During the Forum, Mr. Kennedy made many statements about wind energy that are false or misleading and should not be allowed to stand without challenge.

It’s unclear from the transcript whether Mr. Kennedy has been misled by the wind industry, whether he really believes all that he said about wind energy, or whether he was merely hoping that no one listening to the forum or reading the transcript would challenge his false and misleading claims. …

1. Employment in the wind industry compared to employment in coal mining.

2. Mr. Kennedy’s false comparison of wind turbines with reliable electric generating units.

3. Mr. Kennedy’s false claims about china’s plans for building “wind farms.”

4. Mr. Kennedy’s misleading claims about the cost of building “wind farms” vs. cost of building coal-fired plants.

5. Mr. Kennedy’s false depiction of the us as “the Saudi Arabia of wind.”

6. Mr. Kennedy’s false claims about the cost of eliminating and replacing us electric generating units using carbon-based fuels.

7. Wind turbines and “wind farms” are not as popular as Mr. Kennedy implies.

8. The highly misleading “study” cited by Mr. Kennedy to back up his claim of job benefits from either a proposed “wind farm” on coal river mountain or a wind turbine, tower, and blade manufacturing industry in Raleigh County, West Virginia.

9. False and misleading claims about renewable energy installations in other states.

10. Mr. Kennedy’s false claims about the “efficiency” and competitiveness of electricity from wind.

Download original document: “Evaluation of Robert Kennedy Jr’s Statements in West Virginia about Wind Energy”

Wind and solar power[ii] have been added into the generation mix by a combination of special government subsidies and mandates. The main rationale has been that these technologies are emission-free and thus address the issue of climate change. Wind plants receive the greatest emphasis, because they can be implemented less expensively and in larger quantities and capacities. This article questions the industrial-scale commercialization of these energy sources, especially wind power, as an appropriate public policy and provides a more realistic and effective alternative.

The current push for government intervention in electricity generation rests on one or more of these policy objectives:

• Reduced reliance on fossil fuels
• Substantially reduced CO2 emissions
• Energy independence within a political jurisdiction
• Right policy mix for the short and long term
• Sustainable economic growth with 21st century industries
• Reliable and economic electricity supply

Can renewables help achieve these goals, especially in regard to environmental improvement? A close look at the realities suggest that they cannot, and that as a consequence, public policy support for these energy sources may be fleeting, because they:

• Stress the other electricity system elements, which results in increased fossil fuel consumption and CO2 emissions
• Have no capacity value, the most important measure of performance
• Force inappropriate grid upgrades
• Do not provide the needed 21st century economic development
• Reduce electricity system reliability
• Increase costs

Prudence, therefore, dictates a fundamental rethinking of current policy before new rounds of government subsidy are implemented to avoid financial and environmental risk, as well as to safeguard electricity capacity and reliability. Also, losses in the diversion of wealth, time, and misdirection of government attention will be avoided.

The financial “bubble” that this detour may create has been projected to be larger than the sub-prime mortgage debacle.[iii] Considering how close we may have come to financial system collapse last time, it is hard to foresee how we will withstand it should this happen.

Major Factors

Chronic Undependability

Electricity systems require steady, reliable supply, with the ability to respond to fairly predictable changes in demand over the period of a day including, to a much lesser degree, random fluctuations minute-by-minute. Renewables are a disruptive factor in this and stress the balance of the electricity system, including both generation and distribution elements. Wind plants have been described as follows, ‘So far, we have seen how large wind carpets, composed of many small units, can act like a single, “out of control” power station.’[iv] Their effect on the grid is like negative demand providing a net load that is more random and has greater volatility than normal demand.[v,vi,vii]

As a result, renewables have to be firmed by other types of generation that have the ability to respond to the imposed frequent and random volatility. The best choices for this are fast-reacting, but less efficient open-cycle gas turbine generators (OCGT), and when available in sufficient quantity, hydro. Other generation means have less ability to do this and include more efficient combined cycle gas turbines (CCGT), coal, and possibly some Generation III nuclear plants.

Geographic dispersion and increased numbers of wind plant installations are claimed to reduce this volatility but this is not borne out in practice.[viii,ix]

Fossil Fuel and CO2 Emissions Savings

When acting in the wind firming role, fossil fuel plants consume more fuel and produce more CO2 emissions than in “normal” operations, which offset any gains at the point of renewable generation, and can easily increase the total amounts over having no wind plants at all.[x]

In the rare cases where sufficient hydro is available as firming capacity, there might be some circumstances that provide some small measure of fossil fuel and CO2 emissions saving.[xi]

Reports of savings based on macro analyses, for example, using aggregate production of renewable sources over a year or statistical averaging leads to erroneous conclusions with respect to displacing fossil-fuel production.[xii]

Performance

When assessing the performance of renewables, capacity factor is most often used, but is the least meaningful. This is the amount of production drawn from a power source over time, typically a year. Different sources are chosen to meet demand depending on their levelized costs and dispatchability, and this is what normally sets capacity factor. Uniquely for renewables, the main determinant of capacity factor is the random availability of fuel, wind and sun.

A second measure, capacity credit is sometimes used. This is the statistical expectation of availability over time, which is useful for capacity planning. Most types of generation have capacity credits approaching 100%, offset only by scheduled and unscheduled maintenance. For wind in excess of about 1-2 percent penetration into the generation of an electricity system, it is less than 10%,[xiii,xiv] and approaches zero as wind approaches 100 percent of total system capacity. This is the result of its stochastic production, and explains why conventional generating capacities approaching that of the undependable capacity have to be in place to ensure electricity system reliability.

In electricity generation and use, which is a real-time matter, one of the most important, yet most overlooked, factors is capacity value. This represents the ability of electricity generation means to be dispatchable, that is capacity available on a real time basis, as opposed to a statistical expectation over time. For most plant types this approaches 100 percent and must be so. Values for hydro and solar, especially thermal solar, are complicated and not assessed here. Wind power has zero capacity value because of the extensive, uncontrollable, stochastic nature of the fuel supply.

The key measure of performance of all types of generation is the capacity value. However, capacity factor is almost exclusively used in evaluations of renewables, and this leads to error in assessing their contribution to electricity costs, reliability, impact on fossil fuel consumption and CO2 emissions, transmission needs and the operation of an electricity system.

This statistical expectation over time approach is also used to represent claims, for example, in wind forecasting accuracy and impact on electricity system reserves. Again this fails to properly reflect the real world and is not a useful measure.

Costs

Table 1 contains DOE levelized costs for selected plants entering service in 2016. As indicated by the added capacity value information, this does not represent a necessarily useful overall comparison of renewables with conventional sources. The costs are a reflection of the underlying capacity factor and make no value statement about the important capacity component. Except as noted, no attempt has been made to evaluate these further, especially the transmission investment component, which is questionable. However, the costs as shown do indicate the uneconomic nature of renewables.

Source: U. S. Energy Information Administration (capacity values added and emphasized items are author’s revised values based on the capacity factor shown)[xv] (click to enlarge)

The capacity factors for wind, 34 per cent and 39 per cent for onshore and offshore respectively, are very questionable and actual experience is much lower.[xvi,xvii] For wind and solar, this view ignores the total costs including the necessary backup capacity and other considerations.[xviii] Any introduction of carbon tax, or cap-and-trade schemes should attribute the backup portion to wind and solar.

The higher costs of renewables will inevitably lead to unnecessarily higher electricity costs for consumers, especially residential. In Denmark residential rates are among the highest in Europe at about three times that in North America. In Germany they are about twice.[xix] The question is: are the costs worth it in terms of delivering savings in fossil fuel consumption and CO2 emissions?

Grid Issues

A frequent claim by proponents of renewables is that increases in grid capacity to deliver their production, typically from areas remote from demand centers, contributes to needed grid development. This coupled with smart meters and other demand management practices will be required to allow the integration of renewables. However, demand management may become a very problematic and unnecessary policy.[xx]

Given the questionable value of renewables, such grid capacity upgrades are unnecessary. Further, they have to provide for instances of full capacity production from these sources, which are relatively infrequent, and this represents a significant overbuild of more than 200%. An alternative is curtailment of production.

Grid improvements are needed (1) to support appropriate distributed generation, (2) provide reliability and technology improvements, and (3) for “normal” capacity upgrades. Such developments will likely be based on a grid topology involving micro-grids at the base level, within increasingly larger networks until major backbones are reached. The deployment will be an evolutionary process that will take decades to realize.

There should be no emphasis, especially in the short term, to upgrade grid capacities or to rely on smart grid related demand management policies to support implementation of industrial-scale renewables. Short of widely available and sufficiently large storage capabilities, which are not available for the foreseeable future, there is no role for them in determining grid development strategies.

As a further undesirable consideration, if sufficient, reliable generation capacity is not provided, the smart grid could become a means to “ration” electricity.

Conservation

Is conservation another alternative? It can be, but culture and ingrained practices limit the practicality of conservation and demand management programs. The danger is that necessarily high conservation targets may not be met, and there must be a contingency plan to meet the resulting higher demand. There are some claimed conservation successes and potential, for example California[xxi] and Vermont.[xxii] At the same time there are other observations suggesting that the successes with conservation are perhaps less than advertised and the consequences not understood.[xxiii,xxiv,xxv]

A major break-through is possible, but conservation remains a long odds approach, albeit with a large pay-off, if successful.

Nuclear

While there are public concerns with respect to nuclear safety and the unresolved waste disposal issue, nuclear plants remain the only technological choice for large-scale, inexpensive, low greenhouse gas emissions electricity supply. The results can be dramatic, as reported for Australia, which relies extensively on coal, projecting 80% reductions in CO2 emissions with the implementation of nuclear plants to replace coal.[xxvi] At the same time, there are cautionary considerations with respect to the reasonable expectations.[xxvii]

All considered nuclear has a major role to play for the foreseeable future.

Fossil Fuel Supply and Use

It is hard to see how we can easily and quickly realistically get away from these. The DOE projects substantial use of coal for electricity generation in the U.S. through to 2030.[xxviii] Many countries notably China, India, and Germany find themselves in similar circumstances. There is simply too much coal dependency and availability[xxix] and opportunity for improved efficiencies.[xxx] Recent increases in shale gas reserves appear to establish this fuel as having an extensive role as a fuel for electricity generation, but not to the extent of displacing coal.

Coal and gas are the least cost fuel options and this further ensures their place.

Create 21st Century Industrial Development/Jobs

Germany and Denmark have saturated their domestic markets for wind turbines, and are dependent upon international markets to sustain their manufacturing industries. Emerging giants with large domestic markets, such as the U.S., China and India may have an opportunity for some period of growth assuming the continued public policy direction that supports these industries. It is reasonable to say that this growth is not sustainable in light of the real estate required for their deployment and the inevitable realization of their ineffectiveness.

A recent study conducted in Spain shows that this is very questionable industrial development in terms of net losses in jobs, higher electricity costs and its impact on industrial development in general, creation of a serious “bubble” potential, a jeopardized energy future, and diversion of resources into non-productive areas.[xxxi]

Evaluation of Alternatives

Alternative 1 – Emphasizing Renewables

This is the current popular policy choice of many jurisdictions in response to conventional wisdom, with all its inadequacies. It is characterized by premium FIT, RPS and ETS programs and carbon tax schemes to support the rapid implementation of renewables.

This does not meet any of the goals set out in the introduction: reduce fossil fuel use or CO2 emissions; contribute to energy independence; provide for short term needs or longer term goals; will not provide a significant opportunity for sustained industrial development; do not provide reliable and economic electricity supply and in this connection are not consistent with the type of grid development needed.

Clear risks are involved that are not in the best interests of present or future generations. As the matter of indirect emissions associated with renewables and other externalities involved in their deployment become more widely recognized, the risks of dependence on them will be realized.

Alternative 2 – Reliance on Existing Technologies

This relies on existing generation means to bridge to future technologies that have a better mix of the desired characteristics, combined with aggressive research and development programs for these future technologies. Future technology deployment can be viewed nominally as intermediate (10-30+ years) and longer term (30-50+ years). Examples of intermediate technologies are advanced fossil fuel, advanced nuclear, carbon capture and storage, nuclear waste management and solar, and examples of longer term are nuclear fusion, again solar, and hydrogen/fuel cell technologies.

One of the drawbacks is the continued reliance on fossil fuels. However, coal and gas have sufficient reserves to sustain their use as a bridge to fossil-fuel free alternatives. A reasonable degree of energy independence will be more realizable with them as well.

Concerns exist surrounding continued and even increased use of nuclear plants, but these have to be set against the other environmental and economic benefits of this technology. The same is true for new hydro plants.

This alternative best meets the following requirements: energy independence; short and long term policy balance; most effective industrial development; and the least possible cost. Further, the diversion of the extensive funding required to support the deployment of renewables would be better employed in improving existing generation means and research and development for new technologies.

Conclusion

Introducing large amounts of renewable sources into the electricity system does not contribute to society’s environmental goals. The only argument for the current renewables push is political expediency driven by the prevailing conventional wisdom. The diversion of scarce resources into technologies that fail the important tests discussed herein should be reconsidered for environmental, not only economic, reasons.

In the longer term, perhaps new generations of these technologies will overcome the problems that this essay has documented. More likely the future solutions will be very different from what government policy is banking on today. These reasons suggest a greater role for consumer-driven, market reliance than the political process picking losers.

Kent Hawkins has a BScEE and is retired.

[Author’s note:  I would like to recognize the efforts of Robert Bradley Jr., Jon Boone, John Droz Jr., Tom Stacy and Tom Tanton whose participation in the review of drafts was invaluable.]

Notes

[i] National Academy of Sciences. “Top 20 Engineering Achievements of the 20th Century.” http://composite.about.com/od/inthenews/l/blnae1.htm

[ii] In the rest of this document, renewables refer to wind and solar.

[iii] Janzen, E. (2008). “The next bubble: Priming the markets for tomorrow’s big crash.” Harper’s February 2008. http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/02/0081908

[iv] Sharman, H. (2005). “Planning for Intermittency: The Importance of Evidence from Germany and Denmark” (emphasis is Sharman’s). UK ERC Workshop – Imperial College. http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/Downloads/PDF/05/050705TPASharmanpres.pdf

[v] Holttinen, Hannele (~2002). “The impacts of hourly variations of large scale wind power production in the Nordic countries on the system regulation needs.” VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland. http://lipas.uwasa.fi/itt/teti/sahko/NEPF/vasa_nordiskvind.ppt

[vi] University of Victoria (BC), Department of Economics (2005). Utility-scale Wind Power: Impacts of Increased Penetration. For the University of Victoria report, go to http://www.windaction.org/documents/5887 and follow link at bottom of page.

[vii] General Electric (2008). Executive Summary: Analysis of Wind Generation Impact on ERCOT Ancillary Services Requirements. http://www.uwig.org/AttchA-ERCOT_A-S_Study_Exec_Sum.pdf

[viii] Oswald, James et al, (2008). “Will British weather provide reliable electricity?” Energy Policy 36: 3202-3215. http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/oswald-energy-policy-2008.pdf

[ix] Adams, Tom and Cadieux François, (2009). “Wind Power in Ontario: Quantifying the Benefits of Geographic Diversity.” http://tomadamsenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/windpowergeodiversitybenefits_adams_cadieux-colour-graphs-and-citation1.pdf

[x] Hawkins, K. (2010). Wind Integration: Incremental Emissions from Back-Up Generation Cycling (Part V: Calculator Update). http://www.masterresource.org/2010/02/wind-integration-incremental-emissions-from-back-up-generation-cycling-part-v-calculator-update/#more-7271

[xi] Hawkins K. and Hertzmark D. (2010). “Big Wind: How Many Households Served, What Emissions Reduction? (Part 2). http://www.masterresource.org/2010/01/how-many-households-can-a-large-wind-project-serve-lessons-from-texas-and-the-uk-part-2-of-2/

[xii] George, S., Bola H., and Nguyen S. (2010). “Effect of Wind Intermittency on the Electric Grid: Mitigating the Risk of Energy Deficits.” http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.2243

[xiii] German Energy Agency (dena – Deutsche Energie-Agentur) (2005). Planning of the Grid Integration of Wind Energy in Germany Onshore and Offshore up to the Year 2020 (dena Grid study). http://www.dena.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Download/Dokumente/Projekte/ESD/netzstudie1/dena-grid_study_summary.pdf

[xiv] Texas Public Policy Foundation (2008). Texas Wind Energy: Past, Present and Future. http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2008-09-RR10-WindEnergy-dt-new.pdf

[xv] U. S. Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy (2010). 2016 Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources from the Annual Energy Outlook 2010. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html

[xvi] Boccard, N. (2008). “Capacity Factor of Wind Power: Realized Values vs. Estimates”. Energy Policy 2009, vol. 37, issue 7: 2679-2688.

[xvii] Oswald, J. and Ashraff-Ball H. (2007). “Renewable Energy Data Technology Analyses: Wind 2006.” Renewable Energy Foundation. http://www.ref.org.uk/Files/wind.overview.2007.%28ii%29.pdf

[xviii] Schleede, G. (2010). “The True Cost of Electricity from Wind is always Underestimated and its Value is always Overestimated.” Science and Public Policy Institute. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/High_Cost_and_Low_Value_of_Electricity_from_Wind.pdf

[xix] Director-General for Energy and Transport, European Commission (2008). EU Energy in Figures 2007/2008. Section 2.5.6. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/figures/pocketbook/doc/2007/2007_energy_en.pdf

[xx] Causey, W. (2010) “Call a spade a spade and the choices may be different”. IntelligentUtility Daily. Includes quotations from Merwin Brown PhD, Director Electric Transmission & Distribution Research, California Institute for Energy and Environment. http://www.intelligentutility.com/article/10/02/call-spade-spade-and-choices-may-be-different

[xxi] Roland-Holst, D. (2008). “Energy Efficiency, Innovation, and Job Creation in California.” Center for Energy, Resources, and Economic Sustainability (CERES). http://are.berkeley.edu/~dwrh/CERES_Web/Docs/UCB%20Energy%20Innovation%20and%20Job%20Creation%2010-20-08.pdf

[xxii] Vermont Department of Public Service (2007). Vermont Electric Energy Efficiency Potential Study – Final Report. Prepared by GDS Associates Inc. http://publicservice.vermont.gov/energy/vteefinalreportjan07v3andappendices.pdf

[xxiii] Bradley, R. L. Jr (1997). Renewable Energy: Not Cheap, Not “Green”. CATO Institute. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html

[xxiv] Causey, W. (2010)

[xxv] Apt J. et al (2008). “Generating Electricity from Renewables: Crafting Policies that Achieve Society’s Goals.” Carnegie Mellon University. http://wpweb2.tepper.cmu.edu/ceic/pdfs_other/Generating_Electricity_from_Renewables.pdf

[xxvi] Lang, P. (2010). “Emissions cuts realities for electricity generation – costs and CO2 emissions.” Brave New Climate. http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/01/09/emission-cuts-realities/.

[xxvii] Rothwell, G. and Graber, R. (2009). “The Role of Nuclear Power in Climate Change Mitigation” USAEE Dialogue 7(13) http://dialogue.usaee.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=84&Itemid=75

[xxviii] U.S. Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy (2010). Annual Energy Outlook Early Release Overview. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/overview.html

[xxix] U.S. Energy Information Administration, Department of the Environment (2005). International Energy Statistics. Reserves – http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=1&pid=7&aid=6 , and consumption – http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=1&pid=1&aid=2

[xxx] Peltier, R. (2010). “Time to Repeal New Source Review? (Up to 30 GW of coal-plant upgrades hangs in the balance).” http://www.masterresource.org/2010/02/time-to-repeal-new-source-review/#comments

[xxxi] Alvarez, G. C. et al (2009). “Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources.” Universidad Rey Juan Carlos. http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf

C. Wang and R. G. Prinn
Center for Global Change Science and Joint Program of the Science and Policy of Global Change, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 2053-2061, 2010
www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/2053/2010/

Download original document: “Potential climatic impacts and reliability of very large-scale wind farms”

Butler Ridge has an elevation of 1170 feet above mean sea level, which is about 300 feet above the elevation of the town of Hustisford, located just to the west. The Butler Ridge wind farm is about 30 miles directly north of the Weather Surveillance Doppler Radar located at the National Weather Service office near Sullivan (KMKX) in far eastern Jefferson county.

Dodge County Wind Turbine Farm

Unfortunately, the Butler Ridge wind farm and its turbines are within the radar line of sight (RLOS) of the NWS doppler radar in eastern Jefferson county. The height of the wind turbine towers are about 260 feet above the ground, and the turbine blades are about 300 feet in diameter. Hence the top of the wind turbine rotors are about 400 feet above the ground on Butler Ridge.

At this height, the rotating turbine blades of the wind farm impact the KMKX Doppler Radar beam. As you can see in the above image depicting most of southeast Wisconsin, the rotating wind turbines are having an affect on the radar beam.

A small part of the electromagnetic energy radar beam sent from the radar is reflected back by the rotating turbines. The radar processes this “returned energy” as an area of precipitation and plots it accordingly on the map. This contamination of the base reflectivity image as illustrated in the below image, has an effect on the radar algorithms used to estimate rainfall and to detect certain storm characteristics.

Wind Turbine Clutter - Reflectivity

The rotating turbines also impact the velocity base data as you can see from the below image. This velocity data is used by radar operators and by a variety of algorithms in the radar’s data processors to detect certain storm characteristics such as mesocyclones, tornado vortex signatures, and relative storm motion.

Base Velocity Image with Wind Turbine Clutter

The KMKX doppler radar has a sophisticated clutter/interference removal scheme, however the scheme was designed to filter out spurious returned (reflected) energy that has little or no motion. This is effective for removing the returned signals from terrain, buildings, and other non-moving structures. Unfortunately, the radar sees the rotating wind turbine blades as targets having reflectivity and motion, hence processes these returns as weather.

The below two hour animation from the evening of April 1, between 915 pm and 11 pm CDT shows the persistent interference from the Butler Ridge wind turbine farm on the KMKX base reflectivity radar image.

Animation of Wind Turbine Clutter

Wind turbine clutter or interference that shows up on the base reflectivity and velocity images produced by the doppler radar can have several impacts including:

• Thunderstorm or winter storm characteristics could be masked or misinterpreted, reducing warning effectiveness in the vicinity of, and downrange of the wind farm.
• False signatures contaminating Doppler velocity data in the vicinity and downrange of the wind energy facility could reduce forecaster’s situational awarness, particularly during hazardous/severe weather events.
• Data masking or contamination if thunderstorms develop over the wind farm may negatively impact warning effectiveness.
• False precipitation estimates could negatively impact flash-flood warning effectiveness.

The best mitigation technique is to avoid locating wind turbines in the radar line of sight (RLOS) of the doppler radar. The National Weather Service is conducting an outreach program to ensure the wind energy industry and developers are aware of NWS Doppler Radar locations and the potential impacts on radar data. The NWS Radar Operations Center (ROC) works with these developers and suggests mitigation options to consider.

The NWS continues to learn about wind farm impacts on radars, weather forecast office operations, and other users where radars and wind farms are already in close proximity. Based on this information, the NWS will develop training materials for radar operators and weather forecasters on how to identify, mitigate, and partially work around wind turbine impacts during forecast and warning operations.

For much more information on how wind turbines impact doppler weather radar, check out the ROC website.

Marc Kavinsky
Senior Meteorologist
National Weather Service Weather Forecast Office
Milwaukee/Sullivan, WI

The effects of trees on the lower atmospheric boundary layer can be summarized as follows: Trees take the momentum out of the wind, introduce turbulence, and cause flow displacement.

Starting with momentum, the swaying of the trees and the myriad movements of the leaves convert otherwise useful energy into heat and turbulence. When trees are in full leaf, the conversion is increased even further as a result of friction drag. Because friction drag is proportional to the square of the velocity, the more wind, the higher the wind speed losses.

The second effect is that trees induce turbulence, again through converting kinetic energy into movement of the trees, which then generates small-scale turbulence in the flow. This explains why, downwind of a large forest, measured turbulence intensity often increases, rather than decreases, with wind speed.

Trees have another effect on turbulence. Turbulence follows what is called the turbulence cascade, whereby large eddies break down into smaller eddies until they get so small they are dissipated by viscosity. Eddies, which describe flow behavior, refer to the swirling of a fluid.

When trees are present, large eddies get absorbed and converted directly into smaller ones. This creates more of a headache for those attempting to model these effects, because it is not just a matter of injecting turbulence, but a function of wind speed. Turbulence is also absorbed by the trees.

Yet another effect is consequential. Trees reduce the critical slopes that provoke flow separation. As a guideline, the critical slope reduces by around half a degree per meter of tree height.

With 20-meter trees, the critical slope (the slope angle beyond which flow detaches from a hill and starts to recirculate) reduces from around 16 degrees to 11 degrees. This means that a wind turbine located behind what seems like a non-complex hill may be subject to severe turbulent wakes if the hill is forested.

Linear flow models work up to a certain slope, which is about 16 degrees. Slopes exceeding 16 degrees can lead to errors. However, the slope at which errors begin to become significant is reduced by forest. In this case, with 20-meter trees, the critical slope is reduced from 16 degrees to 6 degrees. The outcome is that energy yield calculations performed with linear models may have much higher uncertainty than is normally assumed with a given a set of topographic conditions.

Another issue becomes significant when trees are in full leaf. The wind speed within the forest quickly approaches zero as you move away from the forest sides and the top. The forest displaces the flow, effectively creating a virtual floor – the point above the ground at which the wind speed is zero. A correction, commonly called ground plane displacement, is now often applied in wind analysis.

When designing a wind farm in a forest, the same process applies as with any other site: place turbines in the windiest places that are compatible with. the wind turbines’ design conditions. Achieving this requires layers of information that cannot be neglected on a complex, forested site. This information includes mean wind speed at hub height, turbulence intensities at every possible turbine position, vertical shear across the rotor, and vertical inflow angles.

These variables differ significantly over a complex forested site, even within short distances. Single-point measurements alone are, therefore, unlikely to be sufficient to characterize the wind flow across a forested site.

Wind turbines are designed for and certified according to design load conditions described in the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 61400-1 standard. The guidelines describe a limited set of standard wind conditions and, based on the test specification in the IEC 61400-12 standard, turbines are generally tested on flat sites.

At one operational site, several turbines that were installed in a forest were subject to shear that was so high the turbines never reached rated power. Even when the wind was 20 meters per second at hub height, the turbines were producing one-third of rated power. On another site, one wind turbine within an array was subject to severe vibrations, leading to significant operational issues. The problem was traced to a separation bubble provoked by the forest on an upwind slope, which caused the shear across the rotor to vary rapidly with time. …

Furthermore, when it comes to accounting for trees, it is necessary to consider whether forests are deciduous or evergreen. It is not reasonable to assume mean conditions when considering a deciduous broadleaf forest, because winter and summer conditions have a fundamentally different effect on the flow. …

A flat forested site may require substantial felling to achieve any wrthwhile improvement in performance. Conversely, a ridgeline site may only need very limited felling to significantly improve performance. …

—from North American Wind Power, March 2010

Oisin Brady is managing director and Jim Adams is president of U.S. operations at Natural Power.

The cure for Wind Turbine Syndrome is simple: Move away from the turbines or shut off the turbines. The prevention of Wind Turbine Syndrome is even simpler: Don’t build these low frequency/infrasound-generating machines within 2 km of people’s homes. Governments and corporations who violate this principle are guilty of gross clinical harm. Such governments and corporations should be taken before whatever level of court is necessary to stop this outrage.

I realize these are strong words. They are carefully chosen. They are strong because governments and the wind industry stubbornly—I would add, criminally—refuse to acknowledge that they are deliberately and aggressively harming people. This must stop. The evidence is overwhelming. I repeat, this must stop.

Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD

Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics
Former Clinical Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, College of Physicians & Surgeons, Columbia University, New York

I was recently informed of two very alarming grant awards announced in my district from the Department of Energy and the Department of Treasury. These grants, totaling $74.6 million of taxpayer dollars, are to be distributed to Canandaigua Power Partners, LLC and Canandaigua Power Partners II, LLC for projects in Cohocton, New York. This is an extremely contentious issue in my District and this recent announcement has the potential to cause a serious political explosion in Western New York.

Constituents in our region see these projects as criminal actions, and I have strongly opposed the actions of these companies and their affiliates. Canandaigua Power Partners, LLC and Canandaigua Power Partners II, LLC act as shell companies that deceptively operate on behalf of First Wind, which is currently under investigation by New York State Attorney General Cuomo for corruption charges in Cohocton and across the Northeast. After allegations of bribery, intimidation, and other misconduct surfaced, many residents and local officials in my District have paid very close attention to these projects in Cohocton and in their own back yards with great anger and concern for what could happen in other communities in our area.

This is one of the most volatile issues in Western New York and the award of $74.6 million dollars to corrupt companies that have changed names time and again forming new LLCs and new 1nc.s but maintaining their business model of lie, cheat, and corrupt at the expense of taxpayers has stirred great unrest in New York’s 29th Congressional District. To date, no electricity has been produced for sale out of the projects in Cohocton and the company has projected that there is none to come until the end of next year. Despite this lack of clean, renewable energy for Cohocton and the citizens o New York, this company has already collected production rewards for non-existent energy that at this point is simply a prediction.

We should not be rewarding anything, let alone cash grants, to companies like this that have abused the public trust and caused such a toxic atmosphere in our region on the topic of wind power.

There is no use of this money that would, to my satisfaction, warrant the issuance of these grants and I urge you to launch an investigation by the GAO into the use of these federal funds for this purpose. I call on your administration to revoke this award before more damage comes to this rural area where people have already experienced the abuses of foreign-owned wind developers who tear apart communities for corporate gain.

Download original document: “Letter to Obama re: grants to First Wind (UPC) LLCs”

By courtesy of Cohocton Wind Watch.

Presented at the Infrasound Workshop, November 28 – December 02, 2005, Tahiti
Lars Ceranna, Gernot Hartmann, and Manfred Henger
Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR), Section B3.11, Stilleweg 2, 30655 Hannover, Germany

Download original document: “The inaudible noise of wind turbines”

To meet the U.S. Renewable Energy Standard (RES) that wind and solar provide 25 percent of power by 2025 requires construction of 660,740 2.5-MW, or average size, wind turbines occupying 44.3 million acres, larger than the combined areas of Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maryland, and West Virginia for towers and transmission facilities. To accomplish this feat, the total required capacity of wind turbines must exceed the combined capacity, in MW, of all existing U.S. power generating installations in use today (coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, etc.) and Canada’s too. Raw materials required for towers are 119 million cubic yards of concrete and 109 million tons of steel, about two years of U.S. consumption. For nuclear to accomplish the same 25 percent RES needs only an area equal to one- third the area of Poughkeepsie, NY for all plants.

… Since 2005, coal-fired generating growth has slowed while electrical generation from natural gas increased 15 percent. … [S]hort of a massive construction of nuclear power plants, coal and hydrocarbon sources will remain as mainstays of U.S. power generation for the long term.

Download original document: “Coal to Remain Key U.S. Source of Electrical Power”

[NWW note: National Wind Watch does not endorse coal or any other source for generation of electricity. This analysis is provided here in acknowledgement that coal isn't going away any time soon, and its only viable challengers right now are natural gas and nuclear. Instead of spending time and money pursuing the pipe dream of big wind, and destroying without purpose wild landscapes and rural communities in that pursuit, we should focus on using in the most responsible ways possible the energy we actually are using and will continue to use for quite some time, while also developing real alternatives for the future.]

Jobs

• Few, if any, of the project’s temporary construction-related jobs would be filled by local residents. Most such jobs will be held by employees and contractors of the turbine manufacturer who are trained and experienced in the installation of this highly specialized equipment. Some jobs, such as earth-moving and/or grading jobs might be filled by residents of Highland County or other nearby areas.
• Few, if any, of the materials necessary to construct and equip the project would be produced or acquired in Highland County. A significant exception might be for acquisition of aggregate and/or fill material and possibly timber, if required.
• The project might result in one or two permanent jobs in Highland County for minor maintenance, monitoring and security for the project. This position(s) could be filled by someone residing outside of the County.
• The project’s ability to attract significant net new tourism and recreational outlays to the County is virtually zero.

Property Taxes

• The project will be assessed for local real property tax purposes by the State Corporation Commission (SCC).
• The project’s ability to generate additional real property tax revenue to the County will depend upon: the “market value” and “stated” ratios, and depreciation schedule applied by the SCC, and the local real property tax rate to which it would be subject.
• The potential of the project to cause a reduction in real property tax revenue to the County will depend largely upon its negative impact on neighboring and nearby properties, and potential losses to the County’s recreational, tourism and hunting operations and enterprises.
• Based on current SCC practices, the amount of real property tax revenue that would be generated by the project would be highest in the first few years after construction, and would decline annually to some fraction of this amount in the last few years of its depreciation cycle.
• Based on a 20-year period depreciation cycle, an initial year taxable assessed value of about $32.6 million, and a local tax rate of $0.62 per $100, the project would generate an annual average of about $105,000 in real property tax revenue to the County. This amount could be somewhat greater if depreciation is significantly limited in the later years.
• Based on the foregoing, the net present value of the twenty-year real property tax revenue paid to the County over the depreciable life of the project would be about $1.5 million.
• These amounts would be offset by any loss in local tax revenues caused by: I) reductions in value of neighboring and nearby properties, ii) other economic losses to existing County businesses, and; iii) costs for the provision of County services to the project, such as Sheriff’s patrol (though these costs can be expected to be low).
• For a neighboring or nearby property with a current taxable assessed value of $100,000, a loss in value of 25 percent would cause a reduction in real property tax revenue of $155, annually. Over twenty years, the net present value of this loss is $2,230. A loss in value of 50 percent would cause an annual reduction of $310 annually which, over twenty years, represents a net present value loss of $4,456.
• For a combination of such parcels with a current taxable assessed value of $10.0 million, a 25 percent loss in value represents a net present value loss of $223,000 in real property tax revenue over a twenty year period. This amount would be double for a reduction in value of 50 percent.
• Because the County’s Local Composite Index is statutorily set, the amount of State assistance for local public schools would be unaffected by the project.
• A change in State statutes or regulations could cause local real property tax payments by the project to be lower than estimated herein.

Local Services

• Aside from Sheriff’s patrol, the project would generate little demand for local County services.
• Since the project would generate few, if any jobs and new residents to the County, there would be little, if any, demand for additional services off-site.

Preliminary Report
Prepared by: Michael Siegel
Presented at the Highland County Wind Forum
Sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce of Highland County, Virginia
May 20, 2004

Download original document: “Economic and Fiscal Impacts of the Proposed New Highland Winds Project on Highland County, Virginia”