the science of industrial wind in ma and the eastern us

The Science of Industrial Wind in MA and the Eastern US

Ben Luce, Ph.D

Email: [email protected]

Comments made during the

presentation:

• I was a strong advocate of utility-scale wind and other renewables in New Mexico, and expected to support some level of utility scale wind development in the Northeast prior to studying the issue of wind in this region in detail.

• I also believe that very aggressive action to reduce emissions and mitigate climate change is needed.

• Given that I am a strong advocate of renewables, I will not address the larger debate of renewables versus other non-renewable energy approaches such as nuclear power and clean coal in this presentation.

2

An issue of:

• Which renewable energy sources have real potential to mitigate climate change?

• What environmental and societal impacts from energy generation are acceptable?

• What are the costs? Where should we invest our money?

Bottom line:

• Which renewable energy sources, and when?

• Which conservation measures, and when?

Failure to get this right potentially endangers everything

3

Renewable Electricity Options in the Northeast

Utility-Scale Wind

Imported Renewables

Photovoltaics (PV)

Biomass (wood, cows, etc)

Small-Medium Hydro

Small-Medium Wind

• I will be focusing mainly on wind and solar in this presentation, because I do not believe that small wind, small hydro, or biomass-fired generation represent significant renewable electricity options for the Eastern US, simply because of their very small resource potentials.

• The next slide shows a good source for estimates of what

the Department of Energy (specifically the National Renewable Energy Laboratory) considers as the maximum amount of commercially viable (strong enough resource), onshore generation that could be installed. Note that “Installed capacity” doesn’t refer to existing capacity, but rather potential installed capacity.

5

State (Onshore) Wind Resource Data:

http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov

6

1028 MW ~ 1 GW

Factoring in the “Capacity Factor”

• Capacity Factor specifies how much actual energy will be produced relative to peak capacity:

• Not the same as “conversion efficiency” – CF measures Intermittency

• Even if one accepts that wind generation can be integrated effectively (CO2 reductions realized), the low CF of wind means 3-4 times the amount of ridgeline per unit capacity relative to conventional generation.

7

Year afor Capacity Peak at if ProducedEnergy

Year ain ProducedActually Energy CF

• The following slide shows that there is legitimate literature suggesting that utilities are having significant problems at the present time with fully achieving potential greenhouse gas emission reductions with wind power due to integration issues.

• While I do not consider this a fundamental issue, it may at least bear on where public funds for emission reductions should be concentrated in the near future.

8

Effective Onshore Wind Power Capacity

in Massachusetts

• NREL data applies to CF=.3 • NREL Estimates onshore MA Peak Capacity = 1 GW • Effective Wind Capacity: .3*1 GW = .3 GW

• Current average MA consumption = 6 GW (average) • 54 million MWh/year

– http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/massachusetts.html

– (54,000,000 MWh / 8760 hours) =~6000 MW (average)

• Potential average onshore wind penetration: (.3 GW/6 GW) x 100% = 5%

10

http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/massachusetts.html

Number of “Mountain Systems” Required

• 1 GW of Peak Capacity in MA

• = 333 Three MW turbines

• 5 turbines/mile

• ~70 miles of ridge, not counting access roads

• 10 turbines/project on average:

• ~33 Mountain Systems

11

Question:

• Is it worth developing 33 mountain systems in MA to provide just 5% of MA electricity?

– Environmental impacts?

– Impact on people?

– Impacts on the local economy?

– Cost relative to alternatives?

– Despite impacts, would this still be “doing our part” to encourage significant regional wind development?

13

• The following two slides visually illustrate the impact of developing 1000 MW of ridge line wind generation in MA.

• The slides after this illustrate the impacts from a closer perspective.

• Note that fairly wide and fully developed road beds and wide, level clearings (of roughly equal area to the swept area of the rotors) are needed for this type of development, due to the enormous weight and length of the trucks and their loads involved. Extensive blasting and bulldozing of the mountaintop is required, which incurs extensive impacts to streams, wetlands, bedrock, and of course plant and animal life.

14

SUMMER 2011

Mars Hill, Maine

SUMMER 2011

Wind Turbine Construction Mars Hill, Maine

~700,000 pounds of explosives being used on the Lowell Mountains

SUMMER 2011

SUMMER 2011

Sheffield Wind

Bear Scarred Trees

SUMMER 2011

K I NG HILL R

DPO

TTER

HILL R

D

OLD

RO

UTE

9

SO

MER

SET

R

D

BERG RUCKEN

LN

DAUBNEYS DR

BA

ILE

Y HILL

R

D

GE

OR

GE

D A

IKE

N

WIL

DE

RN

ES

S R

D

SLEEPY

HO

LLO

W R

D

TH 26

HO

WE

POND RD WH

ITE

RD

HE

AR

TW

EL L V

I LLE

VIE

W

RD

RA

KE

BR

ANC

H T

RL

FR

EEZ

ING

HO

LE

D

R

RUBA DR

RUE MADELINE

NEW ENGLAND POWER RD

ALP

E

N DORF

AV

CO

LL

INS

DR

OBERHUGEL RD

O BER

DO

R

F

RD

MAIN

RD

VT-

100

VT-8

VT-9

VT-9

VT-

100

Town of

WHITINGHAM

Town of

STAMFORD

Town of

READSBORO

Town of

WILMINGTON

Town ofSEARSBURG

Town of

WOODFORD

E-7

E-6

E-5

E-4

E-3

E-2

E-1

W-1

W-2

W-3

W-4

W-5

W-6

W-7

W-8

W-9

W-10

Deerfield Wind Project

FIGURE 3.12-1:AREAS OF CONCENTRATED BEAR SCARRED BEECH

Project Area

5-8+ BSB/Acre

1/4 Mile Buffer

State Route

Streams

GMNF Ownership

Town Boundary

Turbines

O&M Facility

Access Roads

Substation

Staging Area

Overhead Collector System

Underground Collector System

Searsburg & Readsboro, Vermont

Notes:Base Map: ESRI StreetMap USA, 2006. BSB: Wallin, 2008.

0 2,000 4,0001,000

Feet

September 2008

Existing Searsburg Facility

“An industrial project the size of the one proposed would displace large numbers of bears from this critical habitat and cause long-term harm to the bear population in southern Vermont.”

-Testimony of Forrest Hammond, Wildlife Biologist Vermont ANR to

Vermont PSB

Deerfield Wind

Bear Scarred Trees

SUMMER 2011

Sheffield Deerfield

Georgia Mountain Lowell

Headwaters, Streams, Wetlands

SUMMER 2011

• The impacts to ecotourism (meaning economic benefits in general related to the scenic beauty of the area) are potentially endangered by ridgeline wind development.

• Many people genuinely feel the experience of seeing a project the first few times to be enjoyable, which is understandable given what these projects represent to them, the sheer scale of the turbines, and the novelty of the experience.

• It’s a different question entirely whether people will like to vacation or maintain second homes in an area in the long run with extensive ridge line wind development. The study referenced on the following slides shows that, for example, vacationers in Vermont greatly value the unspoiled nature of the state.

40

Vermont Brand Study

• Commissioned by the Vermont State Department of Tourism

• This study thoroughly surveyed the attitudes of nearly 1000 people who vacation in Vermont

• Available at: http://www.vermontpartners.org/

41

http://www.vermontpartners.org/

“Unspoiled,

Beautiful,

Mountains”

44

• The following slide shows that although the impact of low-frequency noise from wind turbines is not fully understood in physiological terms, there is peer-reviewed research indicating that low-frequency noise can couple physically to the cochlea.

• There are also a growing body of literature suggesting that impacts to health are occurring, in particular impacts associated with loss of sleep.

47

Noise and Health

Low-frequency noise, including “infrasonic” noise, from wind turbines may in fact be affecting the health of people in the near vicinity of turbines:

Peer-reviewed research:

“Responses of the ear to low frequency sounds, infrasound and wind turbines”

Hearing Research, Volume 268, Issues 1-2, 1 September 2010, Pages 12-21

Alec N. Salt, a, and Timothy E. Hullara

a Department of Otolaryngology, Washington University School of Medicine, Box 8115, 660 South Euclid Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA

See summary at http://oto2.wustl.edu/cochlea/windmill.html 48

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=



http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T73-509XPTP-3&_user=10&_coverDate=09/01/2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6c39d05dc483223f8505873b201eeee3&searchtype=a

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T73-509XPTP-3&_user=10&_coverDate=09/01/2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6c39d05dc483223f8505873b201eeee3&searchtype=a

http://oto2.wustl.edu/cochlea/windmill.html

• The following slide shows the “spectrum” of wind turbine noise. The graph shows that wind turbines created prodigious levels of infrasonic (subsonic) noise, which places them in a somewhat different category from many other noise sources.

• Unfortunately, set-backs for wind projects today do not yet take into account potential impacts due to infrasonic noise.

49

”The noise generated by wind turbines is rather

unusual, containing high levels (over 90 dB SPL) of

very low frequency sound (infrasound).

50

SUMMER 2011

7/ 24/ 11 9:18 AMTable of Contents — August 2011, 31 (4)

Page 1 of 2http:/ / bst.sagepub.com/ content/ current

Clear Add to Marked Citations

Willem H. Vanderburg

Assessing Our Ability to Design and Plan Green Energy Technologies

Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society August 2011 31: 251-255,

doi:10.1177/0270467611412558

Full Text (PDF) Request Permissions

John P. Harrison

Wind Turbine Noise


doi:10.1177/0270467611412549

Abstract Full Text (PDF) References Request Permissions

Bob Thorne

The Problems With “Noise Numbers” for Wind Farm Noise Assessment


doi:10.1177/0270467611412557


Arline L. Bronzaft

The Noise From Wind Turbines: Potential Adverse Impacts on Children’s

Well-Being


doi:10.1177/0270467611412548


Alec N. Salt and James A. Kaltenbach

Infrasound From Wind Turbines Could Affect Humans


doi:10.1177/0270467611412555


Carl V. Phillips

Properly Interpreting the Epidemiologic Evidence About the Health Effects

of Industrial Wind Turbines on Nearby Residents


doi:10.1177/0270467611412554


Robert Y. McMurtry

Toward a Case Definition of Adverse Health Effects in the Environs of

Industrial Wind Turbines: Facilitating a Clinical Diagnosis


doi:10.1177/0270467611415075


Carmen M. E. Krogh

Industrial Wind Turbine Development and Loss of Social Justice?


doi:10.1177/0270467611412550


Search all journals Advanced Search Search History Browse Journals

Table of Contents

August 2011; 31 (4)

Sign In | My Tools | Contact Us | HELP

7/ 24/ 11 9:18 AMTable of Contents — August 2011, 31 (4)

Page 1 of 2http:/ / bst.sagepub.com/ content/ current

Clear Add to Marked Citations

Willem H. Vanderburg

Assessing Our Ability to Design and Plan Green Energy Technologies


doi:10.1177/0270467611412558

Full Text (PDF) Request Permissions

John P. Harrison

Wind Turbine Noise


doi:10.1177/0270467611412549


Bob Thorne

The Problems With “Noise Numbers” for Wind Farm Noise Assessment


doi:10.1177/0270467611412557


Arline L. Bronzaft

The Noise From Wind Turbines: Potential Adverse Impacts on Children’s

Well-Being


doi:10.1177/0270467611412548


Alec N. Salt and James A. Kaltenbach

Infrasound From Wind Turbines Could Affect Humans


doi:10.1177/0270467611412555


Carl V. Phillips

Properly Interpreting the Epidemiologic Evidence About the Health Effects

of Industrial Wind Turbines on Nearby Residents


doi:10.1177/0270467611412554


Robert Y. McMurtry

Toward a Case Definition of Adverse Health Effects in the Environs of

Industrial Wind Turbines: Facilitating a Clinical Diagnosis


doi:10.1177/0270467611415075


Carmen M. E. Krogh

Industrial Wind Turbine Development and Loss of Social Justice?


doi:10.1177/0270467611412550


Search all journals Advanced Search Search History Browse Journals

Table of Contents

August 2011; 31 (4)

Sign In | My Tools | Contact Us | HELP

7/ 24/ 11 9:19 AMSpecial issue of peer- reviewed journal devoted to Wind Turbines & Health « Wind Turbine Syndrome Articles

Page 1 of 5http:/ / www.windturbinesyndrome.com/ news/ 2011/ special- issue- of- peer- reviewed- journal- devoted- to- wind- turbines- health/

Wind Turbine Syndrome Articles

Search

HomeThe BookThe AuthorTranslationsReviewsBuy the BookNews Articles& ArchiveContact

Special issue of peer-reviewed journal devoted to Wind Turbines & Health

Print this By admin Wednesday July 20, 2011

0 Comments

· Editor’s note: Click here for a Special Issue of the Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society (a peer-reviewed, scholarly journal) devoted to industrial wind turbines and health.

The image, below, shows just a portion of the articles; there are many more, including by Dr. Alec Salt(otolaryngology) and Dr. Carl Phillips (epidemiology) and Dr. Robert McMurtry (public health). ·

Human Hearing is Logarithmic

• Quietest sound we can hear: 1 trillionth of a watt per square meter.

• Our ears are super-sensitive vibration sensors

• It potentially doesn’t take a great deal of noise to create problems.

• Even though many do live in noisy environments already, this does not imply that noise is not a problem, and that it’s perfectly ok to increase noise in the few remaining quiet regions left.

52

• There are serious issues with respect to the impact on species such as birds and bats.

• While its true that large numbers of birds are killed by other means, this does not imply that killing more with wind turbines is acceptable. Moreover, the number of birds and bats killed by turbines could potentially rise to very significant levels if significant levels of wind generation is eventually installed. The number of birds and bats killed by wind turbines currently may be statistically insignificant, but the amount of wind power generation is also currently essentially statistically insignificant.

53

Getting Serious:

• Is the sacrifice still worth it, despite the impacts?

• Perhaps we would be still be saving the planet from global warming?

• Let’s see how much of a contribution onshore wind power in the Eastern US could really accomplish.

54

55

U.S. Wind Resources

Nearly all of the U.S. wind resources

are located in the center of the country and offshore

25.6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

.

15

25

29

27

30

31

33

34

35 56

East vs. West: Relative Ranking of State Wind Resources Source: www.windpoweringamerica.gov

Texas

Kansas

Montana

Nebraska

South Dakota

North Dakota

Iowa

Wyoming

Oklahoma

New Mexico

New York

Maine

Pennsylvania

Vermont

New Hampshire

West Virginia

Virginia

Maryland

Massachusetts

Capacity

Ranking State 1901

952

944

918

818

770

570

552

517

492

11.3

3.3

2.9

2.1

1.9

Massachusetts has

Less than 1/10,000th

of

US Onshore Wind

Resource

Potential

Massachusetts has

Less than 1/10,000th

of

US Onshore Wind

Resource

Potential

1.8

1.5

1.0

- in peak gigawatts

Total for Onshore Eastern Wind Resources

• As estimated by DOE (unlisted states have little or no potential), in peak gigawatts (GW): – New York: 25.6 GW

– Maine : 11.3 GW

– Pennsylvania: 3.3 GW

– Vermont: 2.9 GW

– New Hampshire: 2.1 GW

– Virginia: 1.8 GW

– West Virginia: 1.9 GW

– Maryland: 1.5 GW

– MA: 1.0 GW

• Total: 52 GW (50% in NY)

Iowa vs. Massachusetts (approximately to scale)

Iowa has a huge, two-dimensional high-average-wind-speed wind resource. MA has a small, essentially one-dimensional wind resource. This resource is also located mainly in environmentally sensitive areas.

Effective Onshore Wind Power Capacity

in the entire Eastern US

• NREL data applies to CF=.3

• NREL Estimates Eastern Peak Capacity = 52 GW

• Effective Wind Capacity: .3*52 GW = 15.6 GW

• Current average US consumption = 450 GW

• Potential average onshore Eastern wind penetration into current US load:

(15.6 GW/450 GW) x 100% = 3.5%

• Long term: Probably less than 2%

• Maximum CO2 reduction: ~ 1% 59

60

< 2% CO2

Reduction Potential

> 100% CO2 Reduction Potential

< 0.04% CO2

Reduction Potential

Conclusion #1

• MA will not be encouraging the development of a significant regional source by encouraging onshore wind development.

• Funds are limited. Diversion of money into wind could likely delay more effective measures considerably.

61

Conclusion #2

• Precisely because Eastern wind resources are quite small, the energy industry will develop every (windy) ridgeline it can.

• Projects are already being proposed and built throughout the Northeast: The Wind Rush is on.

62

Conclusion #3

• In the long run, something else will have to carry 96+% of the electrical load in the East, regardless of onshore wind development.

• Only solar power and offshore wind power have the physical capability to contribute significantly .

63

The Solar Resource

• Fundamentally different from wind: – Much, much larger and well distributed resource

• The only serious onshore renewable power resource in the Eastern US

– Much more scalable • Much more flexibility on siting

– Rooftops, small backyard systems – Myriad out-of-the-way, suitable sites for “solar orchards”

– Additional power lines are not needed – Much better correlation with peak load – Much more distributable in small pieces

• Slower minute-to-minute variation overall • Close integration with natural gas power plants not needed,

or needed nearly as much

64

Solar Power: Vast potential with negligible

impact, IF sited and installed carefully

65

Careful Siting and Installation of Solar

• Careful siting of solar is crucial to avoiding undue impacts and maintaining public support. Fortunately, the solar resource is so vast that this is possible (unlike the situation with onshore wind resources in the Eastern US)

• Some siting criteria include: – As out-of-sight as possible

– Avoid unduly compacting soils

– Avoid shading vegetation too much

– Obtain local public support first

– Tailoring projects to the local load: Avoid new power lines

66

• The following slide shows a little known but crucial fact: The cost of wind power has simply failed to come down to the low levels it was predicted to in the 1990s. In fact, it has increased in cost since about 2001.

• This is due to wind’s intrinsic dependence on large amounts of steel, cement, copper, and other materials.

• Solar does is not intrinsically dependent on large amounts of bulk materials, especially thin-film PV.

69

Dept of Energy Wind Power Cost Market Survey:

- http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/51783.pdf

70 Year

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/51783.pdf

71 Year

“As such, 2010 was another year of higher wind power prices. The capacity-weighted average 2010 sales price for bundled power and renewable energy certificates, based on projects in the sample built in 2010, was roughly $73/MWh. This value is up from an average of $62/MWh for the sample of projects built in 2009, and is more than twice the average of $32/MWh (all in 2010 dollars) among projects built during the low point in 2002 and 2003.”

How the Dept of Energy thought the cost

trends of wind and solar would continue as of

2002:

• Source: NREL Energy Analysis Office (www.nrel.gov/analysis/docs/cost_curves_2002.ppt)

• Wind power failed to meet these predictions

• Solar PV is still roughly on track.

72

Levelized cents/kWh in constant $20001

Wind

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

PV

CO

E ce

nts

/kW

h

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

40

30

20

10

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

Additional Transmission Costs

for Eastern Wind Power

• According to Gordon van Welie, President and CEOof ISO New England Inc: “A conservative goal for 5,500 megawatts of wind power and 3,000 megawatts of hydro power through 2030 would carry transmission costs of between $7 billion and $12 billion.” – From: “New England grid chief: Cooperate on Wind

Power”, by David Sharp, Associated Press Writer, August 16, 2010.

• (4000+ miles of new transmission lines)

73

• The following slide shows a cost comparison between ridgeline wind and solar (PV) on dollars per watt of capacity. The underlying solar data is drawn from data published by Paula Mints, a respected PV industry analyst.

• The graph suggests that solar is converging rapidly with wind. Note that this comparison does not include the extra transmission cost needed for wind development (and which is not needed for solar). If this is added in, it is not clear that wind is cheaper than solar even today, in terms of the total cost to ratepayers.

74

Cost Comparison of Ridge Line Wind Power with Solar Power

(not including full transmission costs for wind)

75

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 20250

2

4

6

8

10

12

Month

Ins

talle

d C

os

t in

$/w

att

Wind

Solar

Year

Retail Grid Parity for Solar

PV Cost Trend

PV is on track to become fully competitive by 2015. 76

Wind is a mechanical (old) approach,

PV is solid-state

• Wind requires coupling a matter flow to a generator: It is intrinsically dependent on moving parts and large quantities (per watt of generation) of: – Cement – Steel – Copper – Other special materials

• Wind is essentially a 19th approach to generating power.

• PV technologies require no moving parts, and only extremely small amounts of thin film material per watt.

• PV is 20th and 21st Century technology.

77

What if?

• Some of the billions being invested in wind were invested into weatherization and efficiency?

– A true “Manhattan Project” of conservation?

• Some of the billions being invested in wind were used to help bring solar down in price, locating good sites, empowering the public?

78

• The following slides show that a wide range of conservationists and biologists are interested in limiting wind development to “already-disturbed-lands”. And they find that doing so would not unduly constrain potential for wind development (at least in terms of resource potential).

• It is, in fact, typical for our culture to quickly develop a new energy source (or any new resource for that matter), with little regard for the consequences, and then only later attempt to undo or correct for unforeseen consequences.

• With the issue of inappropriate wind development, however, we have a chance this time to avoid the worst, and get renewable energy development focused back on a truly sustainable path towards a bright future. 79

- PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org 1 April 2011 | Volume 6 | Issue 4 80

- PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org 1 April 2011 | Volume 6 | Issue 4 81

…a disturbance-focused development strategy would avert the development of ~2.3 million hectacres (about 5.6 million acres) of undisturbed lands while generating the same amount of energy as development based solely on maximizing wind potential.

82

Optimal Plan for Reduction of Carbon

2010 – 2015 2015 Forward

Higher efficiency Vehicles

Weatherization

Energy efficiency

Solar Hot Water

Wood and Geothermal Heating

Plan for, and begin, Photovoltaic transition

Continue other measures

Greatly expand Photovoltaic transition

Closing Remarks

• We must act now to reduce emissions.

• Public funds and support are limited, and we cannot allow politics and corporate agendas to stand in the way of getting this right.

• Failure to get this right potentially endangers everything.

83

Further Discussion?

84