Gibson HomeBuilders

Today’s topic is Wind Power.
My guests today are Ed Smith with Renewable Energy Products and Mac Davis owner of MHD Construction.

Theoretical potential
Wind power available in the atmosphere is much greater than current world energy consumption. The most comprehensive study to date found the potential of wind power on land and near-shore to be 72 TW, equivalent to 54,000 MTOE(million tons of oil equivalent) per year, or over five times the world's current energy use in all forms. The potential takes into account only locations with mean annual wind speeds ≥ 6.9 m/s at 80 m. It assumes 6 turbines per square km for 77 m diameter, 1.5 MW-turbines on roughly 13% of the total global land area (though that land would also be available for other compatible uses such as farming). The authors acknowledge that many practical barriers would need to be overcome to reach this theoretical capacity.
The practical limit to exploitation of wind power will be set by economic and environmental factors, since the resource available is far larger than any practical means to develop it.

Direct costs
Many potential sites for wind farms are far from demand centers, requiring substantially more money to construct new transmission lines and substations.
Since the primary cost of producing wind energy is construction and there are no fuel costs, the average cost of wind energy per unit of production is dependent on a few key assumptions, such as the cost of capital and years of assumed service. The marginal cost of wind energy once a plant is constructed is usually less than 1 cent per kilowatt-hour. Since the cost of capital plays a large part in projected cost, risk (as perceived by investors) will affect projected costs per unit of electricity.
The commercial viability of wind power also depends on the pricing regime for power producers. Electricity prices are highly regulated worldwide, and in many locations may not reflect the full cost of production, let alone indirect subsidies or negative externalities. Customers may enter into long-term pricing contracts for wind to reduce the risk of future pricing changes, thereby ensuring more stable returns for projects at the development stage. These may take the form of standard offer contracts, whereby the system operator undertakes to purchase power from wind at a fixed price for a certain period (perhaps up to a limit); these prices may be different than purchase prices from other sources, and even incorporate an implicit subsidy.
In jurisdictions where the price for electricity is based on market mechanisms, revenue for all producers per unit is higher when their production coincides with periods of higher prices. The profitability of wind farms will therefore be higher if their production schedule coincides with these periods. If wind represents a significant portion of supply, average revenue per unit of production may be lower as more expensive and less-efficient forms of generation, which typically set revenue levels, are displaced from economic dispatch. This may be of particular concern if the output of many wind plants in a market have strong temporal correlation. In economic terms, the marginal revenue of the wind sector as penetration increases may diminish.

External costs
Most forms of energy production create some form of negative externality: costs that are not paid by the producer or consumer of the good. For electric production, the most significant externality is pollution, which imposes social costs in increased health expenses, reduced agricultural productivity, and other problems. In addition, carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas produced when fossil fuels are burned, may impose even greater costs in the form of global warming. Few mechanisms currently exist to internalize these costs, and the total cost is highly uncertain. Other significant externalities can include military expenditures to ensure access to fossil fuels, remediation of polluted sites, destruction of wild habitat, loss of scenery/tourism, etc.
If the external costs are taken into account, wind energy may be competitive in more cases. Wind energy costs have generally decreased due to technology development and scale enlargement. Wind energy supporters argue that, once external costs and subsidies to other forms of electrical production are accounted for, wind energy is amongst the least costly forms of electrical production. Critics argue that the level of required subsidies, the small amount of energy needs met, and the uncertain financial returns to wind projects make it inferior to other energy sources. Intermittency and other characteristics of wind energy also have costs that may rise with higher levels of penetration, and may change the cost-benefit ratio.

Incentives
Wind energy in many jurisdictions receives some financial or other support to encourage its development. A key issue is the comparison to other forms of energy production, and their total cost. Two main points of discussion arise: direct subsidies and externalities for various sources of electricity, including wind. Wind energy benefits from subsidies of various kinds in many jurisdictions, either to increase its attractiveness, or to compensate for subsidies received by other forms of production or which have significant negative externalities.
In the United States, wind power receives a tax credit for each kilowatt-hour produced; at 1.9 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2006, the credit has a yearly inflationary adjustment. Another tax benefit is accelerated depreciation. Many American states also provide incentives, such as exemption from property tax, mandated purchases, and additional markets for "green credits." Countries such as Canada and Germany also provide incentives for wind turbine construction, such as tax credits or minimum purchase prices for wind generation, with assured grid access (sometimes referred to as feed-in tariffs). These feed-in tariffs are typically set well above average electricity prices.

Environmental effects
CO2 emissions and pollution
Wind power consumes no fuel for continuing operation, and has no emissions directly related to electricity production. Operation does not produce carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, mercury, particulates, or any other type of air pollution, as do fossil fuel power sources. Wind power plants consume resources in manufacturing and construction. During manufacture of the wind turbine, steel, concrete, aluminum and other materials will have to be made and transported using energy-intensive processes, generally using fossil energy sources. The initial carbon dioxide emissions "pay back" within about 9 months of operation for off shore turbines.
Wind power may affect emissions at fossil-fuel plants used for reserve and regulation:
It is sometimes said that wind energy, for example, does not reduce carbon dioxide emissions because the intermittent nature of its output means it needs to be backed up by fossil fuel plants. Wind turbines do not displace fossil generating capacity on a one-for-one basis. But it is unambiguously the case that wind energy can displace fossil fuel-based generation, reducing both fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions.
A study by the Irish national grid stated that "Producing electricity from wind reduces the consumption of fossil fuels and therefore leads to emissions savings", and found reductions in CO2 emissions ranging from 0.33 to 0.59 tons of CO2 per MW-h.

Net energy gain
Any practical large-scale energy source must replace the energy used in its construction. The energy return on investment (EROI) for wind energy is equal to the cumulative electricity generated divided by the cumulative primary energy required to build and maintain a turbine. The EROI for wind ranges from 5 to 35, with an average of around 18. EROI is strongly proportional to turbine size, and larger late-generation turbines are at the high end of this range, at or above 35. Since energy produced is several times energy consumed in construction, there is a net energy gain. The energy used for construction is produced by the wind turbine within a few months of operation.

Ecological footprint
Unlike fossil fuel and nuclear power stations, which circulate or evaporate large amounts of water for cooling, wind turbines do not need water to generate electricity. However, leaking lubricating oil or hydraulic fluid running down turbine blades may be scattered over the surrounding area, in some cases contaminating drinking water areas

Land use
To reduce losses caused by interference between turbines, a wind farm requires roughly 0.1 square kilometers of unobstructed land per megawatt of nameplate capacity. A 200 MW wind farm might extend over an area of approximately 20 square kilometers.
Clearing of wooded areas is often unnecessary. Farmers commonly lease land to companies building wind farms. In the U.S., farmers may receive annual lease payments of two thousand to five thousand dollars per turbine. The land can still be used for farming and cattle grazing. Less than 1% of the land would be used for foundations and access roads, the other 99% could still be used for farming. Turbines can be sited on unused land in techniques such as center pivot irrigation. The clearing of trees around tower bases may be necessary for installation sites on mountain ridges, such as in the northeastern U.S.
Turbines are not generally installed in urban areas. Buildings interfere with wind, turbines must be sited a safe distance ("setback") from residences in case of failure, and the value of land is high. A lakeshore demonstration project by Toronto Hydro in Toronto has been built.
Offshore locations use no land and avoid known shipping channels. Most offshore locations are at considerable distances from load centers and may face transmission and line loss challenges.
Wind turbines located in agricultural areas may create concerns by operators of crop-dusting aircraft. Operating rules may prohibit approach of aircraft within a stated distance of the turbine towers; turbine operators may agree to curtail operations of turbines during crop-dusting operations.

Impact on wildlife
Birds
Danger to birds is often the main complaint against the installation of a wind turbine, but actual numbers are very low: studies show that the number of birds killed by wind turbines is negligible compared to the number that die as a result of other human activities such as traffic, hunting, power lines and high-rise buildings and especially the environmental impacts of using non-clean power sources. For example, in the UK, where there are several hundred turbines, about one bird is killed per turbine per year; 10 million per year are killed by cars alone. In the United States, turbines kill 70,000 birds per year, compared to 57 million killed by cars and 97.5 million killed by collisions with plate glass. An article in Nature stated that each wind turbine kills on average 0.03 birds per year, or one kill per thirty turbines.
In the UK, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) concluded that "The available evidence suggests that appropriately positioned wind farms do not pose a significant hazard for birds." It notes that climate change poses a much more significant threat to wildlife, and therefore supports wind farms and other forms of renewable energy.
Some paths of bird migration, particularly for birds that fly by night, are unknown. A study suggests that migrating birds may avoid the large turbines, at least in the low-wind non-twilight conditions studied. A Danish 2005 (Biology Letters 2005:336) study showed that radio tagged migrating birds traveled around offshore wind farms, with less than 1% of migrating birds passing an offshore wind farm in Rønde, Denmark, got close to collision, though the site was studied only during low-wind non-twilight conditions.
A survey at Altamont Pass, California, conducted by a California Energy Commission in 2004 showed that onshore turbines killed between 1,766 and 4,721 birds annually (881 to 1,300 of which were birds of prey). Radar studies of proposed onshore and near-shore sites in the eastern U.S. have shown that migrating songbirds fly well within the reach of large modern turbine blades.
A wind farm in Norway's Smøla islands is reported to have affected a colony of sea eagles, according to the British Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Turbine blades killed ten of the birds between August 2005 and March 2007, including three of the five chicks that fledged in 2005. Nine of the 16 nesting territories appear to have been abandoned. Norway is regarded as the most important place for white-tailed eagles.
Bats
The numbers of bats killed by existing onshore and near-shore facilities has troubled bat enthusiasts. A study in 2004 estimated that over 2200 bats were killed by 63 onshore turbines in just six weeks at two sites in the eastern U.S. This study suggests some onshore and near-shore sites may be particularly hazardous to local bat populations and more research is needed. Migratory bat species appear to be particularly at risk, especially during key movement periods (spring and more importantly in fall). Lasiurines such as the hoary bat, red bat, and the silver-haired bat appear to be most vulnerable at North American sites. Almost nothing is known about current populations of these species and the impact on bat numbers as a result of mortality at wind-power locations. Offshore wind sites 10 km or more from shore do not interact with bat populations.
Fish
In Ireland, construction of a wind farm caused pollution feared to be responsible for wiping out vegetation and fish stocks in the Lough Lee. A separate landslide is thought to have been caused by wind farm construction, and has killed thousands of fish by polluting the local rivers with sediment.
Offshore ocean noise
As the number of offshore wind farms increase and move further into deeper water, the question arises if the ocean noise that is generated due to mechanical motion of the turbines and other vibrations which can be transmitted via the tower structure to the sea, will become significant enough to harm sea mammals. Tests carried out in Denmark for shallow installations showed the levels were only significant up to a few hundred meters. However, sound injected into deeper water will travel much further and will be more likely to impact bigger creatures like whales which tend to use lower frequencies than porpoises and seals. A recent study found that wind farms add 80–110 dB to the existing low-frequency ambient noise (under 400 Hz), which could impact baleen whales communication and stress levels, and possibly prey distribution.
Safety
Operation of any utility-scale energy conversion system presents safety hazards. Wind turbines do not consume fuel or produce pollution during normal operation, but still have hazards associated with their construction and operation.
There have been at least 40 fatalities due to construction, operation, and maintenance of wind turbines, including both workers and members of the public, and other injuries and deaths attributed to the wind power life cycle. Most worker deaths involve falls or becoming caught in machinery while performing maintenance inside turbine housings. Blade failures and falling ice have also accounted for a number of deaths and injuries. Deaths to members of the public include a parachutist colliding with a turbine and small aircraft crashing into support structures. Other public fatalities have been blamed on collisions with transport vehicles and motorists distracted by the sight and shadow flicker of wind turbines along highways.
When a turbine's brake fails, the turbine can spin freely until it disintegrates or catches fire. This is mitigated in most modern designs by aero brakes, variable pitch blades, and the ability to turn the nacelle to face out of the wind. Turbine blades may fail spontaneously due to manufacturing flaws. Lightning strikes are a common problem, also causing rotor blade damage and fires. When ejected, pieces of broken blade and ice can be thrown hundreds of meters away. Although no member of the public has been killed by a malfunctioning turbine, there have been close calls, including injury by falling ice. Large pieces of debris, up to several tons, have dropped in populated areas, residential properties, and roads, damaging cars and homes.
Often turbine fires cannot be extinguished because of the height, and are left to burn themselves out. In the process, they generate toxic fumes and can scatter flaming debris over a wide area, starting secondary fires below. Several turbine-ignited fires have burned hundreds of acres of vegetation each, and one burned 80,000 hectares (200,000 acres) of Australian National Park.
Electronic controllers and safety sub-systems monitor many different aspects of the turbine, generator, tower, and environment to determine if the turbine is operating in a safe manner within prescribed limits. These systems can temporarily shut down the turbine due to high wind, electrical load imbalance, vibration, and other problems. Recurring or significant problems cause a system lockout and notify an engineer for inspection and repair. In addition, most systems include multiple passive safety systems that stop operation even if the electronic controller fails.
Wind power proponent and author Paul Gipe estimated in Wind Energy Comes of Age that the mortality rate for wind power from 1980–1994 was 0.4 deaths per terawatt-hour. Paul Gipe's estimate as of end 2000 was 0.15 deaths per TW-h, a decline attributed to greater total cumulative generation.
By comparison, hydroelectric power was found to have a fatality rate of 0.10 per TW-h (883 fatalities for every TW-yr) in the period 1969–1996 This includes the Banqiao Dam collapse in 1975 that killed thousands. Although the wind power death rate is higher than some other power sources, the numbers are necessarily based on a small sample size. The apparent trend is a reduction in fatalities per TW-h generated as more generation is supplied by larger units.