Showing posts with label wind. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wind. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 8, 2008

RI Wind Update

One could get a headache or dizzy trying to figure out what's going on with the governor's plan to get 15% of state electricity from renewable sources. The leading (only?) contender since the plan was announced has been offshore wind, for which a feasibility study was done to identify ideal locations for wind turbines.

Since that time, the state's Coastal Resource Management Commission has been unsuccessful in identifying preferred sites for further development. It has, however, begun the useful process of figuring out what the permitting and usage practices should be for state waters, and is working with the University of Rhode Island to come up with a set of rules that takes into account economic, recreational and other users of state waters. Recently, the CRMC asked for a one year moratorium on proposals for off shore wind development while the Special Area Management Plan is developed. Essentially, asking for what is likely to happen regardless of any proposals received while the SAMP is developed.

The dizzying part occurred on Thursday when the Governor Carcieri announced at a press conference that the state would begin soliciting proposals for off-shore wind development at the sites near Block Island. Apparently the governor really wants this project to at least be underway, if not generating power before he leaves office. Perhaps also, he is looking to have the pressure from industry of a standing proposal to get CRMC and URI to complete their plan on time. As I recall, URI has stated the plan could take up to three years to develop.

Another possibility is that he understands that the bidding and proposal process is likely to take over a year and doesn't need to wait for the coastal waters usage plan and permitting process to be developed in order to begin. Given the state cannot guarantee an electricity purchase contract or any funding for the project, project developers are going to need a bit of time to get their finanial plans together and memos of understanding/Power Purchase agreements from the grid. Given the lead time on this process this is unlikely to cause issues for CRMC/URI so long as they don't decide the proposed areas shouldn't used for wind turbines.

UPDATE: The Block Island Times has more on the cost, time line and goals of the SAMP project. And I sort of thought that a very close friend of mine was joking that being from Coventry, she was called a pig-farmer. And who knew a pig farm could be declared a SuperFund site. Learn something new everyday.

Read more at the Projo and Providence Business News

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Reading Roundup: Jan 23

Reading Roundup is a regular feature of WebEchoes. It exists to limit the number of "read this" posts with minimal commentary on my part.


BikeHacks
A site dedicated to custom bike hacks, inventive ways to use bike parts or cobble together addons to make life with a bike just a tad better. Thanks to Fritz at Cyclelicious for linking them.

But What If We HAVE To Do It?
Terry Tamminem writing at Fast Company Expert Blogs suggests that it is possible to cut US energy per capita usage and green house gas emissions in 20 years. And California and the EU can show the way. Stay tuned for top five ways how.

Electric Vehicle Battery Primer: A Conversation with John Voelcker « Earth2Tech
Just what the title says, a brief discussion of the challenges of batteries for EV applications.

Windy Payback Time: Wind Turbines and their Life Cycle Impacts : TreeHugger
Not counting "visual" costs for those that find them unsightly and other unquantifiable items, how long does it take for a windmill to generate the equivalent energy to its manufacture.

Ironweed Film Club | Ironweed
Interesting Idea - A DVD of the month subscription service for social and environmental films. I'd be happier if it was more netflix like, I don't want to own the darn things and have more plastic cluttering the house.

Meet Trev, the Two-seater, Renewable Energy Vehicle : TreeHugger
Not quite as unique as the Aptera tadpole look, but an interesting all electric vehicle nonetheless.

Treadmills Suck. (Kilowatts) : TreeHugger
Wow. Who knew that getting fit cost so much electricity. Glad that I tend to use self-powering ellipticals and exercise bikes.

Hrm, a preponderance of links to Treehugger in this edition.

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Reading Roundup: Jan. 19

Reading Roundup is a regular feature of WebEchoes. It exists to limit the number of "read this" posts with minimal commentary on my part.

Pictures from the End of the World, by Amado Becquer Casaballe : TreeHugger
Photos from Antarctica.

Breaking News: MMS Releases Favorable Report on Cape Wind : Sustainablog
Good news for the Cape Wind project. Perhaps within a year they can actually do something. Assuming that someone doesn't scuttle the project in some other phase.

Small-Scale CO2 Capture Plumps Up Vink's Peppers : TreeHugger
Interesting innovation and way to use CO2 in a useful way. Did that say 'per hour' for the wood burning rate?

The Key Ideas Behind Sky Trust » Celsias
Rounding out the emissions cap and trade with a summary of the SkyTrust and similar proposals for creating a Non-Government emissions management organization and how to use the proceeds from emissions credits/taxes.

Monsanto's latest court triumph cloaks massive market power | Grist | Victual Reality
More on Monsanto and the seed and fertilizer/herbicide business. Mostly, how much of food production is controlled by the companies selling the seeds.

Compact Stellarator: Fusion reactors that produce star-like power (Triple Pundit)
Nuclear Fusion Reactor demonstration project being built. Decades away, but apparently possible, at least in theory. Of course, nothing comes free...what are the side effects, down sides and dangers. (eg: if it generates 1000MW, does it take 900 to power the magnets?)

Monday, December 17, 2007

Wind News Galore

Too bad its all in Europe.

First up, the UK has announced a plan to open the entire coastline of that country for offshore wind development. I've seen conflicting numbers about how much power generation is anticipated as a percentage of usage, but the dominant ones have been 50% and 100% of residential power use. Also not clear if that's installed capacity, which for wind farms usually only performs at 30-40% efficiency. (eg: for every 3MW capacity installed, generally 1MW is the average instantaneous output over the course of a year). According to Earth2Tech, the UK "hopes for an installed capacity of 33 gigawatts by 2020, or enough to power all the homes in the UK." However, the article on TreeHugger indicates generation of 33GW, a very different thing. According to the Guardian, the target is to generate enough power for 25m homes, not all homes and to work towards meeting the 20% renewable energy standard set by the EU.

Next, according to Jerome a Paris, writing on DailyKOS, Germany has guaranteed wind prices at 14c/kWh (euro cent) to wind power plants selling to the grid. Mr. a Paris also discusses the future development of offshore wind power in Europe, with the UK expected to outstrip everyone else in installed capacity. In an analysis of wind development in the US, his conclusion is that mostly the US has enough space, and higher wind speeds than Europe so can make use of more onshore farms, except in areas like the Northeast with higher population densities. And no talk of the US wind market is complete without a mention of the on again off again instability of the Production Tax Credit (PTC), essentially the subsidy wind developers get or generating power.


Powered by ScribeFire.

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Wind Farms in our Country

Courtesy of the anti- wind National Wind Watch's attention to wind news all over the world, I was directed towards a recent post to the Knowing Newport bulletin board by Mr. Anthony Spiratos. Given the nascent state of offshore wind development in Rhode Island and the US, I couldn't pass this one by without responding. He has since written and second and third installment in opposition to wind development near Newport.

On first read, it seems that while the author has spent some time coming up with a reasoned opinion, not in my backyard is the driving motivation for this article. On reread, I've changed my opinion and think that the author's core argument is that he doesn't want a wind farm near his home.

While it may be the case that the current proposals by the state and Allco to place wind farms offshore in Rhode Island are not economically or environmentally sound, much of what the author of these articles has said is not entirely correct, or out of date so far as I can tell. I do not make claim to be an expert, but just as this author has found sources to back up the position that wind is a bad idea, I've found contravening evidence and reports, or read what I presume to be the sources used and come to different conclusions.

Below I will examine the points in the first of his article. The format is that I will summarize in the first paragraph my understanding of his opposition to wind power, and then discuss or respond as appropriate. His second article expanding his opposing points will be responded to in a separate post. The original articles are here (Knowing Newport) and here (RI 12th) on the subject of offshore wind development in Rhode Island. There is also a third installment in Mr. Spiratos' series, which has been posted (RI 12th) and I will respond to if warranted.

Effects of wind turbines are devastating, because:

  1. Property values are negatively impacted by planning applications for wind farms, therefore development of a large wind farm off Aquidneck and Little Compton will damage the local tax base due to property devaluation. A report from the United Kingdoms Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors(RICS) studied the effects of wind farm installations on property value.

    Review of the study shows that the impact was limited to properties within 1 mile of ground installations during the planning phase, and not after construction and during operation. The study did not examine the case of offshore wind installations. The study's report is available as a PDF. This RICS study also references an earlier study by the same organization which found a negative impact on property values and a US study by the Renewable Energy Policy Project that indicated no change, or an elevation of values within 5 miles of the wind farm. Again, no study included property value effects from offshore installations.

    Interestingly, the Mayor Nysted, Denmark has been quoted in the Boston Globe as saying "They're all going up" in reference to property value in his town after the installation of an offshore wind farm.




    It should be possible already to determine if there has been any impact from the installation of the windmill at Portsmouth Abbey now that it has been in operation for over a year.

  2. Property Damage is costing money in insurance claims in Germany.

    I can find no released study or report indicating where the 200 million Euro figure is sourced. No indication is given by the author, or what I believe is his source to indicate what the nature of the property damage and the cause. The quote seems to have first appeared in this article on UKs Farmers Weekly Interactive in 2004, but is not attributed.

  3. Windmill operation creates infrasound and other effects and these are very large structures, the size of the Statue of Liberty.

    The infrasound impacts will be discussed in below in possible impacts on marine life and in part two in their impacts on humans. He is correct, the wind turbines and towers are expected to be up to 400 feet tall.

  4. Wind turbine installation contribute to light pollution, pose a risk to birds and boats. The mayor of Nysted, Denmark home was lit at night by the offshore wind farm near that city. He refers to an OSPAR report about the impacts on citizens and wild life near wind installations.

    He appears to be quoting this article in the Boston Globe, which goes on to say that the problem was resolved by complaints to the government. The quote from mayor Dambso-Andersen is misrepresented. Several other articles can be found that describe the mayors initial reactions to the project and his later views on the impact it has had on that city. These can be read on at Cape Cod Today, and on page two of this Boston Globe editorial.

    No mention of light pollution impacts on night time sky viewing are made in any of the sources on existing installations. The towers are lit with navigation and air traffic safety lighting, I'm not sure what significant impact these will have at a distance of 1.5 miles. There will likely be impact on viewing stars and celestial objects near the horizon in the direction of the wind mills due to both their blotting effects and lights, but unlikely to be a general "washing out" of the night time sky on shore.

  5. There will be disturbances to marine life because increased sediment temperatures and EM fields near transmission cables as well as noise and vibrations released into the water which may drive species away.

    These potential impacts appear to be taken from an OSPAR report detailing possible impacts, but not a study of actual impacts on habitat. At least several of these problems have been addressed in other installations or are understood on how to remediate, including the use of bipolor DC cables to reduce the EM field of the transmission line, as well as using DC transmission line to minimize heating effects.

    A recent study produced in part by the Danish Energy Authority attempted to address the impact of construction and operation of offshore wind mills on marine and bird life. Their conclusions are that generally there is no net impact, and a possible increase in biodiversity due to the creation of new habitat niches on the new underwater hardscape. This is no different than the hundreds of years of permanent debris that have ended up in the ocean creating new habitats in the ocean wherever humans go. While every site is different, and results in the US may be different due to different water temperatures, salinity and marine populations, there is no way to know without building a wind farm and studying the impacts as the Danes have done. A summary and the original report are available.

  6. Construction and operation will jeopardize the fishing industry, wind farms will destroy the ecosystem.

    See the previous point for impacts on the marine ecosystem. What evidence is there that any of the proposed wind farm locations are active fisheries? There may be an impact if these areas are active fishing grounds and are are declared off limits to boats and therefore prevent use of these areas for fishing. This impact would need be taken into account by a full project plan and study commissioned for a specific wind farm proposal.

  7. Wind power is too variable and doesn't work correctly for integration into the grid due to voltage and frequency mismatches with the generated electricity according to Glenn Schleede, working with the Army Corps of Engineers in 2002.

    Variability is a part of the grid, as usage and generating are constantly changing in order to meet the needs of consumers. Wind operators have the technology to predict with reasonable accuracy how much power they can generate within a few day time span and provide power to the grid in accordance with demand.
    Frequency and voltage matching are a technical hurdle that has already been resolved with tens of thousands of wind mills in operation around the world. Some of Schleede's points in various documents available are that there is no reduction in baseload power, wind is high unpredictable and costs energy off the grid in order to make the power usable. Many studies have concluded that while windmills do not lead to the complete shut down of standby and baseload power systems, they do make useful contributions to the total power available on the grid. American Wine Energy Association (AWEA) has a document that explains Mr. Schleede's criticisms and relationship to wind projects over the years.

  8. Additional economic impacts on the $2 billion per year tourism, yachting, tennis, and festivals will hurt or destroy these industries. He draws a comparison to Nixon pulling Navy operations from the area in 1974 and the economic turmoil that resulted.

    It is outright nonsense to equate the Navy pullout and the installation of windmills and their economic impacts. The navy being pulled is constitutes the removal of an economic input to the region. I have no reason to doubt that it was devastating at the time. However, it is extremely unlikely that the presence of windmills on the horizon is going to significantly detract from visitors coming to see the attractions of Aquidneck Island and nearby communities.

    From the Boston Globe piece earlier referenced, "At first, Damsbo-Andersen worried the wind farm would disrupt a tourism industry based around the town's centuries-old harbor. Tourists continue to arrive even after the wind farm was built, he said. One newly popular attraction is a twice-weekly boat tour of the wind farm"

    This also ignores possible economic inputs to the region during the construction and operation. Some portion of the construction and operation costs will need to be spent in local businesses and service providers, and possibly in the creation of local jobs for all phases.
Mr. Spiratos concludes his first list of complaints by indicating that a $1.9 billion wind project could be in operation within four years. That the "pristine oceanfront littered with visual and environmental pollution of hundreds of wind turbines" will appear overnight and destroy a "gorgeous, delicate and untouched environment."

I highly doubt that there is currently no visual or ecological impact already made by humans on the so called "pristine" and "untouched" environment in the waters of Rhode Island. If a wind project gets under way and builds, there will be an impact, but the fear mongering and NIMBYism that Mr. Spiratos are just that.

There are currently no formal proposals under consideration. Projected costs range from 900 million to 1.9 billion according to the RIWINDS report, released in April, and summary released in September. Any guess at completion in 4 years is unlikely for a number of reasons. The RIWINDS report suggests that a state run project use an as yet unavailable GE 3MW turbine. A more complete evaluation of the highest potential sites is underway with no date for completion set and the need to not only create state level regulation, but also to study and address existing FAA, DoD, Environmental and other impacts, there are still many years to go until any construction begins. We'll be lucky to see a formal proposal in 1-2 years, regulatory clearance and approvals to follow, at best, a wind farm being online in 5-10 years.

From a guess at costs, at today's electricity costs, assuming $1.9 billion capital cost, and 150MW realized generating capacity, excluding operations costs, subsidies, grants and other incentives, assuming a 20 year capital recovery period, cost would come to approximately 7.2c/kWh. Want to bet that in 5-10 years we'll still be paying 8.3c/kWh for generation on the New England grid with our high dependence on oil and natural gas generation?

I think that some of Mr. Spiratos points are well taken and that a project should be undertaken with the utmost respect for nearby residents and the marine ecology. It is, however, irresponsible to doom such a project before it has even been considered and to start lobbing opposition in the absence of a formal proposal. It is imperative that alternative energy sources be found that reduce the emissions of new green house gases and one of the few working and cost-effective technologies available and which is appropriate to this region is offshore wind. We don't have desert environments to do large scale solar plants, we can harness some geothermal.

Sunday, November 25, 2007

Rhode Island Wind Power status

The Kent County Times has a nice article up covering the state of current wind deployment and some proposed wind projects by Coventry, West Warwick. It also has a nice outline of the 660kW wind turbine installed at Portsmouth Abbey on Aquidneck Island. No details about the size of the turbines proposed at either location or the total amount of power generation capacity.

They discuss the wind turbine at Portsmouth Abbey, which is called out in the New England Greenstart/RI web pages as one of the few sources of green power within Rhode Island. While the article discusses only wind installations currently under investigations (discounting the proposal from an out of state firm to develop wind resources offshore), it reminded me of the New England GreenStart program. A map of the renewable resources (wind, solar, hydro, biomass) is available on the GreenStart site.


Powered by ScribeFire.

Sunday, November 11, 2007

Power from the Wind

Encountered two articles on TreeHugger covering two very different aspects of electric generation from wind power. The first is a technological improvement being introduced in China to reduce the friction associated with a wind turbine through the use of magnets. Seems they are using maglev principles with a permanent magnet versus an electro magnet. This could be a really interesting development, as I suspect this would help to reduce the energy consumed during wind generation, or fed to a wind farm in off peak to keep the turbine running.

The second describes a press release made available from WindTerra for a residential wind turbine now approved for use in California. The system looks to cost about 1/3 that of a solar installation based on the info quoted from the press release. Output is claimed to be over 1600 kwH at an average windspeed of 11.18 mph, though power generation begins at 10.8 mph. It is designed to be a low RPM system to reduce noise and vibration to its host structure as well. Depending on the source, it would appear that the average household annual electricity usage is 8600+ kwH (or around 1kwH/day). At an installed cost of over $7000, it is a better deal than PV, and if combined with a battery system and aggressive energy saving techniques, this could be an interesting addition to homes, but what about installing a small grid of these on a building to offset the occupants electricity?

On the other side of the wind power coin is the National Wind Watch, whose purpose is to point out the negatives and ills of using wind energy. According to their flier, windmills are a "harmful boondoggle". They achieve their "rated" outputs about 1/3 of the time, are unsightly for a number of reasons, potentially dangerous, disturb nature during their construction and operation, and in some cases draw power off the grid instead of contributing. An organization opposed to developing wind power isn't unique, but does claim to not be the mouthpiece of any lobby, but rather a network of concerned individuals. On the upshot, they seem to do a pretty good job of monitoring the media for news related to wind projects, culling local newspapers as well as national and international sources. They're on my watchlist to keep appraised of local developments in Rhode Island.


Powered by ScribeFire.

Sunday, October 7, 2007

More on Rhode Island wind project





An interview with the Commissioner of Rhode Island Energy Resources about the RIWINDS project conducted by US Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy office.

Interestingly, his analysis that it would take 5-7 years to develop any of the sites proposed in the study, which is what I guessed in my earlier post.

The image is from page 65 of the study and shows the proposed regions with best wind characteristics.

Saturday, October 6, 2007

Rhode Island Wind Farms Study

From TreeHugger, Rhode Island has commissioned and released a study (pdf) on the areas of the state most effective for the construction of wind farms. Only one onshore location was identified for large scale generation, and 10 potential offshore sites were identified. Several towns in the state have also expressed interest in participating in wind generation projects.

Its good to see that the governor and state has taken an interest and is setting a goal of 15% of electricity demand from wind power. The report seems to hold promise that this could be a practical project if there is political will to allocate the capital to building the turbines and creating the infrastructure to move the power from offshore wind farms onto the grid. It does point out also, however, that the structure of the New England electrical grid as a single market makes it difficult or impossible to guarantee that the power generated in Rhode Island is used in Rhode Island. They propose that some form of restructuring of the New England grid and/or an energy authority be created for Rhode Island to manage this and make sure that Rhode Island residents receive the benefits of this fixed cost electricity rather than the New England power market as a whole.

As with any such project, it will be slow to actually appear, even without a search for funding, the off-shore wind turbines that are proposed probably won't be available for 3-5 years. Given that, it'll probaby be 5-7 years before any off-shore wind power is added to the grid. A not-yet available turbine is recommended because of economies of scale for large offshore installation. By using a 3.6MW turbine, fewer towers can be constructed to generate the 200MW total for a site, reducing the capital costs, instead of using the proven and semi-stadard 1.5MW turbine.


There was also some examination of siting smaller wind installations for industrial clients as well, though only 4 were appropriate for "utility scale wind turbines."