Fuel for Offshore Wind

December 3, 2012 at 12:21 pm

For a couple of decades now, people have been debating over the benefits and costs of wind turbines and wind as a renewable energy resource. Specifically there have been debates of the pros and cons of using offshore wind for energy. Many of the same arguments for and against onshore wind farms are used in the debates for or against offshore wind farms. However, there are also more topics to discuss when it comes to offshore wind farming, making the debates larger and the policies needed to create offshore wind farms more stringent.

Denmark was the first country to create an offshore wind farm and proved that there are many profits that go along with using offshore wind energy.  Though there are undoubtedly disadvantages, certain states in America are trying to take steps in the same direction. Lobbyists, skeptics and budgets are delaying their progression, especially in New Jersey. Despite the fact that offshore wind farm development in New Jersey is slow moving, and will continue to be so, it should continue even if incentives must be put in place.

Using wind as a renewable energy resource is a slow moving process mostly because of certain costs and risk factors. Onshore wind farms are easier to build because of their location. Moving equipment on land is easier and less costly than moving it off land. Further, workers need to be able to put the turbines together. Much of this process can be done on land, but some of this work must be conducted on location. With such a location as a few miles offshore, stability, travel and efficiency becomes increasingly harder than onshore. Additionally, “Offshore work involves increased risks of storms which affect the amount of time available for maintenance and installation which in turn influence capital and operation costs” (1). Along with constructional difficulties, come maintenance difficulties. Because much of the turbine is underwater and open to harsher condition, the materials are more apt to corrode or deteriorate. To counteract this problem, people will constantly need to fix these issues or spend more money on better materials that can withstand such condition. (1) All of these problems factor directly into a higher budget for offshore wind energy than onshore. Many lobbyists and skeptics who are against wind farm development use these complications as reasons to not move forward, and try to get the state to agree. Though the state, for the most part, endorses wind farm development, these peoples’ arguments and views are not ignored. They create friction and hinder the progress.

Offshore wind farm development takes a long time on its own, even aside from conflict with lobbyists and a budget.  For example, in December 2008, Bluewater Wind Energy Company received a budget of four million dollars from New Jersey to develop an offshore wind turbine, the first in the nation. However, due to tests for wind data collection that needed to be done and other set backs, much time went by without signs of development. After three years, the state decided that the time gone by was time wasted and revoked the money from the company. (4)

These conflicts, while they are setbacks, should not be reasons to end advances. Some of the many reasons to continue trying to build offshore wind farms are the same reasons we build onshore wind farms: wind farms increase air quality, reduce foreign fuel dependency, mitigate climate change and create jobs. Further, there are many complaints about onshore wind farms are not problems for offshore wind farms. For example, since the turbines offshore will be farther from people, there will be fewer problems with flicker and noise. It can even be seen that offshore wind turbines will create more energy for use because the winds offshore are higher than the winds on land. (1) These advantages are simply taken from comparing and contrasting different farms and energy sources at face value. If a deeper look is taken into the benefits of offshore wind, specifically in New Jersey, more rewards come to light.

New Jersey especially should invest more research, money and time into the offshore wind development. The lower half of New Jersey, from about Monmouth county and down the coast, has powerful offshore winds. Specifically around Cape Cod, wind turbines would be very effective because of the shear amount of wind they could convert to usable energy. In terms of offshore wind power, New Jersey is one of the states with the most. Along with Massachusetts, Rhode Island, California and Hawaii, New Jersey’s offshore wind energy potential is of the greatest in the nation. (7) If New Jersey were to become the first in the nation to develop an offshore wind farm, the benefits would be great. (5) Further, if New Jersey were to create more wind turbines, the “offshore wind would produce approximately 3,000 MWh/yr for each installed…Power densities of approximately 20 MW per square mile could be harvested while occupying less than .01% of the seabed within a project area” (3). The significant contributions to New Jersey’s renewable energy profile is reason enough to increase the number of wind farms, offshore wind farms especially, and continue progress in development.

The benefits of offshore wind should fuel investors into providing support but it does not. In 2011, “NRG Bluewater Wind, announced that it would back out of a three-year-old power-purchase agreement with Delmarva Power because it couldn’t generate sufficient investor interest” (6). If more investors understood the advantages of offshore wind farms, less pressure would be put on the government to back the movement and it would probably go faster. Along with the already apparent profits of wind farm development, incentives should be put in place to make investors realize the immediate payback of their investment.

Market-based incentives are already present without the help of political action. For example, the price of natural gas, a major current energy source, is very unstable. Wind energy however, has become more stable and has decreased due to more efficient turbines that have been built. The United States government, or even just state governments, can look to other countries to find incentive ideas that work. The federal government can administer a credit applied per kWh to the output of facilities. This credit does not need to last forever, even just implementing it for the first five or ten years could help to offset the cost of building offshore wind farms. Further, state governments can construct tax plans or other financial incentives just as the federal government can. The consumers can even make a difference by voluntarily purchasing green energy. This will drive demand up and investors will realize that supplying cleaner energy is worth the cost. (2)

New Jersey has tried to create new incentives, but other state government departments have shied away. While you would lose money immediately on the investment, the money gained from taxes would surpass that budget. Additionally, New Jersey has adopted lucrative incentives to lure firms to New Jersey from other sites. (8) Such practices should continue. New Jersey has such a high supply of wind, especially offshore. The benefits of converting it to usable forms of energy greatly outweigh the costs. Incentives, put in place by the government or consumers through the market, would help to offset building and maintenance costs, one of the major disadvantages of offshore wind farms. The movement of developing offshore wind farms has to start somewhere. Why not in New Jersey?

 

  1. Snyder, Brian, and Mark J. Kaiser. “Ecological and Economic Cost-benefit Analysis of Offshore Wind Energy.” ScienceDirect.com. Science Direct, June 2009. Web. 28 Nov. 2012. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148108004217>.
  2. Lori Bird. “Policies and Market Factors Driving Wind Power Development in the United States.” ScienceDirect.com. Science Direct, July 2005. Web. 24 Nov. 2012. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421503003835>.
  3. “New Jersey Offshore Wind Energy: Feasibility Study.” New Jersey Clean Energy. Atlantic Renewable Energy Coorporation, Nov. 2004. Web. Nov. 2005. <http://www.njcleanenergy.com/files/file/FinalNewJersey.pdf>.
  4. Caroom, Eliot. “New Jersey.” The Star-Ledger. N.p., 09 Oct. 2012. Web. 24 Nov. 2012. <http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2012/10/offshore_wind_farm_plans_for_n.html>.
  5. Miller, Michael. “New Jersey Losing Ground in Race for First Offshore Wind Farm.” PressofAtlanticCity.com. N.p., 30 Mar. 2012. Web. 24 Nov. 2012. <http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/communities/lower_capemay/new-jersey-losing-ground-in-race-for-first-offshore-wind/article_43e71bb2-7a04-11e1-bcad-0019bb2963f4.html>.
  6. Caperton, Richard. “Congress Needs To Push Targeted Incentives For Offshore Wind.” ThinkProgress RSS. N.p., 13 Jan. 2012. Web. 24 Nov. 2012. <http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/01/13/403620/congress-incentives-offshore-wind/?mobile=nc>.
  7. “U.S. Energy Information Administration – EIA – Independent Statistics and Analysis.” DOE Provides Detailed Offshore Wind Resource Maps. N.p., 30 Jan. 2012. Web. 24 Nov. 2012. <http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=4770>.

Johnson, Tom. “Lawmakers Propose Another Tax Break for Offshore WindNew Bill Would Exempt Wind Manufacturers from Paying Sales Tax on Materials and Equipment.” RSS. N.p., 24 Sept. 2012. Web. 03 Dec. 2012. <http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/12/09/24/-another-tax-break-for-offshore-wind/>.

 

By srsharma | Posted in Research findings | Comments (0)

Assessing the Health Effects of Wind Turbines

December 3, 2012 at 4:52 am

 

Greg Pica

Professor Grace

EK 131 Wind Energy

2 December 2012

Assessing the Health Effects of Wind Turbines

 

With the rise of vast amounts of renewable energy across the world, wind energy has got to be one of the most recognized of the bunch. It has primarily been praised for its many environmental and economic benefits. However, does wind energy deserve such a positive reputation? According to many researchers, wind turbines are linked to several negative health effects.  These connections, however, do not always have the evidence to support their validity.

The reason wind turbines are a health hazard is usually attributed to high noise levels. High noise levels, among other reasons, lead to annoyance in those that live in close proximity to wind farms. Now, one can easily argue that annoyance is not really a health effect, but it can actually be more detrimental than expected. “Self-reported health effects of people living near wind turbines are more likely attributed to physical manifestation from an annoyed state than from wind turbines themselves”, says Loren D. Knopper of  “Environmental Health Journal”. Here, Knopper suggests that wind turbines are not the cause of health problems, but annoyance is. However, wind turbines are proven to cause annoyance, so by association do they not contribute to health effects as well? It is safe to say that if turbine-caused annoyance leads to health issues, then so do the turbines themselves. So, what are such health issues? In “Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise From Wind Turbines: Exposure and Health Effects”, it is cited that, “the effects on the cardiovascular system by noise are assumed to be stress related and triggered by noise annoyance.” In addition to effects on the cardiovascular system, annoyance is known to cause headaches and sleep disturbance as well.

Sleep disturbance is one of the most substantial health effects from wind turbines. Again, this effect is linked to high noise levels. Sleep disturbance is common at a sound pressure level of 45db(A) or higher (Impact).  True other sounds contribute to this pressure, but nonetheless, wind turbine noise affects quality of sleep in those that are in close proximity to it. It should be noted that only some people actually notice the sound. However, there is a direct correlation to increased sleep disturbance for those that hold its sensitivity. In addition to sleep disturbance, high noise levels can cause permanent hearing loss, temporary hearing loss, and psychological distress. Fatigue, constricted arteries, and a weakened immune system are also results of high noise level, but have no evidenced correlation to turbine noise (Alberts).

The high noise level result of psychological distress bears a significant amount of evidence. Those interviewed about psychological distress stated that their conditions either stayed the same or got worse after living near a wind turbine. “The more one is exposed to the sound of wind turbines, the more psychological distress is reported”, state the authors of “Science of The Total Environment”. Although psychological distress is a serious issue, it is rather minor compared to others that have been claimed results of wind turbine sounds.

Some people claim that wind turbines are so harmful that its various symptom effects add up to what is called “Wind Turbine Syndrome”. Dr. Nina Pierpont is most notably associated with this so-called disease through her extensive research. She believes that the wind turbines affect peoples’ vestibular organs of the sensory system. Pierpont lists many symptoms triggered by “vestibular dysregulation”: sleep disturbance, headache, tinnitus, ear pressure, dizziness, vertigo, nausea, visual blurring, tachycardia, irritability, problems with concentration and memory, and panic episodes associated with sensations of internal pulsation and quivering (Pierpont). Pierpont has dealt with several patients in her study, and found that symptoms of Wind Turbine Syndrome only occurred prior to turbine installation, and only when the patients were present at home. The main problem with Pierpont and Wind Turbine Syndrome is that there is not enough evidence to take it entirely seriously. Simon Chapman of “Wind Turbines Power Mass Hysteria” takes a comical approach at undermining Pierpont’s credibility. He lists lung cancer, leukemia, diabetes, herpes, electromagnetic spasms in the skull, infertility, and loss of bowels as health effects of wind turbines. He remains sarcastic and disbelieving throughout the article, coining the situation “mysterious” and “magic”.

Through assessing the health effects of wind turbines, several conclusions can be made. Wind turbines definitely have negative health effects – to an extent. These include, most notably, sleep disturbance, headaches, and psychological distress. In addition, annoyance from wind turbines could possibly be linked to heart related issues. Having established these evidenced effects, there are many more that do not have as strong of a backing. Such claimed results of wind turbines, although they are not as believable, should be taken with some seriousness. Although people may not actually have symptoms such as those of Wind Turbine Syndrome, many think they do. Therefore, a way to eliminate even the thought of having symptoms should be considered. With so many people having health problems related to wind turbines – or people that think they do – distaste for the renewable energy form is inevitable. If the hysteria goes too far, it may seriously hinder the installation process of new turbines. Therefore, states and countries need to consider a few things when installing new turbines. First and foremost, the turbines should be built 2 km away from houses in order to account for high noise levels. Several researchers share this suggestion, even Pierpont. Next, “the level at the façade outside the bedroom should not exceed 40 dB LAeq during the night to ensure undisturbed sleep” (Infrasound). Finally, the authors of “Wind Energy Development and Its Environmental Impact” list solutions such as “optimize the house structure to block out noise”, “put obstacles in the propagation path”, and “an optimized blade or serrated blade can reduce the noise level”. With solutions such as the ones listed previously, the negative health effects of wind turbines can be minimized. Then, the renewable energy form will fully live up to its positive reputation.

 

 

References

Alberts, D. (2006). Primer for Addressing Wind Turbine Noise. Retrieved from:        http://www.maine.gov/doc/mfs/windpower/pubs/pdf/AddressingWindTurbineNoise.pdf. Lawerence Tech. University.

Chapman, Simon. "Wind Turbines Power Mass Hysteria." Web.ebscohost. N.p., Aug. 2012. Web. <http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.bu.edu/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=126&sid=f4ade65b-9aa9-4244-9e2c-1223a59b3543%40sessionmgr115&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=eih&AN=78122232>.

"Health Effects and Wind Turbines: A Review of the Literature." Environmental Health. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2012. <http://www.ehjournal.net/content/10/1/78>.

"Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise from Wind Turbines: Exposure and Health Effects." N.p., 22 Sept. 2011. Web. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/3/035103/pdf/1748-9326_6_3_035103.pdf

"Impact of Wind Turbine Sound on Annoyance, Self-reported Sleep Disturbance and Psychological Distress." ScienceDirect.com.N.p., 15 May 2012. Web. http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.bu.edu/science/article/pii/S0048969712003373

Pierpont, Nina. "Wind Turbine Syndrome | "Inconvenient Truths: Wind Turbine Syndrome" (CounterPunch Magazine)." Wind Turbine Syndrome. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2012. <http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/2010/wind-turbine-syndrome-pierpont/?var=wts>.

Pierpont, Nina. "Wind Turbine Syndrome | Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Twenty-Minute Crash Course."Wind Turbine Syndrome. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2012. <http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/2012/wind-turbine-syndrome-a-twenty-minute-crash-course/?

"Wind Energy Development and Its Environmental Impact: A Review."ScienceDirect.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2012. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032111004746>.

 

By gpica | Posted in Research findings | Comments (0)

Wind Turbine May Cause Serious Health Issues

December 3, 2012 at 12:53 am

Wenyuan Yin

Ek132

Wind energy is a clean energy that can be converted into wind power of which wind turbines is the most useful method to make electrical power. Compared to fossil fuels, wind power has obvious advantages. For example, wind power is renewable, plentiful, widely distributed and does not emit green house gases[1]. The wind power is being widely used and developing throughout the world. The net generation of electricity from wind turbines in the United States keeps increasing since 2006 (Figure 1). Generation from wind turbines increased 27% in 2011 compared to 2010 with a continuing a trend of rapid growth in the United States[2] and wind energy production is growing at a high rate of 25% per annum. Moreover, the monetary cost per unit of energy produced is similar to the cost for new coal and natural gas installations, which means that wind power installation is no less economy than the traditional ones. Despite the significant environmental benefits of wind turbine energy has, there are potentially very dangerous health impacts that may caused by wind turbines, which may be the most controversial aspect of the use of wind power around the world.

 graph of U.S. net generation from wind, 2006-2011, as described in the article text
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly.

Ice throw is one of the health impact of wind turbine. The Wisbech Standard reports that during winter in a small town of England, wind turbine almost turned into weapon. “Lumps of ice three or four feet long flew through the air” and smashed into a carpet showroom and a parking lot. Although no one was hurt in this accident, this small town will forever be  terrified during winter with huge wind turbine up in the air[3]. A swiss report researched a turbine near a ski area in Swiss and found out that “The most dangerous place for ice was underneath the turbine, but about 5 percent of fragments landed more than 80 meters — or 260 feet — from the turbine.” Figure 2 shows the Distribution of ice throw relative to the wind turbine. (Source: Wind Turbine Ice Throw Studies in the Swiss Alps).

Chart
Distribution of ice throw relative to the wind turbine. (Source: Wind Turbine Ice Throw Studies in the Swiss Alps)

Moreover, industrial wind turbines cause load noises that could cause sleep loss. A study called “Effects of Industrial Wind Turbine Noise on Sleep and Health” claimed that “The levels of sleep disruption and the daytime consequences of increased sleepiness, together with the impairment of mental health … strongly suggest that the noise from IWTs [industrial wind turbines] results in similar health impacts as other causes of excessive environmental noise,” “The degree of effect on sleep and health from IWT noise seems to be greater than that of other sources of environmental noise, such as, road, rail and aircraft noise.”  The study also suggested that the wind noise problem of the wind turbine may cause severe health issue for those who live near them. About 25% of those living closer to the turbines are reported having depression or anxiety since the turbines began spinning while outer group samples showed no these problems. [4]

In the research of Dr. Nina Pierpont of New York, a series of syndroms that people living closer to the wind turbine is called "wind turbine syndrome" and it is determined that its primary cause is the effect of low-frequency wind turbine noise on the organs of the inner ear. [5]

 References

1. Fthenakis, V.; Kim, H. C. (2009). "Land use and electricity generation: A life-cycle analysis". Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13 (6–7): 1465. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2008.09.017

2. “U.S. wind generation increased 27% in 2011.” March 12, 2012, http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=5350#

3. Nick Sambides Jr. “Industrial wind turbines could cause sleep loss, study claims” Bangor Daily News. November 27, 2012. http://www.sunjournal.com/news/farm/2012/11/27/industrial-wind-turbines-could-cause-sleep-loss-st/1286367

4. Galbraith, Kate. “Ice-Tossing Turbines: Myth or Hazard?” The New York Times. December 9, 2008. http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/ice-tossing-turbines-myth-or-hazard/

5. “Noise and Health Effects of Large Wind Turbines.” National Wind Watch, Inc. Oct. 25, 2006. http://www.wind-watch.org/ww-noise-health.php

6.  “Wind Power” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power

7.  Independent Expert Panel of Massachusetts Government. “Wind Turbine Health Impact Study” MassGov. January 2012. http://www.mass.gov/dep/energy/wind/turbine_impact_study.pdf

8.  Sangrillo, Mike. “Home-Sized Wind Turbines and Flying Ice.” Windletter. Volume 22, Issue No. 6, June 2003. http://www.renewwisconsin.org/wind/Toolbox-Fact%20Sheets/Ice%20shedding.pdf

By ywy | Posted in Research findings, Uncategorized | Comments (0)

Wind Turbine Placement: Rural vs. Industrialized

December 2, 2012 at 5:25 pm

Jeremy Lee

Today, wind energy is one of the fastest growing renewable energy sources in the world. By creating a source of electricity without the air pollution of fossil fuels, wind energy has provided a feasible, “clean” way to power homes and other electronics across the world. From 2000 to 2009 alone, wind energy capacity and generation increased by more than 1348% and 1164% respectively, with no other energy source even doubling during this time period3. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory estimates that wind energy could supply around 20% of the United States’ electricity1, which is only going to increase as time goes by and advancements in wind turbine technology are made. However, wind energy is not without its disadvantages as there are various claims concerning the negative impacts that turbines have on the health of both the human population (ex: annoyance with turbine noise, injuries from transportation) and the natural environment (ex: bird/bat fatalities, destruction of natural habitats). With the emergence of these concerns comes the problem of how to plan the placement of wind turbines/farms. The question of whether rural areas or industrialized areas are better sites for wind farms has become a serious topic of debate. Only through examining the advantages and disadvantages of each area can a conclusion be drawn.

Rural areas have become a popular site for wind farm construction, due mainly to the fact that these areas are scarcely populated. Currently, one of the most significant problems with wind turbines is that they make enough noise to disrupt people that live around them. Although wind turbines cannot be linked to any specific health conditions, it has been shown that the noise they produce can both annoy and prevent sleep for neighboring residences. In three separate studies described by Eja Pedersen (Two in Sweden and one in the Netherlands), no relationship could be found between turbine noise and serious health conditions such as diabetes or high blood pressure, but there was a consistent correlation between the noise and elevated levels of annoyance in the people living close to the turbines7. Placing turbines in less populated areas greatly reduces this problem, as there are less people around to be bothered by the noise. Another advantage of placing wind turbines in rural areas is that in the event of a turbine collapse or the hurling of ice by the turbine blades, there is a reduced chance of serious property damage or human injury because there are not many buildings or people within striking distance4. Essentially, having turbines away from industrialized areas minimizes the negative effects of turbines on human health. However, this benefit comes at the expense of the health of the environment. Placing turbines out in the landscape can greatly disrupt natural habitats for various animals as well as harm bats, birds, and other animals in the area3. Wind turbines are responsible for about 28,500 bird fatalities per year6. The turbines can also obscure natural landscapes, resulting in possible losses of tourism as well as natural beauty in surrounding areas5.  At the same time, turbines far away from the general population create increased expenses for both the transportation of the wind turbines themselves (Between $100,000 and $150,000 for transport per turbine2) and the connection of turbines to power grids in order to transport electricity produced. Basically, locating wind farms in rural areas benefits human health at the cost of the environment and increased expenses.

On the other hand, constructing wind farms in industrialized/highly populated areas has a different set of pros and cons. One obvious advantage of having wind turbines in industrialized areas as opposed to in rural areas is that the turbines have less of an impact on the natural environment and landscape. By placing turbines in urban areas, natural environments and landscapes are left untouched and animal habitats are unharmed. Another advantage of having turbines in industrial areas is that less transmission infrastructure is required to connect the turbines to power grids because the distance between the two is reduced. In other words, the turbines are very near to where the electricity they generate is being used which cuts down on the cost of transporting the electricity5. However, although the advantages make industrial areas appear to be very attractive locations for wind turbines, there are also many disadvantages to putting turbines in these areas. One of the biggest disadvantages of placing turbines near the population is that the noise from the turbines becomes a concern for people. In one study done in Vydmantai, it was proposed that the sounds from busy motorways could be used to mask the noise from nearby wind turbines5, but a second study done by Eja Pedersen, Frits V. Berg, Roel Bakker, and Jelte Bouma showed that the sounds of traffic may not mask this noise very well. In the second study, traffic sounds only masked the turbine noises when the turbine noise was moderate (~35-40dB) and the traffic sounds were much larger (traffic sounds had to be 20dB greater than turbine noise for masking to work)8. A second disadvantage of having turbines closer to the general population is that property damage and human injury can be great if turbines collapse3. This along with the noise of the turbines could also decrease the market value of neighboring homes and dwellings, which would upset a great deal of landowners4.  Turbine transportation through industrialized areas can be hazardous to human health as well due to the immense size of the turbine parts (ex: Turbines can reach heights greater than 250 feet2). For example, in 2008 a woman was killed in Minnesota when her car collided with a truck carrying a turbine2.This clearly shows that placing turbines in industrialized areas can be a liability for human well-being.

By comparing the advantages and disadvantages of rural areas and industrialized areas as sites for wind farm construction, it appears that rural areas are currently the more logical location for wind turbines. Although turbines have the potential to disrupt natural environments and landscapes, they put people at a lower risk for annoyance from turbine noise and injury from turbine failure when placed in rural areas as opposed to industrialized areas. Placing turbines in industrialized areas doesn’t even make sense economically, as surrounding property values are decreased and repairs for property damages caused by the turbines can be costly. Because human health and well-being are major priorities, placing turbines in industrialized areas is not a viable option for now.

 

 

References

1Chockalingam, Siva. “Wind Energy Basics.” GE Wind. GE Energy. 23 June 2009.  Web. 28

November 2012.

<http://www.geenergy.com/content/multimedia/_files/downloads/wind_energ

y_basics.pdf>

 

2Galbraith, Kate. “Slow, Costly, and Often Dangerous Road to Wind Power.” The New

York Times. 22 July 2009. 27 November 2012.        <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/business/energyenvironment/23turbine.html?_r=0>

 

3Heintzelman, Martin D., and Carrie M. Tuttle. "Values in the Wind: A Hedonic Analysis

of Wind Power Facilities." Land Economics 88.3 (2012): 571-88. Environment

Complete. Web. 27 Nov. 2012. <http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.bu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?     vid=3&hid=110&sid=cfecad54-331c-4143-ad55-b679b3f30f12%40sessionmgr104>.

 

4Lansink, Ben. "Diminution in Value - Wind Turbine Analysis  ." National Wind Watch.

N.p., 2 Oct. 2012. Web. 28 Nov. 2012. <http://www.wind-

watch.org/documents/diminution-in-value-wind-turbine-analysis/>.

 

5Lina, Zukiene, Kanapickas Arvydas, and Zukas Simas. "Spectrum Analysis of Wind

Turbine Noise in Vydmantai." Ekologija 57.4 (2011): 81-85. Environme Complete.

Web. 26 Nov. 2012. <http://http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.bu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?       vid=5&hid=119&sid=652e3d0d-63ab-4980-995e-72d8a2a4bb6f%40sessionmgr114>.

 

6"Onshore." Wind Energy: The Facts. Intelligent Energy Europe. Web. 27 Nov. 2012.

7Pedersen, Eja. "Health Aspects Associated with Wind Turbine Noise—Results from

Three Field Studies." Noise Control Engineering Journal 59.1 (2011): 48-52.

Environment Complete. Web. 26 Nov. 2012. <http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.bu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?    sid=9ad741b9-f9db-47e9-ab17-6559647f0dbc%40sessionmgr114&vid=4&hid=110>.

 

8Pedersen, Eja, Frits V. Berg, Roel Bakker, and Jelte Bouma. "Can Road Traffic Mask

Sound from Wind Turbines? Response to Wind Turbine Sound at Different Levels of Road Traffic Sound." Energy Policy 38.5      (2010): 2520-527. Environment Complete. Web. 26 Nov. 2012.

<http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.bu.edu/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=106&sid=4

64e5340-ee3e-4421-ad61-dbeb05a504c9%40sessionmgr114&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=eih&AN=48598526>

 

 

By jlee730 | Posted in Research findings | Comments (0)

Germany vs. France: Public Policy on Wind Energy

November 28, 2012 at 7:35 pm

How France can learn from Germany’s wind energy success

Take a look at energy production in Germany and it is clear that wind energy has been developed with great success.  The puzzling thing is that France, a neighbor to Germany, has not experienced the same level of success in wind energy development.  Taking a deep look at public policy between the two nations explains how the two have had such different experiences in creating greater wind energy capacity.

Germany is a world leader when it comes to wind energy production.  Germany’s wind energy capacity was expected to be around 25,730 mega-watts by the end of 2009. 2 France on the other hand isn’t making the strides for increased wind energy production as Germany has demonstrated success in.  The French government set up goals comparable Germany to increase wind energy production.  However, Germany has exceeded the expectations set by the goals of their government whereas France will miss its aim.  France has realized that they will fall short of their 2020 target of 23% total domestic energy production from renewable energy (including wind power) compared to last year’s 13% capacity. 5 What is Germany doing that has allowed them to not only reach their goals, but blast them out of the water?

In the scope of public policy, Germany is far more catering to incentivize wind energy growth than France.  Actually, both attempted similar policy, but Germany was more aggressive.  The main policy that both nations used in hopes to incentivize development of more wind energy production is called a feed-in tariff.  With a feed-in tariff, the government pays a set rate to wind energy producers for every kilowatt-hour produced.  For example in this year, 2012, the feed-in tariff rate for a startup German wind energy producer is 8.93 euro cents per kilowatt-hour.  This rate is for startup production, and decreases annually at 1.5%.3 At the introduction of such a generous feed-in tariff rates in Germany, very large increases in wind power capacity occurred.  In fact, the slow development in France can be explained by their tariffs being too low.8 Though the feed-in tariffs in Germany have worked greatly to promote increased wind power capacity, it opens a concern about the expense being burdened on the taxpayers.  The reality though is that “the construction of the subsidy regime was very successful because it distributed the costs to the entire population, where they were diluted so strongly that no opposition could be organized.”4

Perhaps France is using Germany as a lesson.  They may fear becoming more dependent on wind energy since wind power is so variable.  In fact, Germany’s actual wind energy output averages around 17% of their total wind power capacity.1 Truth is though, the real reason is that the manner in which wind energy development is administered is different between the two nations.  “In France, we have a centralized state and centralized energy production, so everything goes in the same top down direction, countering action from local communities wanting to develop their own projects.”7 In Germany, the energy sector is not centralized.  Being the nature of energy administration in Germany, it doesn’t hinder growth because it allows individuals and states to develop their own wind power.  The generous feed-in tariff in Germany motivates private investment in wind power.  “Most of Germany's development is in small, dispersed projects owned by individuals and private operating pools, not owned by utilities.”6 The power of private investment in wind power incentivized by the aggressive feed-in tariff explains the success that Germany has had with wind power.

Europe as a whole has made great strides in developing renewable energy.  Both France and Germany are in the works of increasing renewable energy production.  France has suffered a staggeringly slow development specifically in wind power.  Germany on the other hand has effectively made themselves champions of wind energy development.  It would be wise of France to take a look at Germany’s wind energy development policy as a model for their own country.  France would realize that Germany is making the move forward to incentivize national growth in wind energy output with their aggressively successful policymaking.

 

 

Works Cited

 

1. Booker, Christopher. "Germany's Wind Power Chaos Should Be a Warning to the UK." Editorial. The Telegraph. N.p., 22 Sept. 2012. Web. 19 Nov. 2012. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9559656/Germanys-wind-power-chaos-should-be-a-warning-to-the-UK.html>.

2. Bruns, Elke. "Wind Power Generation in Germany -- a Transdisciplinary View on the Innovation Biography." EBSCOhost. EBSCO, 2011. Web. 25 Nov. 2012.

3. "The German Feed-in Tariff: Recent Policy Changes." Deutsche Bank Research (2012): n. pag. Web. <http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000294376/The+German+Feed-in+Tariff%3A+Recent+Policy+Changes.pdf>.

4. "The German Wind Energy Lobby: How to Promote Costly Technological Change Successfully." EBSCOhost. EBSCO, 2005. Web. 25 Nov. 20121.

5. Patel, Tara. "France Will Miss 2020 Offshore Wind Capacity Target, EDF Says." Businessweek.com. Bloomberg, 13 July 2012. Web. 19 Nov. 2012. <http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-18/france-will-miss-2020-offshore-wind-capacity-target-edf-says>.

6. "Renewable Energy Report: WIND POWER." EBSCOhost. EBSCO, 2004. Web. 25 Nov. 2012.

7. Rose, Michel. "France Needs More Local Power for Green Energy Shift." Www.reuters.com. N.p., 14 Nov. 2012. Web. 19 Nov. 2012. <http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/14/france-renewables-state-idUSL5E8MC9DG20121114>.

8. Szarka, Joseph. "Why Is There No Wind Rush in France?" EBSCOhost. EBSCO, Sept.-Oct. 2007. Web. 26 Nov. 2012.

 

By kammerer | Posted in Research findings | Comments (0)

Island Wind Energy and Virginia’s Public Policy

November 28, 2012 at 6:23 pm

Why wind energy?  The simple answer is the growing need for renewable energy sources and the move away from burning fossil fuels.  A better question would be: On shore or offshore wind turbines?  According to figure 1, the potential for offshore energy far exceeds the potential for onshore energy and at some point it may even be possible to meet Europe’s energy demand in 2010 using 40 m offshore wind turbines.

Figure 1: The potential amount of energy in TWh, onshore and offshore at different depths, compared to energy demand in Europe. Source (2)

One of the reasons offshore turbines have a greater energy potential is the quality of wind offshore compared to on land. The farther from the coast, the stronger the winds are and in addition, offshore winds are less turbulent and more consistent, leading to less fatigue suffered by the turbine.  One of the benefits of offshore turbines is their distance from the shore.  Most people do not want to live near turbines due to turbines being an eye-sore, the noise they make, the shadow flickering they cause and the potential dangers of ice throw. (4)

There are however, several disadvantages to offshore wind energy.  “While in onshore applications, the evaluation of wind resources in a specific site is straightforward and well established, direct measurements at sea are more difficult and much more expensive.” (1)  75% of the cost of an onshore turbine project is spent on the turbine itself, whereas only 33% of the project cost is spent on the turbine itself for an offshore project.  (2) And although the turbine would be offshore away from land, there are still many who oppose it, “Some concerned citizens contend that offshore wind farms mar the natural beauty of the coastline, interfere with fishing, diminish property values, damage recreation and tourism, and harm marine wildlife and migratory birds” (3)

To get a better understanding of public opinion of the view of offshore wind turbines, Ian D. Bishop and David R. Miller conducted a survey analyzing the effects of wind turbines on the view of coastal waters.  Respondents were shown 6 computer generated images of a number of wind turbines offshore at different depths and viewing conditions.  Then were asked to rate each picture from 1-5, 1 being enhancing the view and 5 being detracting from the view, 3 being neutral.

Figure 2: Computer generated images of turbines at different depths and viewing conditions

“Average impact scores ranged from 3.08 to 4.11.  The neutral position was 3 so in every case the turbines were judged to detract from the view.  Overall about 11.6% of responses were positive. On the other hand, 51.1% of all responses were negative.” (5)  The responses were clear, turbines offshore detracted from the beauty of the coastline.

This leads to another, less looked at option, island wind energy.  The possibilities of Island wind energy are very broad; having the advantages of offshore wind energy without the disadvantages.  The only disadvantage unique to this concept would be the difficulty in setting up underwater transmission of energy back to the continent. Not counting Hawaii and the Great Lakes, the US has roughly 1300 islands, almost half of them uninhabited.  Although that is only 0.003 percent of the US’s land area, the 0.003 constitutes 10,612 square miles, which is plenty of land to establish island wind energy as a major source of the nation’s power. (3)

The many advantages of harnessing island wind energy include the total isolation of wind turbines from the population, meaning that no one could complain about them detracting from the beauty of the coastline, the turbines could not harm the marine wild life and the island would serve as a flat platform which would not require careful examination of the sea bed.  The US could then use its extensive knowledge of onshore turbines to construct these island turbines.

The state with the best prospects for a successful implementation of island wind energy would be Virginia.  “According to a recent survey, the state of Virginia possesses offshore wind potential 16 times greater than the amount of wind potential on land (as much as 32,000 MW offshore compared to 1960 MW onshore).  The state boasts Class 6+ wind-energy resources located within 10–15 miles of the shoreline (Fig. 3).” (3)

Figure 3: Wind resource map of shoreline of Virginia. (Source 7)

Of more importance, specifically, are the Virginia barrier islands.  These islands exist close to growing centers of electricity demand such as Richmond, Norfolk, and Washington, DC, making sure that there is always use for the energy and that it doesn’t have to travel far, making it easier to implement. (3)

Figure 4: Map of the Virginia Barrier Islands (Source 6)

A policy is defined as the planning, choices and actions of one or multiple authorities aimed at governing a certain societal development. (8) Luckily, Virginia already has some public policy support of wind energy, through the Virginia Energy Plan, which states that Virginia should ‘‘support federal efforts to examine the feasibility of off-shore wind energy being utilized in an environmentally responsible fashion.’ (3)   Since 2010, there have been a number of onshore and offshore wind energy projects, but no specific mention of projects being started on the Virginia barrier islands.   The Virginia barrier islands should not be overlooked and must be seriously considered when it comes to wind energy projects.  The Virginia government should abandon onshore projects and push for new island wind energy projects in the barrier islands, perhaps through tax incentives.  Section 6 of the Virginia Energy plan states that the Virginia Coastal Energy Research Consortium has completed two years of study on offshore wind energy.  (7) The research consortium should stop studying offshore wind energy and start studying island wind energy so that projects in the Virginia Islands can begin sooner.

 

Works Cited.

1. D. Karamanis, C. Tsabaris, K. Stamoulis, D. Georgopoulos, Wind energy resources in the Ionian Sea, Renewable Energy, Volume 36, Issue 2, February 2011, Pages 815-822, ISSN 0960-1481, 10.1016/j.renene.2010.08.007.

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148110003629)

2. M. Dolores Esteban, J. Javier Diez, Jose S. López, Vicente Negro, Why offshore wind energy?, Renewable Energy, Volume 36, Issue 2, February 2011, Pages 444-450, ISSN 0960-1481, 10.1016/j.renene.2010.07.009.

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148110003332)

3. Benjamin K. Sovacool, Richard F. Hirsh, Island wind-hydrogen energy: A significant potential US resource, Renewable Energy, Volume 33, Issue 8, August 2008, Pages 1928-1935, ISSN 0960-1481, 10.1016/j.renene.2007.12.006.

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148107003825)

4. Independent Expert Panel of Massachusetts Government. “Wind Turbine Health Impact Study” MassGov. January 2012.

http://www.mass.gov/dep/energy/wind/turbine_impact_study.pdf

5. Ian D. Bishop, David R. Miller, Visual assessment of off-shore wind turbines: The influence of distance, contrast, movement and social variables, Renewable Energy, Volume 32, Issue 5, April 2007, Pages 814-831, ISSN 0960-1481, 10.1016/j.renene.2006.03.009.

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148106000838)

6. Figure 3: Map of the Virginia Barrier Islands on http://www.peregrinefalcon-bcaw.net/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=149

7. Governor Robert McDonnell. Section 6 of the 2010 Virginia Energy Plan

http://www.dmme.virginia.gov/DE/VAEnergyPlan/2010-VEP/Section6.pdf

8. Thijs Smit, Martin Junginger, Ruud Smits, Technological learning in offshore wind energy: Different roles of the government, Energy Policy, Volume 35, Issue 12, December 2007, Pages 6431-6444, ISSN 0301-4215, 10.1016/j.enpol.2007.08.011.

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421507003667)

 

 

 

By Henry Liang | Posted in Research findings | Comments (1)

The Growing Need For Wind Energy in the United States

November 28, 2012 at 5:41 pm

Jarrod Macullar

EK 132

Professor Grace

26 November 2012

 

The population of the United States and of the entire world is growing quite rapidly, and there is no disputing the fact that in the near future there is going to be a greater demand for energy than there is now. To meet this energy demand more fossil fuels can be used, however the use of more fossil fuels will increase the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. With the use of wind energy along with other renewable energy resources, this increased demand can be met without the unnecessary addition of pollutants to the atmosphere.

The United States does not currently have any sort of federal standard for the buyback of excess wind energy produced by a home owner or small business owner, and this needs to change. In Massachusetts anyone who sells excess energy produced with the use of a wind turbine back into the grid can receive up to $5.20 per watt. (Massachusetts) However, in many states it is not even possible for someone to sell excess energy back to a local power company. Every state should be required to have some policy regarding excess energy buyback. The idea of being able to make a profit while simultaneously powering your home for free is alluring to many people, and if all states were to have a way for individuals to sell back excess energy there would without a doubt be more interest in renewable energy. A man named Carl Baldino, who is a plant manager in Philadelphia, is able to make a profit of $3,000 per year by simply selling excess energy back to his local power company (Gangemi).  Not only does Baldino make a sizeable profit, he also powers his home for free, if every state had a way for people to sell back excess energy that they produced through renewable means there would be many more people like Carl Baldino.

Along with a standard for the buyback of excess energy produced through renewable sources, the United States also needs to develop a power grid that is connected to all of the land based states (CleanTechnica). A power grid that connected all of the states would not only ensure that all states always have access to energy that has been produced by wind, it would ensure that every person who wishes to sell excess energy back into the grid would be able to.

Currently about 1% of electricity needs in the United States are met through the use of wind energy. (Logan) However, wind energy is slowly becoming more prevalent in the United States, and by 2020 the U.S Department of Energy hopes to have 6% of all electricity come from wind energy. (Leithead) With goals such as this it is obvious that it is imperative for the United States to improve policy regarding energy buy-back, and it is also imperative for a better interstate grid system to be put into place.

Along with trying to persuade individuals to invest in small scale wind turbines, the government of the United States should also focus on creating more large scale wind farms nation-wide. There are still ten states that do not have any major wind farms, and this is ridiculous. (AWEA) Wind is available in large quantities without any sort of limitation; it makes no sense that 20% of this country is not taking advantage of a free resource. Currently the United States is producing around 52,000 MW of wind energy, and 8,000 MW are currently under construction. (Installed Wind Capacity) Yes this is an impressive number; however there is certainly room for more wind energy to be produced.

In summary, in order to produce large amounts of energy to meet demands in the future, the Federal Government of the United States needs to implement a nation-wide excess-energy buyback program to persuade people to produce renewable energy, needs to work on establishing a nation-wide grid system, and needs to focus on erecting more large scale wind farms.

 

Works Cited

"AWEA - American Wind Energy Association." Industry Statistics. N.p., 18 Oct. 2012. Web. 28 Nov. 2012. <http://www.awea.org/learnabout/industry_stats/index.cfm>.

"CleanTechnica." CleanTechnica. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Nov. 2012. <http://cleantechnica.com/2009/09/12/us-must-socialize-grid-to-add-renewable-energy-study-finds/>.

 

Gangemi, Jeffrey. "Selling Power Back to the Grid." Bloomberg Business Week. Http://www.businessweek.com, 05 July 2006. Web. 28 Nov. 2012.

"Installed Wind Capacity." Wind Powering America: U.S. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Nov. 2012. <http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_installed_capacity.asp>.

Leithead, W.E. "Wind Energy." Wind Energy. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Nov. 2012. <http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1853/957.full>.

Liu, Wenyi, Zhenfeng Wang, Jiguang Han, and Guangfeng Wang. "Wind Turbine Fault Diagnosis Method Based on Diagonal Specturm and Clustering Binary Tree SVM." Sciencedirect.com. Sciencedirect.com, n.d. Web. 28 Nov. 2012. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148112003631>.

Logan, Jeffrey, and Stan Mark Kaplan. "Wind Power in the United States: Technology, Economic, and Policy Issues." Http://www.fas.org. Congressional Research Service, 20 June 2008. Web. 28 Nov. 2012. <http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34546.pdf>.

"Massachusetts." DSIRE USA. DSIRE USA, n.d. Web. 26 Nov. 2012. <http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=MA22F>.

 

 

 

 

 

By jmac94 | Posted in Research findings | Comments (0)

The Role of Public Policy

November 28, 2012 at 5:04 pm

Countries like China, the United States, and Germany have risen above others in terms of wind capacity; likewise, Texas and Iowa have much higher installed wind capacity than South Carolina and Alabama [1,7,9]. What is the reason for these differences? Variations in public policy certainly help to explain why some states and countries have more installed wind capacity, but is legislation always the sole parameter in wind energy development?

Read More »

By Jeff Chen | Posted in Research findings | Comments (0)

Stronger Public Policy Needed in Massachusetts for Offshore Wind

November 28, 2012 at 4:51 pm

Paul Moy

Professor Grace

EK132: Wind Energy

28 November 2012

Stronger Public Policy Needed in Massachusetts for Offshore Wind

Despite the potential for a large amount of offshore wind farms, the United States lags far behind the rest of the world in offshore wind production. In fact, only a single offshore wind farm has gained both state and federal approval, along with a lease and construction plan. However, this Cape Wind project in Massachusetts remains a long way from becoming operational, and construction has yet to begin. The project was reviewed four separate times under two different presidents, and opposition continues from several government officials, including Massachusetts’ own senator Scott Brown (Colman). Massachusetts needs stronger policies and incentives to support offshore wind farms if this project and any future projects hope to come to fruition. Europe serves as a model for the development of offshore wind farms, pioneering offshore wind power in Denmark and continuing to lead the way in countries such as Spain. Several obvious policy differences can be seen between these countries, successful in developing offshore wind capabilities, and Massachusetts. While the comparisons between European countries and an individual state seem strange, the United States' system of separate federal and state governments leaves at least part of the responsibility for the development of offshore wind to the states, and so new policies must originate within these states to promote offshore wind energy.

The development of wind energy, while advantageous in its nature as renewable energy, shares the problem of all new technology: cost. Forty to fifty years of development are necessary before wind energy becomes commercially viable in a location (Meyer). This development will only succeed if there is a “higher willingness to pay for its performance advantages” (Wilson). For the most part, individuals and corporations do not have the necessary funds to pay higher rates for developing wind energy, so government support is essential. Offshore wind energy requires additional help, above and beyond that of land-based wind energy, because of the special complications due to salt, wind, and waves damaging the turbines. Denmark, the world pioneer in wind energy, made special provisions for offshore wind development, leading to a rapid growth until political instability and changing policies brought the growth to a standstill (Meyer). Spain then took over in wind power development, because of its status as a country “with larger exploitable wind resources and with higher electricity demands” than Denmark (Lewis). Massachusetts shares these important qualities, with population centers such as Boston using large amounts of electricity and the potential for 1,028 MW of wind energy, although only 64 MW are currently online. The proposed Cape Wind project would be 468MW, almost ten times the total amount of wind power now generated in Massachusetts (“Wind Power”).

The discrepancy between Spain’s and Massachusetts’ use of their respective available wind lies in Spain’s “stable, supportive government policies” (Lewis). Although many financial incentives exist for the development of renewable energy in Massachusetts, there are no provisions specifically for offshore wind projects. Instead, some of the wind-energy provisions apply to only land-based machines, such as the Commonwealth Wind Commercial Wind Program (“Massachusetts”). Although companies would already lean towards the cheaper land-based operations, bypassing the problems of installing and maintaining offshore wind farms, the lack of incentives for developing offshore wind also makes land-based operations more appealing. Germany, another country successful in developing offshore wind farms, has supportive policies similar to Spain’s. Not only does the German government guarantee that 100% of the renewable energy generated will be purchased at a minimum price by public grids, but it also has a policy in place to “speed up repayment of investment in offshore wind farms” with a feed-in tariff model (Kaya). Without similar measures, Massachusetts will not succeed in developing offshore wind farms.

Massachusetts is making strides towards developing offshore wind farms. Governor Patrick has “set an aggressive goal of having 2,000 megawatts of wind energy – most coming from offshore – by 2020” (Cassidy). According to Meyer, setting goals is an important step in developing new energy sources, and Governor Patrick’s statement demanding offshore wind energy should galvanize lawmakers and energy companies alike to take advantage of Massachusetts’ huge offshore wind potential. However, for this goal to become reality, Massachusetts needs more structured, supportive public policy to catalyze the offshore wind development. With the current public policy, the Cape Wind project has come to a standstill, uncertain of whether or not its energy will be purchased or passed over in favor of cheaper alternatives. Future projects face the same problems, including lengthy reviews and strong opposition, unless Massachusetts changes its policies to promote offshore wind development.

Works Cited

Cassidy, Patrick. “Massachusetts Offshore Wind Leases May Come by End of 2013.” Huff Post Green. The Huffington Post,    November 2012. Web. 19 November 2012.

Colman, Zack. “Long-delayed offshore wind farm gets approval despite political pushback.” Energy & Environment Blog. The Hill, 16 August 2012. Web. 19 November 2012.

Kaya, Durmus and Fatma Canka Kilic. “Renewable Energies and Their Subsidies in Turkey and some EU Countries- Germany as a Special Example.” J. Int. Environmental Application & Science. Volume 7, Issue 1, pages 114-127. n.p., 8 February 2012. Web. 26 November 2012.

Lewis, Joanna and Ryan Wiser. “Fostering a Renewable Energy Technology Industry: An International Comparison of Wind Industry Policy Support Mechanisms.” Energy Policy. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, November 2005. Web. 19 November 2012.

“Massachusetts: Incentives/Policies for Renewables & Efficiency.” DSIRE: Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency. Interstate Renewable Energy Council, 2011. Web. 19 November 2012.

Meyer, Niels. “Learning from Wind Energy Policy in the EU: Lessons from Denmark, Sweden and Spain.” European Environment. Volume 17, Issue 5. Wiley Online Library, 27 September 2007. Web. 19 November 2012.

Wilson, Charlie and Arnulf Grubler. “Lessons from the history of technological chance for clean energy scenarios and policies.” Natural Resources Forum. Volume 35, Issue 3, pages 165-184. Wiley Online Library, 21 June 2011. Web. 26 November 2012.

“Wind Power Creates Economic Development in Massachusetts.” Wind Energy Facts: Massachusetts. American Wind Energy Association, October 2012. Web. 19 November 2012.

By pmoy | Posted in Research findings | Comments (0)

Ice-Throw Risk Mitigation

November 28, 2012 at 4:10 pm

Lindsey Chew

Professor Grace

EK132 Intro to Wind Energy

11/28/12

Wind energy is one of the fastest growing electric power sources in the United States. Massachusetts alone produces over 90MW of land-based wind power capacity and plans to install wind turbines to produce 2000MW of energy by 2020. 1000MW of wind power can offset 2.6 million tons of CO2 (5). Wind energy is also now competitively priced, offering an advantage over coal solutions because of its clean-burning nature. Despite the obvious environmental benefits of using wind turbines to produce energy, the potentially dangerous health effects of placing these turbines within public view and hearing have raised social unrest and concern. One negative health effect of wind turbines is ice throw; however, the risks of ice throw are preventable. I believe that the government should continue to support wind turbine construction despite ice throw possibilities.

Ice throw is a possible risk that poses a threat to surrounding residents of a wind turbine field. In areas of cold climate, ice can accumulate on turbine blades and break off the machine with drops in temperature, unexpectedly. In the small town of Whittlesey, England December 2008, “lumps of three or four feet long flew through the air,” into a carpet showroom and parking lot due to wind turbine ice throw. Residents described ice shards as “javelins” (2). The wind industry, however, rebuts with the fact that all tall structures such as skyscrapers, trees, utility poles, roofs and cell phone towers will develop ice that can fall and injure observers down below (7).  The case of Whittlesey wind turbines is abnormal and could have been prevented with proper safety measures.

The effects and amounts of ice throw produced by a wind turbine are predictable, depending on its location, height, and blade length. In most cases, ice falls within a radius of the tower equal to the tower height, and rarely exceeds total height (tower height plus blade length) (4). Also, wind power generation facilities in southern regions have warm climates that preclude the issue of ice (3). The energy company GE lists specific guidelines that must be implemented in order to reduce dangers of ice throw, such as using the formula (1.5 * (hub height + rotor diameter)) to calculate a safe distance, place warning signs near wind turbine range, remotely switch off turbine site personnel detect ice accumulation, and restricting direct physical access to turbines by workers and the public (9).

In Wisconsin, precautions have been implemented for determining the risk of turbine location. An estimate should be made of the time (days per year) in which icing conditions occur at the turbine site to determine the risk of construction in that area. In Wisconsin, they categorized “heavy icing” as more than 5 days, less than 25 days, “moderate icing” as more than 1 day, less than 5 days, “light icing” as less than 1 day per year, and “no icing” as warm climate areas where no icing would occur (7). Sites for wind turbines can then be chosen from the “light” to “no icing” categories.

The town of Arkwright in New York has taken precautions against ice-shedding such as turbine-shut-down, in which ice that accumulates on rotor blades will cause a weight imbalance, automatically turning off the turbine motors. Once the ice melts, the turbine can only be turned back on by a worker (10). Turbine shut-down mechanisms can prevent issues of ice throw.

Heating the blade’s surface is another option. Active anti-icing systems include electrical resistance heating (heating a membrane on the blade’s surface) and indirect heating of the surface (using a radiator from the inside of the blade). In 1996, Yukon Energy painted their blades with a Teflon-like material called StaClean, a highly slick substance that ice tended to fall off of. This is an example of a passive anti-icing system (1).

Remote monitoring and operating is now required in the wind energy industry; all commercial machines have ultrasonic vibration sensors which automatically shut down turbines when ice is detected at a pre-set level (detecting 40-70kHz frequencies). Devices having heating elements that switch on at shut-down level are also desirable. Icing rate is important to take into account to note the efficiency of location and long-term usage of the turbine (8).

Successful wind turbine sites in Wisconsin and New York, as well as anti-icing mechanisms have worked in the past, an indication that ice throw issues can be mitigated. The government should allow for the construction of wind turbines, as long as they maintain safety measures and precautions such as guidelines as to calculate a safe distance from residential areas, determining the risk of ice accumulation at the site region, shut-down mechanisms, remote monitoring and operating systems and active/passive anti-icing systems. The benefits of implementing wind energy for the sake of the environment and clean energy usage are worth taking the extra precautions.

 

Works Cited

 

1. Carriveau, R; Dalili, N; Edrisy, A. “A Review of Surface Engineering Issues Critical to Wind Turbine Performance.” Elsevier. Vol. 13 Issue 2, February 2009, pages 428-438.

http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.bu.edu/science/article/pii/S1364032107001554

2. Galbraith, Kate. “Ice-Tossing Turbines: Myth or Hazard?” The New York Times. December 9, 2008. http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/ice-tossing-turbines-myth-or-hazard/.

3. “Ice Throw.” Blue Highlands Citizens Coalition. 2004. http://www.bhcc.ca/ice_throw.htm.

4. Independent Expert Panel of Massachusetts Government. “Wind Turbine Health Impact Study” MassGov. January 2012.

http://www.mass.gov/dep/energy/wind/turbine_impact_study.pdf

5. “Land-based Wind Energy: A Guide to Understanding the Issues and Making Informed Decisions.” CLF Ventures. June 2011.

http://www.clfventures.org/wp-content/uploads/Wind_Guide.pdf

6. “Noise and Health Effects of Large Wind Turbines.” National Wind Watch, Inc. Oct. 25, 2006. http://www.wind-watch.org/ww-noise-health.php.

7. Sangrillo, Mike. “Home-Sized Wind Turbines and Flying Ice.” Windletter. Volume 22, Issue No. 6, June 2003.

http://www.renewwisconsin.org/wind/Toolbox-Fact%20Sheets/Ice%20shedding.pdf

8. Seifert, Henry. “Assessment of Safety Risks from Wind Turbine Icing.” Dutch Wind Energy Institute. April 2, 1998.

http://www.renewwisconsin.org/wind/Toolbox-Fact%20Sheets/Assessment%20of%20risk%20due%20to%20ice.pdf

9. Wahl, David. “Ice-Shedding and Ice Throw – Risks and Mitigation.” GE Energy. April 2006.

http://site.ge-energy.com/prod_serv/products/tech_docs/en/downloads/ger4262.pdf

10. “Wind Turbine Ice Blade Throw.” Tetra Tech EC, Inc. December 2007.

http://www.horizonwindfarms.com/northeast-region/documents/under-dev/arkwright/Exhibit14_IceSheddingandBladeThrowAnalysis.pdf

By lnchew22 | Posted in Research findings | Comments (0)