be much less than assumed by “wind farm” developers and local officials. Further, the cost of any such benefits is, in one way or another, shifted to ordinary taxpayers and/or electric customers. There is no readily available, comprehensive source of information on locally provided tax breaks and subsidies. However, examples include:
   1. Low-cost loans or bond financing. County or regional “economic development authorities” may have authority to offer low cost or interest free loans or bond financing which significantly reduce a “wind farm” owner’s capital cost.
   2. Acceptance of payments in lieu of taxes, or PILOTs. For example, local government and school board officials in some towns in New York accept PILOTs from “wind farm” owners and give up their statutory authority to override a state-authorized exemption from property taxes. PILOTs are attractive to local officials because they tend to be “front-end loaded”; that is, they provide significant early benefits that can be presented to local voters as an opportunity for near term reductions in home-owners’ property taxes, new fire trucks or other equipment, restoration of historic buildings, or other measures that can’t be accommodated in local budgets without raising taxes. For local politicians and citizens, these may appear to be generous gifts!

      PILOTs are attractive to “wind farm” owners because their cost over the assumed life of the “wind farm” are much less than paying property taxes and the “front-end” benefits are often helpful in gaining support for projects from current town officials and, perhaps, citizens who do not take into account the lower long term benefits or impacts.

Point 5: Other important elements of the full, true cost of electricity from wind are often hidden or ignored by wind energy advocates.

Tax breaks and subsidies are not the only elements of the full, true cost of electricity from wind that are not transparent and that are often ignored by wind energy advocates. For example, additional elements of the full, true cost of electricity from wind include:

1. Providing reliable generation to backup intermittent, unreliable generation from wind. Because electricity from wind turbines depends on availability and speed of wind, grid managers must always have immediately available enough reliable, dispatchable generating capacity to keep grids in balance as wind turbines start producing, vary widely in output, or stop producing. Adequate capacity is available on some grids to meet this requirement, but there are costs of providing this backup and balancing service, whether it is through the use of a unit running in automatic generation control (AGC) mode, otherwise less than full capacity, or in spinning reserve.

   Grid managers must have available and under their control reliable generating units that can be ramped up or down (i.e., output increased or decreased) or brought on line (start producing) or taken off line (stop producing). Ramping up and down to balance volatile wind turbine output may add to wear and tear on the backup units.

   A critically important objective in electric grid management is to have sufficient operating reserve capacity available to keep electric service reliable and keep the grid in balance in the event that key generating units (or transmission lines) unexpectedly become unavailable (e.g., mechanical failures or other “unplanned outages”), or if there is a significant, unexpected increase in demand. Wind industry advocates often assume, incorrectly, that this critically important grid operating reserve should be available as a free backup or balancing service for the intermittent, volatile, and unreliable output of wind turbines.

   Providing balancing and backup capability for intermittent, volatile, and unreliable wind turbine output involves cost that is properly considered a part of the cost of electricity from wind. For example, units that are available for ramping up must be running at less than full capacity and, therefore, at less than full efficiency. Units that are ramped down also run at less than full capacity. Units that are available to bring on line are likely to be running in “spinning reserve” mode (i.e., connected to and synchronized with the grid but inputting little or no electricity) and using some fuel and putting out some emissions. These costs are really a part of the true cost of electricity from wind.

   Furthermore, if adequate capacity from reliable generating units is not available, backup capacity would have to be constructed resulting in additional costs that are, at some point, passed on to customers. It must always be recognized that wind turbines do not provide reliable, dispatchable generating capacity and they cannot be counted as a substitute for such reliable capacity.

2. “Wind farms” place an extra burden on grid managers. Grid managers face a more difficult task in keeping grids in balance when winds are sufficient to permit wind turbines to produce electricity. Because the output from wind turbines varies with wind speed, the output that must be managed is volatile. The extent of the burden differs widely among “wind farms” and among grids depending on many factors, such as the energy source mix of generating capacity in the control area, the amount of wind generation and its volatility, and electricity demand.

   The “challenges” of integrating into electric grids the intermittent, volatile and unreliable output from wind turbines has finally been acknowledged by the Chairman of FERC in a January 21, 2010, statement announcing a FERC Notice of Inquiry. Hopefully this proceeding will lead to greater official and media candor about the challenges of integrating the output of “wind farms” into electric grids.

3. Electricity from wind results in higher cost of transmission. Areas where winds are sometimes strong enough to power wind turbines are often located at considerable distance from areas where electricity is needed (i.e., “load centers”). Furthermore, “wind farms” are not welcome near residential areas, even if wind conditions may be adequate, because of the large size of the wind turbines (400+ feet or more than 40 stories tall), because of their noise and other nuisance impacts, because of their environmental damage, and because of their adverse impacts on neighbors’ property values. The net effect of the above conditions is that electricity from wind turbines entails high costs of transmitting that electricity to the areas where the electricity can be used. Three factors are involved:
   1. First, because “wind farms” are likely to be located at some distance from load centers the losses during transmission (i.e., line losses) tend to be higher than in the case of electricity generated by units closer to load centers.
   2. Second, “wind farms” make inefficient use of transmission capacity. Enough transmission capacity must be available to serve the full rated output of a “wind farm.” However, because wind turbines produce at full rated capacity only when wind speeds are about 32 MPH or higher, the full transmission capacity is used only on a minority, part-time basis. The effect of this is that the unit cost per kWh of moving the electricity that is produced tends to be higher than for electricity from reliable generating units.
   3. Third, and especially costly, is the fact that “wind farms” have been built or are being proposed in areas that have insufficient or no transmission capacity to move the electricity that is produced. This means that expensive new transmission capacity would have to be built just to accommodate the new or proposed “wind farms.”

      Some areas where substantial wind generating capacity has been built or is proposed require major increases in transmission capacity (e.g., Texas) to serve the “wind farms.” While the cost of building the additional capacity is clearly a cost that is properly attributed to the cost of the electricity from wind, the wind industry seeks to avoid this cost and have it allocated to – i.e., charged to — electric customers as a part of their month bills as if it is a “normal” part of the cost of providing their electric service.

      Sadly, some public utility regulators have acceded to the wishes of the wind industry. Billions of dollars are involved but the wind industry and utility commissioners hide the enormity of the costs by spreading them over all the electric customers in the area. Once again, regulators are providing another huge subsidy to the wind industry rather than protecting electric customers.

Point 6: No one really knows the true cost per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity from wind turbines because all estimates of such costs are based on highly questionable assumptions – really guesses – that are untested.

Many claims are made about the cost per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced from wind but, in fact, no one really knows the true cost.

Anyone interested in the facts should be very wary of claims made by the wind industry, its supporters employed by the federal and state governments, the DOE National “Laboratories” or other wind energy advocates. Data reported by the media are invalid because they typically are parroted from one of these sources.

A true, meaningful calculation of the cost of per kWh of electricity produced by wind turbines inevitably requires data that can be known only on an after-the-fact basis. Claims that have been made about costs per kWh of electricity from wind turbines are rough estimates based on assumptions (guesses) and often do not include all elements of cost.

Key factors that cannot be known in advance include at least the following:

• Total operating and maintenance (O&M) and replacement costs during the assumed life of the turbines.
• Useful, productive life of the turbine(s).
• Amount of electricity (kilowatt-hours – kWh) that will be produced during the useful life, taking into account turbine and equipment out of service time, and deterioration in output as turbines, blades and other equipment age.
• Decommissioning costs.

None of the wind turbines of the type now being installed in the US have operating histories long enough to provide valid, reliable estimates for these factors.

Claims that are made by wind energy advocates typically include assumptions about O&M costs and replacement costs, useful life (often assumed to be 20 years), and capacity factor (often assumed to be something in the range of 25% to 35%).

Two highly simplified examples illustrate the extent to which cost per kWh calculations can be misleading if before-the-fact guesses prove incorrect. In these simplified examples which uses a rough estimate of one element of cost (i.e., overnight capital costs), only one key factor – the estimated useful life of the turbines — is changed but the impact on cost per kWh is doubled.

		Example #1		Example #2
Capacity of “wind farm” (kW)		50,000		50,000
Assumed capacity factor		30%		30%
Annual electricity production (kWh)		131,400,000		131,400,000
Assumed useful life		20 years		10 years
Electricity produced during useful life (kWh) (131,400,000 × years of useful life)		2,628,000,000		1,314,000,000
Overnight Capital Cost		$100,000,000		$100,000,000
Overnight capital cost per kWh during useful life		$0.038 per kWh		$0.076 per kWh

There is one potentially promising development in the long standing saga of DOE-NREL misinformation about the cost per kWh of electricity from wind. That is, a highly misleading, fact less, assumption based graph showing an 80% decline in the cost of electricity from wind – with further declines likely — apparently has been abandoned. Even the highly biased DOE-EERE folks admit that their data show the cost per kWh of electricity from wind has been rising, not falling. Unfortunately, there seem to be hundreds of reporters who remember the misleading graph and false 80% decline claim and will continue parroting that claim for years to come.

The preceding points are focused on financial cost and value, not externalities.

The foregoing discussion has been focused on the financial costs of producing electricity and the financial value of that electricity. It has not dealt with external costs, commonly referred to as externalities; i.e., the costs not reflected in the price charged for the electricity.

A discussion of externalities associated with each source of energy used to produce electricity is far beyond the scope of this paper. However, it should be noted that wind energy advocates generally assign high externality values to other sources of energy while assigning none for wind energy. In fact, producing electricity with wind energy does impose external costs, including adverse impacts on environmental, ecological, scenic, and property values.

Examples of adverse environmental and ecological impacts include noise, dead birds and bats, destruction of vegetation and disruption of ecosystems and wildlife habitat, and nuisance impacts such as shadow flicker. Claims that “wind farms” do not adversely affect neighbors’ property values, such as those made recently in a report from the Lawrence Berkeley National “Laboratory” (LBNL) defy common sense and facts evident from around the world.

Fortunately, media stories reporting on the adverse impacts of “wind farms” have begun to appear in the media and even in the Journal of the American Bar Association.

Conclusions

There are no longer any serious questions but that:

• Wind industry officials and lobbyists continue to understate greatly the full, true cost of electricity from wind and have been successful in creating a false “popular wisdom” about wind energy.
• The public, media and government officials have been misled and repeat false and misleading claims.
• Government officials – particularly legislators and regulators – are providing tax breaks and subsidies for wind energy without understanding or considering the benefits and costs of their actions, and they are helping to hide costs in tax and electric bills.
• Government agencies, including the US Department of Energy (particularly its Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy – DOE-EERE), the DOE National “Laboratories” (particularly NREL and LBNL), other DOE contractors, and state energy agencies and public utility commissions are conducting and supporting activities and issuing information about wind energy that helps mislead the public, media and political leaders.
• Claims that the hundreds of millions of tax dollars being thrown at “wind farm” projects are an efficient and effective way of creating jobs in the US are FALSE. (The fact that a large share of those tax dollars are flowing to foreign countries — turbine manufacturers and “wind farm” owners – should be a clue that would give some pause to Obama Administration officials and members of Congress.)
• Some investors in “wind farms” are highly likely to be making financial commitments without understanding the facts about the high true cost and low value of electricity from wind.
• Land owners are leasing land to “wind farm” developers without understanding the adverse impact that “wind turbines” have on environmental, ecological, scenic and neighbors’ property values.
• Local government officials, misled by “wind farm” developers and lured by potential short-term financial benefits, are fracturing their communities, destroying home owners’ property values, and ignoring long-term costs when they encourage or condone wind energy projects.
• Energy economists and analysts in government and the private sector, as well as reporters and editors, need a far better understanding of the facts about wind energy cost and values than they have displayed thus far.

February 4, 2010

Download original document (with footnotes and references): “True Cost of Electricity from Wind Is Always Underestimated and Its Value is Always Overestimated”

---

Facts about energy

Author:  Kenyon, Paul

We seem to be engaging the issue of energy from within its specifics, lacking a broader view. It might be helpful to look at some “big picture” figures involving energy. Regarding Vermont’s energy future, this is a time for thoughtful and careful consideration. P.T. Barnum said there’s a sucker born every minute. Let’s, instead, be smart and not act in a way that could unnecessarily impact Vermont negatively, leaving permanent scars.

Some energy relationships you should know:

• Our homes generally use far more energy for heat than electricity, 5 to 10 times as much. If insulated to reduce the amount of energy used to heat it by one hardwood cord’s worth, or about 240 gallons of oil, a house would save the equivalent energy it uses in electricity in a year, about 9,000 kWh. That savings will be made each year for the rest of the life of the house. Saving heat energy is the cheapest energy you can “buy”, and it’s something you can take to the bank.

• How much energy do we use . . . really? The USADOE EIA (Energy Information Administration) tells us that in the year 2000, each American was responsible for the generation and consumption of 12 kilowatts continuously or about 105,120 kWh/person/yr. If the average home has 4 people in it, that house houses people responsible for 420,000 kWh/yr, 47 times the household electricity use. Saving energy in the home is essential, but much more must be done.

• Much is made of using renewables to power our future. Modern economies rely on high-quality power, and today, as expensive as they are, renewables provide only low-grade, sporadic, and unevenly delivered energy to the grid, energy that has to be balanced with a source that can be varied rapidly enough to keep pace with the rate of change of the renewable source. Gas turbines are often used to “dance” with renewables. There are two common types. Open-cycle gas turbines (OCGTs) are able to be varied fast enough to compensate somewhat for renewables. Combined-cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) are more efficient but do not vary quickly. Two Australian studies find that the combination of wind and its partner, OCGT, is less efficient (produces more CO2) than CCGT alone. The obvious question should and is being asked. It has not yet been found, anywhere in the world, that wind turbines save CO2 on their grids.

• How much space will renewables take up? Sunlight and its resultants—wind, waves, etc.—are “diffuse” energy sources. Devices to capture useful amounts of that energy will have to cover large areas. The discussion about hundreds of miles of turbines on Vermont ridge lines to capture small amounts of this raw, low-grade energy is an example of this basic nature of solar energy.

• If we decided to power the Earth’s predicted (by 2050) stable population of 9 billion to an American standard of living, as we hear they will demand (Michael Klare, 2009 Middlebury College lecture), with photovoltaics (PVs) that function as mine do here in Vermont — with adjustments for realities of transmission, storage (not invented yet), conversion from DC to AC, performance decline over time, etc. — we would cover an area the size of South America. That would understatedly be charged “an environmental impact”, perhaps of the same kind and degree as that predicted by climate change. Furthermore, PV arrays inhibit evaporation and CO2 sequestration by the shaded plants, and they get hot, radiating that heat into the atmosphere, necessarily warming it.

• A sensible energy choice: For centuries we have been reducing the amount of carbon produced per unit energy we use. Woody stuff has 10 carbon atoms for every hydrogen atom, a ratio of 10:1. Coal’s is 2:1, kerosene’s is 1:2, propane’s is 1:2-2/3, and natural gas’s (methane) is 1:4. Pound for pound, methane produces 4 times the energy of wood and 2 to 4 times that of coal. Fossil fuel plants (coal produces half of our electricity) are 33% efficient. Natural gas plants are 60% efficient, and natural gas–driven combined heat and power plants are close to 90% efficient (Jesse Ausubel, Rockefeller Institute, “Renewable and Nuclear Heresies”). The power provided by methane will be reliable and steady, enabling higher-efficiency appliances.

• It’s worth noting here that the wind and sun are not free, contrary to renewable energy (RE)–industry rhetoric. The sun is being used 100% to run the planet as we know it. How could it be otherwise? Taking it for our use deprives what’s using it now, and RE’s enormous physical footprint competes with food production—PV solar in Germany, corn ethanol in the U.S. and elsewhere. RE has a value where energy (usually electricity) is essential and getting it there is otherwise prohibitively expensive, i.e. when RE is worth all its costs. Otherwise, our electricity generation sources should be of the highest quality, reliable, compact, abundant, and affordable.

Vermont has just been voted one of the top 5 most beautiful places in the world. Let’s think, and protect this rare and precious resource.

[originally published in the Addison County Independent]

---

They’re Not Green Episode 9

Author:  Peña, Nettie

Industrial wind power spread across the U.S. like a virus. The California Energy Commission reports there are barriers to renewable energy. Wind is variable. Wind cannot be relied on to meet rapid changes in load and supply. Wind must be backed up with dispatchable sources.

They’re Not Green web site

Peña Productions You Tube page

---

Paul’s Moor Appeal Decision

Author:  Major, Philip

“I dismiss the appeal and refuse planning permission …”

Inquiry opened on 9 June 2009; Accompanied site visits made on 2 & 3 July 2009; by Philip Major BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI, an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Appeal Ref: APP/X1118/A/08/2083682 Land at Paul’s Moor, Wester Bullaford, West Moor, north of Knowstone, South Molton EX36 4QH.

• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
• against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for planning permission.
• The appeal is made by Airtricity Holdings (UK) Ltd against North Devon District Council.
• The application Ref: 45489, is dated 16 October 2007.
• The development proposed is the erection and operation of nine wind turbines and provision of ancillary wind farm infrastructure.

Decision
1. I dismiss the appeal and refuse planning permission for the erection and operation of nine wind turbines and provision of ancillary wind farm infrastructure at land at Paul’s Moor, Wester Bullaford, West Moor, north of Knowstone, South Molton EX36 4QH.

Main issues
37. There are several main issues. These are:

1. The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the landscape, and on the setting of the Exmoor National Park;
2. The cumulative effect of the proposal when considered with the proposed developments at Cross Moor, Bickham Moor and Batsworthy Cross;
3. The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of local residents, with particular reference to visual impact and noise;
4. The effect of the proposal on ecology;
5. The effect of the proposal on tranquillity, tourism and cultural heritage.

63. The relatively large extent of the setting of Exmoor which would be covered by this wind farm would, in my opinion, result in visual intrusion to that setting which would be likely to detract significantly from the experience enjoyed by visitors to the National Park. The effect of the wind farm would be to create a substantial area of movement quite out of character with the setting of the National Park. In my judgement this would be seriously damaging to the setting and enjoyment of Exmoor. Whilst I accept that the harm would be geographically limited principally to the southern slopes of Exmoor I believe this to be a key location of the National Park, from which its enjoyment is concentrated in views out to the south.

64. So the effect on the character and appearance of the area, and the setting of Exmoor, can be summarised thus. The visual experience will vary from location to location, and will be of a major and substantial intrusion in places. There would be substantial localised harm to landscape character. But from some places there would be levels of visibility and intrusion which would not, in my judgement, be so harmful as to weigh against the proposal. However, the setting of Exmoor would also be harmfully affected by the extensive nature of the proposal and this would impinge upon the appreciation of the special qualities of the National Park. The proposal would therefore be in conflict with relevant landscape protection objectives of RPG10 Policy EN1, Structure Plan Policies ST1, CO1, CO2 and CO6. In that I have found the proposal harmful there is also conflict with Structure Plan Policy CO12 notwithstanding that part of the site is within the area of search. I also find conflict with Local Plan Policies ENV1c), ENV4 and ECN15A). In the draft RSS there is conflict with part of Policy SD3, Polices ENV1, ENV2 and ENV3.

120. Although PPS22 indicates that renewable energy developments should be capable of being accommodated throughout England, that is qualified by the need to address environmental, economic and social impacts satisfactorily. In this case environmental impacts have not been satisfactorily addressed in my judgement. The scheme as proposed would simply be too harmful in this location and would tip the scales too far against the objectives relating to protection of the landscape and National Park. This is a finely balanced decision and does not mean that all proposals in this locality would be unacceptable, but I find that this one would be. I have considered whether it would be possible to impose conditions to enable the development to proceed, but find that it would not.

Download original document: “Paul’s Moor Appeal Decision”

---

Bickham Moor Appeal Decision

Author:  Major, Philip

“I dismiss the appeal and refuse planning permission …”

Inquiry opened on 9 June 2009; Accompanied site visits made on 2 & 3 July 2009; by Philip Major BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI, an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Appeal Ref: APP/Y1138/A/08/2084526
Bickham Moor, Kirkton Lane, Oakford, Devon EX16 9HB.

• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for planning permission.
• The appeal is made by Coronation Power Ltd against Mid-Devon District Council.
• The application Ref: 07/02262/MFUL, is dated 20 November 2007.
• The development proposed is the construction and operation of a four turbine wind farm for electricity generation, including ancillary buildings and activities, with a maximum rated output of 12mw.

Decision
1. I dismiss the appeal and refuse planning permission for the construction and operation of a four turbine wind farm for electricity generation, including ancillary buildings and activities, with a maximum rated output of 12mw at Bickham Moor, Kirkton Lane, Oakford, Devon EX16 9HB.

Main issues
36. The main issues in the appeal are:

1. The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the landscape, and on the setting of the Exmoor National Park;
2. The cumulative effect of the proposal when considered with the proposed developments at Three Moors, Cross Moor and Batsworthy Cross;
3. The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of local residents, with particular reference to visual intrusion and noise;
4. The effect of the proposal on ecology;
5. The effect of the proposal on tranquillity, tourism and cultural heritage

50. The height of the site in relation to surrounding land also means that within about 3km, where visible, the turbines would tend to be stark skyline features. There would be nothing to relieve the skyline impact unless vegetation close to the viewer was able to mitigate public views. Taken in the round, though, and whatever opinion is formed on the attractiveness or otherwise of the turbines as structures in themselves, the wind farm would appear as being drastically at odds with the character and appearance of the local landscape.

57. So the effect on the character and appearance of the area, and the setting of Exmoor, can be summarised thus. The visual experience will vary from location to location, and will be of a major and substantial intrusion in places. There would be serious harm to landscape character. But from some places there would be levels of visibility and intrusion which would not, in my judgement, be so harmful as to weigh against the proposal. I consider that the skyline views and movement of blades would, notwithstanding the separation from Exmoor, impinge upon the appreciation of the special qualities of Exmoor to a material degree. The proposal would therefore be in conflict with relevant landscape protection objectives of RPG10 Policy EN1, Structure Plan Policies ST1, CO1, CO2, CO6 and CO12. There is also conflict with Local Plan Policies S5v) and S6i) & xvi), and Core Strategy Policies COR2c) and COR5a). Given that I find the proposal harmful there is also conflict with Core Strategy Policy COR18. In the draft RSS there is conflict with part of Policy SD3, Polices ENV1, ENV2 and ENV3.

113. The factors which compete here are the clear: serious harm to landscape and to the special qualities of the National Park, with resultant conflict with the development plan policies and national advice; this is set against the undoubted support offered by other development plan, national and unmerging policy for developments such as this which are required to combat climate change.

114. In this instance, whilst recognising that the need to increase renewable energy capacity and to reduce CO2 emissions is of crucial importance, I cannot agree that the balance lies in favour of development. PPS22 indicates that renewable energy developments should be capable of being accommodated throughout England, but that is qualified by the need to address environmental, economic and social impacts satisfactorily. In this case environmental impacts have not been satisfactorily addressed in my judgement. The harm I have identified, to the local landscape, to the setting of Exmoor, and cumulatively with other proposals, in addition to the uncertainty surrounding the protection of living conditions, would simply be too great. Apart from the conflict with policy noted above, this also leads to conflict with Local Plan Policy ENV2iv). The production of renewable energy, important as it is, does not justify the development, even for a time limited period of 25 years. The balance is too heavily weighted against the proposal in this case. I have considered whether the imposition of the suggested conditions would mitigate the harm identified but conclude that they would not.

Download original document: “Bickham Moor Appeal Decision”

---

Sillfield Appeal Decision

Author:  Brooks, Robin

“I dismiss the appeal and refuse planning permission.”

Inquiry held on 16-23 October 2009; Site visits made on 23, 27, 28 October 2009 and 13 January 2010; by Robin Brooks BA (Hons) MRTPI, an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Appeal Ref: APP/M0933/A/09/2099304
Sillfield, Gatebeck, Kendal, Cumbria LA8 0HS

• The appeal is made under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for planning permission.
• The appeal is made by Sillfield Wind Cluster Ltd against the decision of South Lakeland District Council.
• The application Ref SL/2008/0900, is dated 8 September 2008.
• The development proposed is erection of three wind turbine generators and associated infrastructure.

DECISION
1. I dismiss the appeal and refuse planning permission. …

10. Bearing in mind the aims of the above policies, and as set out at the Inquiry, I consider that there are five main issues in the appeal, namely:

1. the effects of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape;
2. the cumulative impact of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape, taken together with other similar developments, both existing and proposed and, in particular, that at Old Hutton1;
3. the effects of the proposal upon the living conditions of local residents, particularly in terms of visual impact, noise and shadow flicker;
4. the effects of the proposal upon enjoyment of the countryside by members of the public, including those using local rights of way; and whether approval would have any significant adverse effects on the contribution made by tourism and recreation to the local economy; and
5. the contribution that the proposal would make to achieving regional and national targets for renewable energy generation, bearing in mind extant and emerging national planning policy; and the extent to which any such contribution should be weighed against any adverse impacts in terms of the other issues.

83. Nor do I accept the Appellants various arguments that the imperative to increase renewable energy generation capacity is such that only the most severe or widespread environmental impacts are capable of outweighing it; or that proposals such as that at Sillfield, affecting land with no designations of national or regional value, should not be refused because of local landscape impacts; or for reasons other than the most compelling purpose, pitched at the level of a national rather than local interest. PPS22 does not depart from the principle that planning proposals should be assessed on their individual merits and there is no indication in statements of policy since that visual and landscape effects are to carry less weight than hitherto. Thus whilst one of the most recent such statements, the UK Renewable Energy Strategy published in July 2009, states that the planning system must be speeded up and made more predictable in the way that it deals with proposals for renewables, it includes the caveats that we must also continue to protect our environment and natural heritage and respond to the legitimate concerns of local communities.

84. In my analysis of landscape impacts I have noted the quiet charm of the local countryside and, whilst it carries no formal designations, this does not mean that it should be implicitly downgraded. …

89. The harm to the living conditions of local residents through the turbines dominating the outlook from nearby properties is also a compelling objection to the appeal proposal, whether it is assessed on its own or in combination with Armistead (issue (iii)). Given the severity of the harm to individual properties, the fact that relatively few dwellings are affected is not in itself significant. …

90. … I have also borne in mind the fact that planning permission is sought for a period of 25 years. However, as such a time period is roughly a third of an average lifetime I have some difficulty in regarding it as “temporary” in any real sense. If the turbines would cause significant harm to landscape character, as I believe is the case here, that harm would not be made more acceptable by the prospect of their ultimate removal.

Download original document: “Sillfield Appeal Decision”

---

Big Wind: How Many Households Served, What Emissions Reduction? (A Case Study)

Author:  Hawkins, Kent; and Hertzmark, Donald

In the midst of a bitter winter in North America and Europe, General Electric has announced a large wind project to be built in Oregon. Press reports in the Financial Times and USA Today describe a project of 338 machines of 2.5 MW each, giving a total capacity of 845 MW.

With power grids strained due to heating demand, increments to generating capacity are to be welcomed. But along with the usual hoopla about homes served and CO2 emissions savings, it is time for some “devil’s advocacy” by asking: – how much energy and capacity will this project really create? How much CO2 will be saved? And when the chips are down will consumers and grid operators be pleased that their funds have gone into wind rather than into some other generating source?

We strongly suspect that neither consumers nor grid operators will benefit greatly from this plant. Our brief analysis of this announcement shows that the claims for houses served and carbon saved are not supported, though some incremental, useful energy supply may be possible under some circumstances. All such claims depend on the system operator’s ability to use the wind farms’ output to offset hydro generation, the key generation resource in the Northwest United States (NW).

Contributing to Capacity: The Sine Qua Non of Power Generation Investments

In the service area where the new wind project will be located, total generating capability is 84 GW. Hydro accounts for 60% of this total (nominally). Current peak demand in the NW power pool, into which the wind project will inject energy, stands currently at just over 60 GW, about the same size as the UK grid. In the winter season provisions for other claims on the water (irrigation, flood control, endangered species protection, etc.) reduce the available capacity of hydro by some 7 GW. The pool’s own capacity assessment notes that “A severe weather event for the entire Power Pool area will add approximately 6,000 MW of load while at the same time reduce [sic] the capability by 7,000 MW.”

In other words, when the chips are down, hydro’s contribution to meeting a larger peak demand may fall by as much as 7 GW, with another 6 GW less capacity from other generation sources. Let’s do the arithmetic: the “normal” winter peak (50% probability) is 61 GW, generating capability (not the same thing as firm capacity) is 84 GW. Comes the storm and the peak rises to 67 GW, while the “capability” falls to 71 GW, providing just a bit more than the minimum reserve requirement of 5 GW.

How likely is it that wind can add to capacity in the midst of a winter demand surge and capacity restriction? From recent UK experience, not bloody likely. The following table was taken from the UK system operator website for the first week of January 2010; most days since the middle of December 2009, when winter weather gripped the nation, have looked similar.

The outstanding performer is gas-fired CCGT technology, ~34% of capacity and 38-40% of output. Coal and nuclear supply almost all the rest of the capacity and energy. So where is the wind? The UK, with more than 4 GW of wind generation capacity (~6% of total), saw essentially no help from wind in meeting demand during this entire period. With wind’s contribution to capacity ranging from just over 100 MW to about 500 MW for much of the crisis period, about a 2.5 – 9% capacity factor, and with wind’s contribution to energy at less than 1% for days on end, one would be hard-pressed to attribute much of a peak contribution to a large wind project in Oregon.

235,000 Homes Served? Is This Claim Likely or Even Possible?

The claim is that the project will provide enough energy to power 235,000 households. Assuming a generous capacity factor of 30 per cent this yields a reasonable average annual household use of:

845 MW × 1,000 (convert to KWh) × 0.30 × 24 (hours per day) × 365 (days per year) / 235,000 = 9,450 KWh per household

A reduction in capacity factor to 25 per cent reduces the households served to about 176,000. Is this a reasonable consideration? Recent experience world-wide shows that capacity factors are often less than that.

But these calculations rely on a measure that reflects the aggregate annual consumption. A more realistic representation would be based on meeting the peak demand per home, which is estimated to be approximately 1.5 kW. How do wind plants perform on this basis? Using the more applicable measure of capacity value (sometimes called capacity credit and explained further below), the proposed project will theoretically generate enough energy to meet the needs of about 49,000 households, at a cost of more than $2 billion for initial investment. Over a 20-year lifetime that electricity will cost the NW Power Pool about 17 cents/kWh for “average” power, and some of the costs can be made to “disappear” through the use of state and federal tax credits and other subventions. It is not easy to calculate a “firm” supply cost for wind, given the absolute reliance on backup, but this is in addition to the above 17 cents/kWh. For the kind of money that wind costs the pool could supply diesel generators to neighborhoods for an investment of less than $600 million and contribute a firm 845 MW at about 20 cents per kWh (including fuel). Those diesel units could reliably meet the peak demand needs of more than 563,000 households as follows:

Given an average peak requirement of a household, equal to about 1.5 kW, and assuming a coincident peak, then a firm 845 MW of generation, as supplied by the diesel units, can meet the needs of about 563,000 households.

i.e., 845 MW × 1,000 / 1.5 = 563,333 households

Even using the possibility that some of the diesel units would be unavailable, probably 2-3%, the number of households that could be served at peak reliably would still be more than 546,000 (97% plant availability at peak).

Wind cannot be relied upon to provide firm generation at full capacity coincident with peak demand. Wind might be capable of contributing to the peak demand requirements of the system at some times. However, this will rarely happen, and when it does it will be for brief periods. In these circumstances, the expectation of the number of households served will be just over 49,000. To calculate this it is necessary to introduce the factor representing the statistical expectation of wind production at peak demand times. This is capacity credit, or capacity value, which brings a number of considerations into play, but typical experience, and the figure used by the Texas system operator, is 8.7 per cent.

i.e., 845 MW × 1,000 × 0.087 / 1.2 = 49,010 households

In spite of all statistical expectations of output from wind generators, these households will not be served reliably in any manner that meets their needs. Taking this out of the comparatively benign case of households, can you imagine a hospital, a school or a business relying on an electricity supply dominated by wind? Calculations that are based on aggregations summed over a year and averages do not reflect the real world, which operates in real time.

For significant periods of time, no households will be served, as was demonstrated by the UK data. For almost all of the time, the electricity supply will be so unreliable as to be useless. If there were some way to store the wind-plant electricity produced, then some of this would make sense. Even granting such a widely available storage capability, there would be considerations of the relationship between the storage being filled compared to the draw on it, again in real time. Annual aggregations and averages are not a reasonable way to look at the fluctuating performance of industrial-scale wind power.

The message that emerges from both the calculations and experience is that claims regarding homes served by industrial wind power are not valid measures of wind’s value. The true measure of value is the displacement of hydrocarbon fuel and reduction in CO2 output by the power generation system. As shown in previous articles, the need for shadowing and backup generation to ensure that load can be met despite fluctuations in wind output may result in little or no net decrement to fuel use or emissions.

However, our analysis shows that under some circumstances integration of industrial scale wind may permit small reductions in shadowing and backup fuel use, provided there is sufficient excess hydro capacity. For the Oregon wind farm case, wind would seem to be specifically excluded from meeting winter peak demand. However, wind may be able to contribute somewhat to meeting energy demand in the off-peak seasons.

In Part 2 we consider under what conditions and to what extent an industrial wind facility may save fuel or reduce CO2 emissions.

Part 2

Press reports in the Financial Times and other news outlets describe a project with 338 wind machines of 2.5 MW each, giving a total capacity of 845 MW. The project sponsors claim that they will provide enough energy to serve 235,000 households and reduce CO2 output by 1.5 million tonnes annually. In Part 1 of this article we showed that the claims for households served are fanciful. In reality, no more than 49,000 households could be “supplied”, and these with only a minimal degree of assurance. Indeed, the wind project is more costly than a diesel backup scheme that would actually be capable of supplying reliable power to several hundred thousand households. The wind project is also three times more costly than a replacement of just 211 MW of older coal capacity with new technology that would provide a similar reduction in emissions while supplying firm power to the NW Power Pool’s customers.

The key to wind providing some degree of fuel and emissions savings is its ability to deliver reliable electricity without shadowing or backup by hydrocarbon-using plants. These shadowing/backup requirements in the NW Power Pool may be able to take advantage of existing surplus hydro capacity in that region during off-peak periods (spring and fall), thereby permitting the proposed plant to reduce hydrocarbon consumption and emissions somewhat during those periods. It is not reasonable to expect to achieve the claimed emissions savings, but lower figures, less than half the publicized savings, may be possible.

In particular, the addition of wind generation, with shadowing/backup provided by reservoir hydro, may be able to reduce overall CO2 emissions in California, the ultimate customer for the electricity produced by the GE project during Oregon’s 2 surplus seasons. During the winter and summer peak demand periods less hydro output is available, peak demand is greater and the shadowing backup will be provided by some combination of gas-fired and coal plants. What is critical to keep in mind is that maintaining stability in the NW Power Pool requires the pool to shadow/backup not only the proposed new project, but the other 6.4 GW of existing wind as well.

This analysis shows there are less costly and more effective alternatives readily available that rival or exceed the claimed benefits of this wind project.

Wind Shadowing/Backup Requirements

So what is needed to ensure wind plants deliver reliable electricity? They have to be paired with conventional, reliable generators capable of mirroring wind’s volatile and unreliable output. This can be called wind shadowing/backup capacity. It is shadowing wind when wind is producing, albeit it in a volatile manner. It is backup to wind, in the more usual use of the word, when wind is producing nothing, which can be for extended periods.

When claims are made about wind displacing fossil fuel plant production, the question that should be asked first is: what is providing wind shadowing/backup? With system reliability and power quality considerations coming to the fore, it becomes evident that the shadowing/backup is what is displacing the fossil fuel production, and wind is displacing some small measure of the shadowing/backup. An earlier article explored the realities of this and showed that a wind project that relies on fossil generators to shadow the wind machines may provide little net fuel or CO2 displacement and in some cases may actually increase fuel use and emissions. The latter result may obtain as a result of: (1) the imposed inefficient operation of the wind shadowing/backup, as well as (2) use of shadowing/backup technologies that are less efficient than the pool’s major generation resources – coal, nuclear, gas-fired combined cycle. The three generation sources listed above are in varying ways not generally suitable for providing shadowing for wind. In each case the ramp rate of the generator is too slow in reacting to many of the transients of wind production. Consequently, shadowing and backup must be provided by smaller, faster acting, but less efficient engines. If the shadowing/backup requirements are significant – that is, if wind output is large relative to overall system capacity, even approaching 5% – then the reliance on small, inefficient engines or combustion turbines (GTs) will arguably lead to a net increase in fuel use and therefore emissions.

The general considerations are:

• Wind shadowing/backup must be able to respond to wind’s volatile nature, and candidates, with varying degrees of ability to do this, include gas turbine, coal, hydro and small diesels.
• What generation capacity mix will be displaced by the combination of wind and shadowing/backup.
• As the junior member in the mix, wind replaces the shadowing/backup for purposes of CO₂ emissions calculations.

Normally, the full and accurate computation of the technologies involved in shadowing/backup of wind will require a system dispatch model so that minute-by-minute variations in wind output can be shadowed by fast ramping engines or valves (hydro). Table 1 summarizes some of the possible scenarios.

Table 1 – Some Wind Shadowing/Backup Scenarios In the NW Power Pool

Scenario	Wind Shadowing/Backup	Generation Displaced	Wind Displaces	Emissions
A	Gas turbine (CCGT, OCGT)	Coal	Gas turbine	Fall (relative to coal) Rise (relative to CCGT alone)
B	Gas turbine (CCGT, OCGT)	Gas turbine (CCGT)	Gas turbine	Rise
C	Coal	Coal	Coal	Rise
D	Hydro (impounded)	Fossil fuel	Hydro/Other	Fall
E	Hydro (run of river)	Hydro (run of river)	Hydro (run of river)	No change

In scenarios A, B and C, the inefficiencies imposed by wind volatility on the shadowing/backup plants can more than offset the CO2 emissions “saved” at the point of wind generation. In any event, Scenario C is relevant in the NW Power Pool only insofar as coal is used as a resource in the pool, and coal-fired electricity enters this pool largely through imports. In case D, assuming no curtailment of wind during high wind production periods and no spillage of hydro is required because of the timing of wind production relative to reservoir levels, the wind production could be replacing that of fossil fuel, as indicated by “Other”. In case E, wind is replacing hydro and no CO2 emissions are saved (generally wind acts similarly to run of river hydro, in terms of system stability, with the exception of such cases as hydro plants at Niagara). Note that the conditions for case D are seldom met during annual peak demand periods in the NW Power Pool, as noted in Part 1.

The Oregon wind plant production is slated to go to Southern California Edison, which obtains over 50 per cent of its electricity from imports (out of state) and almost 40 per cent from thermal generation within its jurisdiction. As California as a whole gets 50 per cent of its in-state generation from natural gas and about 2 per cent from coal/oil, it is reasonably assumed that the wind/shadowing-backup combination is displacing gas, mostly in combined cycle plants. It is possible that some imported electricity is being displaced, which likely contains a higher proportion of coal.

The question remains: what is being used as wind shadowing/backup? Oregon has the following electricity production profile – hydro 61 per cent, gas 27 per cent, coal/oil 8%, and other renewables 4%. A reasonable assumption is that impounded hydro is being used within Oregon for this purpose during shoulder seasons (spring and fall), while gas and possibly coal are used during peak seasons (Summer and Winter). In off-peak seasons in Oregon and the NW Power Pool, case D generally applies and Oregon is basically exporting hydro and some wind. Case A or B applies during peak seasons, and gas or coal is likely exported.

CO2 Emissions Saved From Wind Generation

The foregoing illustrates the complexity of determining the impact of wind plants on fossil fuel and CO2 emissions reductions in electricity systems. The following completes the application of this to the new Oregon wind plant.

The wind project sponsors claim that 1.5 million tons of CO2 emissions per year will be saved as a result of this investment. Accepting the premise that no shadowing/backup will be needed the most likely result is for the wind to displace gas-fired CCGTs, at 0.4 tons CO2 emissions per MWh:

845 × 0.30 × 24 × 365 × 0.40 = 890,000 tonnes or about 0.9 million tonnes per year

For a 25 per cent capacity factor, more reasonable for onshore facilities, the CO2 emissions saved become about 0.7 million tonnes per year. The actual savings are likely to be far less than this calculated figure, since hydro capability is reduced during the winter peak demand period, one that coincides with troughs in wind availability as well. As a result, and as indicated above, the NW Power Pool is likely to be exporting gas/coal generated electricity to Southern California during the winter demand peak as well as during the summer peak. In fact, any coal-generated electricity exported to cover the supply obligation of the wind farm is likely to come from the same plants in Utah, Montana, Arizona and Nevada that currently provide the overall grid stability for Southern California Edison and California in general – a contractual round trip that contributes little or nothing to net energy supplies and saves little or no fuel/emissions.

It should be noted that potential savings of fuel/emissions during shoulder periods (fall and spring) comprise a special case because of the large hydro capability in Oregon during such periods. In the more general case and during the summer and winter peak demand periods, with gas or coal used for wind shadowing/backup, the CO2 emissions savings would reverse and net fuel use/emissions would rise due to the inefficiencies imposed on these plants. In fact with wind, currently at 6.4 GW, expected to approach 10% of pool generation capability in the NW Power Pool with the new project, the ability of the smaller, faster responding and more efficient shadowing engines described in Power Magazine are likely to be impracticable, since more than 800 of such engines would be required, meaning that shadowing/backup will be supplied by gas turbines, with the attendant inefficiencies and high fuel consumption, especially during startup. During lulls in wind a system of this size will require significant conventional generation resources for shadowing/backup.

At this point, a reasonable expectation is that half of the reduced CO2 emissions shown above would be achieved, given that the generation savings are valid for roughly half the year, spring and fall seasons; that is:

50% of 0.7 = 0.35 million tonnes per year

Since providing shadowing/backup for the NW Power Pool’s overall wind generation capacity of 7.3 GW, including the proposed GE project, involves large combustion turbines, then the fuel used just for startup, about 8-10 tonnes for each turbine each time, needs to be debited from the emissions reductions account to the wind plant. Each startup cycle, using liquid fuel or pressurized gas, produces about 100 tonnes of CO2 . To back up the NW Power Pool’s wind capacity would put roughly an additional 90 million tonnes of CO2 into the air, that is:

75 units × 12 start ups for each x 100 tonnes CO2/startup = 0.090 million tonnes per year

The GE project’s share of the shadowing/backup startup CO2 emissions (~11%) would be roughly 9,900 tonnes, offsetting about 3% of entire calculated CO2 savings for the 845 MW project.

Emissions savings identical to those claimed for the new wind project can be accomplished at significantly lower cost simply by replacing older coal-fired power plants (<35% conversion efficiency and relatively dirty) with current “ordinary” coal fired plants (~41% efficient and much cleaner). “Ordinary” current technology would reduce emissions in the pool by 0.22 million tonnes/year for 211 MW of firm capacity, roughly the amount of energy that the proposed wind project generates. Higher technology coal plants (~45% efficient and very clean), more efficient still, will reduce emissions by more than 0.35 million tonnes/year for the same amount of electricity generated by 845 MW of wind. As noted previously on this blog, many willing investors are anxious to make such investments. Only a perverse system of government permits and approvals and uninformed environmental groups stands between newer combustion technology and improved power supply. These are truly the “shovel-ready” projects.

The costs to the electricity consuming public for emissions reductions on the order of what is produced by the proposed Oregon wind plant are less than one half what will be required to keep the new wind project in operation and shadowed/backed up properly. An investment of a similar magnitude to the wind plant in high technology coal combustion, by replacing roughly 1,000 MW of older, less efficient, dirty coal generation capacity, would reduce emissions of CO2 (and a lot of other things like SOx and NOx and mercury) by more than 1.65 million tonnes annually, more than five times the emissions reductions that can be credited to the wind plants with the plus of a substantial improvement in grid reliability. Investing $1.9 billion in new high efficiency coal plant of 845 MW could replace older ones and reduce emissions considerably. Alternatively, such a plant would serve 600,000 additional household customers in the NW Power Pool or Southern California for about 6.5 cents/kWh, roughly one third the cost of wind, including its shadowing/backup requirements without the need to resort to arithmetic sleights-of-hand about reliability.

Conclusions

The considerations of wind availability, system operations and hydro availability are likely to be more complex than the treatment given here. However, a more complete system simulation is unlikely to be more favorable to wind than is the present treatment, especially if increased reliability standards are implemented for power pools. The proposed CO2 savings from the Oregon wind project are overstated to a significant degree and it is likely that net fuel/emissions savings will only be possible during periods of surplus hydro availability – the off-peak spring and fall seasons.

The lesson from this case is that reported claims of benefits from the introduction of industrial wind plants, such as, households served and CO2 emissions saved should be carefully reviewed – they are generally difficult to support.

And since wind competes with other projects for investment capital the funds that are devoted to wind may actually reduce potential emissions savings from efficiency and technology improvements in coal, improvements that can be supplied without tax credits or other fiscal chicanery.

[from masterresource.org (part 1 and part 2)]

---

How much efficiency is lost by putting HAWTs near one another in a wind farm?

Author:  Avian Energy

The “wake effect” is the reduction of wind speed and increase of turbulence down wind of a turbine.

[source:  3D-Simulation of the turbulent wake behind a wind turbine, Weßow, Sitzki, & Hahm, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 75 (2007) 012033 [The Science of Making Torque from Wind], doi:10.1088/1742-6596/75/1/012033]

If you have a wind farm of two or more HAWTs then, inevitably in some wind directions, the disturbance from one turbine will affect another.

The combined effect of a two-dimensional matrix of turbines has been measured at Horns Rev. This is currently the largest farm, with a 10 by 8 matrix spaced by 560m (7 rotor diameters).

On average, the Park Efficiency of Horns Rev is about 87%. This means that the farm is generating 13% less energy than if there was no interaction between individual turbines.

The figure below shows that the park efficiency is affected by wind speed.

[source:  Recalibrating wind turbine wake model parameters – validating the wake model performance for large offshore wind farms, Sørensen, Nielsen, & Thøgersen, presented at European Wind Energy Conference, 2006, Athens]

The figure below shows there are some very nasty wind directions.
This should be expected with a regular grid when the wind lines up with the grid.

[source:  RANS-modelling of wind flow through large offshore wind farms, Riedel ∧ Neumann, presented at European Wind Energy Conference, 2007, Athens]

There has been some work on the best way to enlarge a farm or creating a “farm of farms”. The figure below shows the wind profile before and after Horns Rev. The farm is placed at around 15 to 20 km. It can be seen that it takes about 15 km downwind of the farm before the wind speed returns to near the upstream speed.

The figure below shows some possible arrangements of “farm of farms”.

[source:  Summary report: The shadow effect of large wind farms: measurements, data analysis and modelling, Frandsen, Barthelmi, Rathmann, Jøgensen, Badger, Hansen, Ott, Rethore, Larsen & Jensen, Risø National Laboratory, Technical University of Denmark, Roskilde, Denmark, October 2007]

---

Earlier Documents »