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: ben.luce@lyndonstate.edu

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 Photovoltaics Biomass
Wind (PV) (wood, cows, etc)

Imported Small-Medium Small-Medium
Renewables Wind Hydro

• 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

1028 MW
~ 1 GW

6

Factoring in the “Capacity Factor”
• Capacity Factor specifies how much actual energy
will be produced relative to peak capacity:
Energy Actually Produced in a Year
CF 
Energy Produced if at Peak Capacity for a Year
• 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

• 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

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

Mars Hill, Maine

SUMMER 2011

Wind Turbine Construction
Mars Hill, Maine

~700,000 pounds of explosives being used on the Lowell Mountains
SUMMER 2011

Sheffield
Wind

Bear
Scarred
Trees

SUMMER 2011

BR C
R AK
AN
TR L
“An industrial VT-9

project the size of Town of

the one proposed W-1 SEARSBURG

S RD
RN AI K EN
W-2

would displace Bear W-3

ES
DE D
W IL GE
W-4

Scarred

OR
large numbers of

GE
W-5

bears from this Trees
W-6

RD
Town of W-7

W
WOODFORD

O
critical habitat and

LL
HO
W-8

Y
W-9 E EP
SL
cause long-term W-10
Existing Searsburg Fac

harm to the bear VT-8

population in
E-1
E-2
E-3

southern E-4
E-5

Vermont.” E-6

-Testimony of Forrest Hammond, Deerfield E-7

Wildlife Biologist Vermont ANR to
Vermont PSB Wind SUMMER 2011

Headwaters, Streams, Wetlands

Sheffield Deerfield

Georgia Mountain Lowell
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

“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

• 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

· The Noise From Wind Turbines: Potential Adverse Impacts on Children’s
Well-Being
Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society August 2011 31: 291-295,
doi:10.1177/0270467611412548
Sign In | My Tools | Contact Us | HELP
Abstract Full Text (PDF) References Request Permissions
Search all journals Advanced Search Search History Browse Journals
Alec N. Salt and James A. Kaltenbach
Infrasound From Wind Turbines Could Affect Humans
Table of Contents Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society August 2011 31: 296-302,
doi:10.1177/0270467611412555
August 2011; 31 (4) Abstract Full Text (PDF) References Request Permissions

Clear Add to Marked Citations Carl V. Phillips
Properly Interpreting the Epidemiologic Evidence About the Health Effects
Willem H. Vanderburg of Industrial Wind Turbines on Nearby Residents
Assessing Our Ability to Design and Plan Green Energy Technologies Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society August 2011 31: 303-315,
Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society August 2011 31: 251-255, doi:10.1177/0270467611412554
doi:10.1177/0270467611412558 Abstract Full Text (PDF) References Request Permissions
http:/ / www.windturbinesyndrome.com/ news/ 2011/ special- issue- of- peer- reviewed- journal- devoted- to- wind- turbines- health/
Full Text (PDF) Request Permissions P

Robert Y. McMurtry
John P. Harrison Toward a Case Definition of Adverse Health Effects in the Environs of
Wind Turbine Noise Industrial Wind Turbines: Facilitating a Clinical Diagnosis
Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society August 2011 31: 256-261, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society August 2011 31: 316-320,
doi:10.1177/0270467611412549 doi:10.1177/0270467611415075
Abstract Full Text (PDF) References Request Permissions Abstract Full Text (PDF) References Request Permissions

Bob Thorne Carmen M. E. Krogh
The Problems With “Noise Numbers” for Wind Farm Noise Assessment Industrial Wind Turbine Development and Loss of Social Justice?
Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society August 2011 31: 262-290, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society August 2011 31: 321-333,
doi:10.1177/0270467611412557 doi:10.1177/0270467611412550
Abstract Full Text (PDF) References Request Permissions Abstract Full Text (PDF) References Request Permissions

Arline L. Bronzaft
The Noise From Wind Turbines: Potential Adverse Impacts on Children’s
Well-Being http:/ / bst.sagepub.com / content/ current
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
SUMMER 2011

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

U.S. Wind Resources
Nearly all of the U.S. wind resources
are located in the center of the country and offshore

55

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

Capacity - in peak gigawatts
Ranking State
1901
1 Texas
2 Kansas 952
3 Montana 944
4 Nebraska 918
5 South Dakota 818
6 North Dakota 770
7 Iowa 570 Massachusetts has
8 Wyoming 552
Less than 1/10,000th
9 Oklahoma 517
of
10 New Mexico 492
US Onshore Wind
.
25.6
Resource
15 New York
25 Maine 11.3
Potential
29 Pennsylvania 3.3
27 Vermont 2.9
30 New Hampshire 2.1
31 West Virginia 1.9
33 Virginia 1.8
34 Maryland 1.5
35 Massachusetts 1.0
56

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

< 0.04%
CO2
Reduction
Potential

< 2% CO2
> 100% CO2 Reduction Potential Reduction
Potential

60

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

“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.”

71
Year

How the Dept of Energy thought the cost
trends of wind and solar would continue as of
2002:
Levelized cents/kWh in constant $20001

40 100
Wind PV
30 80
COE cents/kWh

60
20
40
10
20
0 0
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

• 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

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)
12

10
Retail
Installed Cost in $/watt

Grid
8 Solar Parity
for Solar

6

4 Wind

2

0
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Month 75
Year

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

…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.

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

Optimal Plan for Reduction of Carbon

2010 – 2015 2015 Forward
 Higher efficiency  Continue other measures
Vehicles
 Weatherization  Greatly expand
Photovoltaic transition
 Energy efficiency
 Solar Hot Water
 Wood and Geothermal
Heating
 Plan for, and begin,
Photovoltaic transition 82

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

The Science of Industrial Wind in MA and the Eastern US

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie The Science of Industrial Wind in MA and the Eastern US

Ähnlich wie The Science of Industrial Wind in MA and the Eastern US (6)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

The Science of Industrial Wind in MA and the Eastern US