The Clipper "Liberty" is a new 2.5-MW wind turbine model. The company has installed one as a test near Medicine Bow, Wyoming. In their environmental impact assessment submitted to the Department of Energy, Clipper notes that the noise level of the turbine in an 18-mph wind (8 m/s, well below its full operating speed) is 105 dBA 415 feet away. This is about the same as given for the Vestas V80 1.8-MW turbine. Clipper's own discussion notes that 90 dBA is the level at which "constant exposure endangers hearing."
Concern was noted for the effect of such noise on raptor nests and sage grouse leks (mating areas).
The assessment also expected that 10 acres of land would be disturbed and compacted by the construction of this single 415-ft-high turbine, causing runoff, erosion, sedimentation in streams, loss of soil productivity, destruction of vegetation, loss of wildlife habitat and food, and increased poaching and harassment of wildlife (presumably because of the new road).
During construction, the impact to pronghorn deer, mule deer, and elk was considered to extend a half-mile farther, displacing them from a total of 503 acres.
categories: wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines
August 4, 2005
Quote for the day
Evidence is ubiquitous suspicion is pervasive fantasy hardens reality seeps away.
-- Out->, Ronald Sukenick, 1973
(available at www.altx.com/out/0.html)
August 2, 2005
Wind turbine noise is a problem
A couple of news items pertaining to noise. From the Manawatu (N.Z.) Standard, "Meridian pays family to move" (August 2, 2005):
Meridian Energy has paid an undisclosed sum of money to shift a family from their farm where Te Apiti's wind turbines are located, because noise and vibration made it too difficult to live in their house. ...And from the Times-Tribune of Scranton, Pa., "WInds of change aren't problem" (August 2, 2005):
eridian has also made a confidential deal with the other farm owners affected. [Company spokesman Alan] Seay said he understands this has involved building alterations, such as double-glazing windows to reduce noise. ...
Last November, Ashhurst resident Colin Mahy complained that sun reflection flickering into his house from the Te Apiti turbines was "driving him mad". Meridian had told him to draw his curtains.
... A hum, like a plane warming on an airport tarmac, falls across the fields of the township as the 43 windmills near Waymart turn -- some lazily, others at a faster pace.categories: wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines
It won't stay this quiet, said Gary Bates, who lives at the base of the ridge about 200 feet below the windmills. The wind shifts and comes down from Moosic Mountain each night at about 8:30. The hum becomes a louder whir that reverberates through the house he shares with his wife, Debbie. The land has been in her family since her great-grandparents.
The wind changes slightly as Mr. Bates speaks, and the hum grows louder. It sounds like a plane flying above the blanket of clouds, but the engine noise never dims.
August 1, 2005
"German Results Cast Doubt on UK's Wind Farm Proposals"
The Independent (U.K.) reported Sunday that the German goal of generating 10% of their energy from renewable sources is being undermined by the very poor performance of industrial wind turbines.
Germany has about a third of the world's wind turbines, with a capacity of about 16,000 MW, which according to the salesmen should be providing 8% of their electricity. But two of the major utility companies, RWE and Eon, report average output of only 16% and below 12%, respectively. The national grid therefore allows wind facilities to count only 6% of their capacity as available to customers, because so much of the time wind power is produced when it is not needed.
That means that Germany's 16,000 MW of wind power looks to the grid more like 960 MW, producing less than 1.5% of their electricity.
categories: wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines
Germany has about a third of the world's wind turbines, with a capacity of about 16,000 MW, which according to the salesmen should be providing 8% of their electricity. But two of the major utility companies, RWE and Eon, report average output of only 16% and below 12%, respectively. The national grid therefore allows wind facilities to count only 6% of their capacity as available to customers, because so much of the time wind power is produced when it is not needed.
That means that Germany's 16,000 MW of wind power looks to the grid more like 960 MW, producing less than 1.5% of their electricity.
categories: wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines
July 28, 2005
"footprint vs. industrialized area"
A stubborn dialogue has been in progress in Grist magazine's comments section. Here is the latest entry.
The brochures from the industry point out that each turbine's footprint is only a little 250-square-foot concrete pad. That's like saying a 747's footprint is only a few square feet (where its tires touch the ground).categories: wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism
The fact is they require a lot of space around them, thus turning huge areas of rural and wild landscape into industrial "parks."
The National Geographic figure is apparently based on the nuclear plant having an 85% capacity factor and the wind plant having a 33% c.f. (again, based only on the industry brochures and not on actual experience). Even with that c.f., but using the actual average space required per megawatt in actual wind facilities (as recognized by FPL Energy -- the largest wind plant operator in the country -- and the EPA) -- 50 acres -- the wind plant equal to the 0.5-sq.mi. 1000-MW nuclear plant would be 200 square miles.
But real-world capacity factors would require a larger wind plant, perhaps 2.5 times more if we go by actual electricity used according to the EIA (as already described).
And because wind-generated power is highly variable, and output falls off cubically as the wind drops below the optimal 25-30 mph, the output -- whatever the c.f. -- would be equal to or more than its annual average only a third of the time. Another third of the time, its output would be zero or near enough.
You'd still need that nuclear (or coal) plant to provide reliable electricity.
I don't like fossil and nuclear fuel any more than you do, but wind power isn't going to make them go away. It won't even significantly reduce their use.
You are the one touting pie in the sky -- and consequently the pointless destruction of the last rural and wild landscapes in the country.
July 25, 2005
WisPIRG hasn't really thought it through
Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group (WisPIRG) has released a paper arguing for building more wind power facilities. Like most advocates, they point out how awful coal and nuclear fuels (with which I completely agree) yet fail to show that wind power can actually reduce their use. It is like pointing to a person shot in the head to justify stabbing someone. "Not as bad" is still bad, especially if the "worse" is still going to be around as much as ever.
How bad is industrial wind power? At about 50 acres per megawatt capacity (see www.aweo.org/windarea.html for a table of facilities around the world), it simply takes up huge amounts of space, filling every vista with alien behemoths like a giant barbed-wire fence.
WisPIRG points out, "A single [coal] mine can strip up to ten square miles, disrupting individual animals and in some cases entire species." Ten square miles is 6,400 acres. Wisconsin's Forward Wind Energy Center will occupy 32,000 acres, or 50 square miles. Yet the entire facility's capacity will be only 200 MW. And because of the variability of the wind, its actual output will average at the most (developer's claim) 67 MW but more likely (U.S. average, Energy Information Agency (EIA)) only 26 MW of usable power.
As horrible as a ten-square-mile coal mine is, I dare say we get a hell of a lot of electricity out of it. Which cannot be said for industrial wind.
Here are some more numbers. According to WisPIRG's paper, Wisconsin uses 68 TW-h of electricity each year, projected to rise to 85 TW-h in 2013. Seventy-two percent comes from coal and 22% from nuclear. What would it take to replace 20% of that with wind?
The developers claim (and advocates such as WisPIRG swallow, despite evidence that it is highly inflated) that annual production from a wind turbine is 33% of its rated capacity. The EIA says that wind produced less than 5 TW-h of the electricity used in the U.S. in 2002, representing the output of, according to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) 4,480 MW of installed capacity (average between capacity at ends of 2001 and 2002). That's an annual output of only 13% of capacity.
[Technical note: A electrical generator produces power, measured in watts, which is used over time, specified, for example, in your electricity bill as kilowatt-hours (KW-h), which is a thousand watts used for one hour. A 10-million-watt (MW) generator producing full tilt without break for a year produces 10 MW × 24 hours × 365 days = 87,600 MW-h, or 87.6 GW-h. But no power plant, especially one dependent on highly variable wind, produces at its full capacity full time. The ratio of its actual annual output to its theoretical maximum output is called its capacity factor. As noted above, the wind industry insists that 0.33 is to be expected for wind turbines, but real data shows it to be below 0.13.]
Back to replacing 20% of Wisconsin's electricity with wind. Twenty percent of 68 TW-h is 13.6 TW-h. Divided by 8,760 (24 hours × 365 days), that's an average output of 1,553 MW. That would require at the least (developer's claim) 4,658 MW but more likely (EIA data) 11,942 MW of wind capacity. Even by the developer's wishful thinking that would require industrializing 364 square miles, but more likely 933 square miles -- of formerly wild or rural land.
That 20% will be only 16% in 2013, so ever more would have to be built. (No wonder the industry is lobbying so hard for renewables mandates. And no wonder people are becoming increasingly alarmed by the increasing encroachment of the giant machines.)
And the truly sad thing is that the wind is variable and often not there at all, and the output of a wind turbine falls off in cubic relation as the wind speed drops below the ideal 25-30 mph. Only one-third of the time would the turbines produce at their annual average rate or better. Most of the time, Wisconsin will still need those coal and nuclear plants as much as ever.
Large-scale wind is clearly not an environmentally sound option.
categories: wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
How bad is industrial wind power? At about 50 acres per megawatt capacity (see www.aweo.org/windarea.html for a table of facilities around the world), it simply takes up huge amounts of space, filling every vista with alien behemoths like a giant barbed-wire fence.
WisPIRG points out, "A single [coal] mine can strip up to ten square miles, disrupting individual animals and in some cases entire species." Ten square miles is 6,400 acres. Wisconsin's Forward Wind Energy Center will occupy 32,000 acres, or 50 square miles. Yet the entire facility's capacity will be only 200 MW. And because of the variability of the wind, its actual output will average at the most (developer's claim) 67 MW but more likely (U.S. average, Energy Information Agency (EIA)) only 26 MW of usable power.
As horrible as a ten-square-mile coal mine is, I dare say we get a hell of a lot of electricity out of it. Which cannot be said for industrial wind.
Here are some more numbers. According to WisPIRG's paper, Wisconsin uses 68 TW-h of electricity each year, projected to rise to 85 TW-h in 2013. Seventy-two percent comes from coal and 22% from nuclear. What would it take to replace 20% of that with wind?
The developers claim (and advocates such as WisPIRG swallow, despite evidence that it is highly inflated) that annual production from a wind turbine is 33% of its rated capacity. The EIA says that wind produced less than 5 TW-h of the electricity used in the U.S. in 2002, representing the output of, according to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) 4,480 MW of installed capacity (average between capacity at ends of 2001 and 2002). That's an annual output of only 13% of capacity.
[Technical note: A electrical generator produces power, measured in watts, which is used over time, specified, for example, in your electricity bill as kilowatt-hours (KW-h), which is a thousand watts used for one hour. A 10-million-watt (MW) generator producing full tilt without break for a year produces 10 MW × 24 hours × 365 days = 87,600 MW-h, or 87.6 GW-h. But no power plant, especially one dependent on highly variable wind, produces at its full capacity full time. The ratio of its actual annual output to its theoretical maximum output is called its capacity factor. As noted above, the wind industry insists that 0.33 is to be expected for wind turbines, but real data shows it to be below 0.13.]
Back to replacing 20% of Wisconsin's electricity with wind. Twenty percent of 68 TW-h is 13.6 TW-h. Divided by 8,760 (24 hours × 365 days), that's an average output of 1,553 MW. That would require at the least (developer's claim) 4,658 MW but more likely (EIA data) 11,942 MW of wind capacity. Even by the developer's wishful thinking that would require industrializing 364 square miles, but more likely 933 square miles -- of formerly wild or rural land.
That 20% will be only 16% in 2013, so ever more would have to be built. (No wonder the industry is lobbying so hard for renewables mandates. And no wonder people are becoming increasingly alarmed by the increasing encroachment of the giant machines.)
And the truly sad thing is that the wind is variable and often not there at all, and the output of a wind turbine falls off in cubic relation as the wind speed drops below the ideal 25-30 mph. Only one-third of the time would the turbines produce at their annual average rate or better. Most of the time, Wisconsin will still need those coal and nuclear plants as much as ever.
Large-scale wind is clearly not an environmentally sound option.
categories: wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
July 24, 2005
If only the wind blew as much
An ironic leader appeared in the Tillsonburg (Ont.) News on July 18:
"Progress on Erie Shores Wind Farm is moving ahead at a speed faster than the wind with the hot, still weather that has been blanketing southern Ontario lately."
That neatly sums up the whole industry.
And the day before (July 17), the Boston Globe reported that noise and distraction from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers' 100-KW training turbine in Dorchester (Mass.) have not proved to be a problem. Why? Because the blades have barely moved since the machine was connected.
categories: wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines
"Progress on Erie Shores Wind Farm is moving ahead at a speed faster than the wind with the hot, still weather that has been blanketing southern Ontario lately."
That neatly sums up the whole industry.
And the day before (July 17), the Boston Globe reported that noise and distraction from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers' 100-KW training turbine in Dorchester (Mass.) have not proved to be a problem. Why? Because the blades have barely moved since the machine was connected.
categories: wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)