The Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines are voluntary recommendations providing guidance to private developers, state and federal agencies, and tribes in the development of utility-scale, community-scale, and distributed wind projects. The USFWS’s tiered process is intended to help identify sites with low risk to wildlife, assess potential adverse effects to species of concern and their habitat, and mitigate and monitor these impacts. This approach provides information to the developer at several key decision points, influencing whether to abandon a potential project site, proceed with development, or collect additional information to further evaluate a project.

Communications between developers and USFWS staff and input from the USFWS are key Guidelines components. In particular, the USFWS recommends that a developer consult with USFWS staff as early in the project development process as possible and prior to completing the site-specific studies within Tier 3 that will determine whether a site is developed and how the project will be designed to avoid or mitigate potential impacts. The USFWS aims to provide project recommendations within 60 days of receiving information from a developer. The USFWS underscores that the Guidelines are voluntary and decisions are ultimately in the hands of the developer, but the USFWS retains authority to evaluate whether a developer’s efforts to mitigate impacts are sufficient, to determine significance, and to refer for prosecution any unlawful take the USFWS believes is reasonably related to a failure to incorporate USFWS recommendations or insufficient adherence to the Guidelines.

The Guidelines delineate five tiers. Tiers 1, 2, and 3 are pre-construction steps to help identify, avoid, and minimize risks to species of concern. Tiers 4 and 5 provide post-construction guidance to assess whether actions taken in earlier tiers to avoid or minimize impacts are successful and to determine whether additional steps are necessary to compensate for impacts. Each tier includes a set of three to seven key questions and a list of decision points, as well as recommended study designs, methods, or metrics to guide the investigation and ultimate decisions associated with that tier. The USFWS anticipates that it will likely not be necessary to implement all of the tiers, or every element of a given tier, for each project.

Tier 1 – Preliminary Site Evaluation. This involves screening a broad geographical area to avoid areas of high sensitivity and determine if species of concern or their habitat are present at specific potential sites. Tier 1 provides a discussion of methods and metrics.

Tier 2 – Site Characterization. This calls for a relatively broad characterization of one or more potential project sites to determine probability of significant adverse impacts. This tier includes at least one reconnaissance-level site visit and investigation of previously conducted studies, databases, or other published information for the area. Tier 2 includes a discussion of methods and metrics.

Tier 3 – Field Studies to Document Site Wildlife and Habitat and Predict Project Impacts. Here, the developer evaluates the probability of significant adverse impacts through quantitative site-specific field studies. Based on this information, the developer will decide to continue or abandon a specific site and, if development goes forward, potentially make decisions to design or operate the project to avoid or minimize significant adverse impacts. Tier 3 includes recommended study design considerations and technical resources.

Tier 4 – Post-Construction Studies to Estimate Impacts. These will be implemented according to the outcome of the investigations and studies in Tiers 1, 2, and 3. Some level of post-construction study is anticipated for most projects. Tier 4 studies assess whether predictions of fatality risk and direct and indirect impacts to habitat were correct. Studies to evaluate habitat impacts such as species of habitat fragmentation concern will be necessary only when Tier 3 studies indicate the potential for significant adverse impacts for such species. Tier 4 provides protocol design considerations and study objectives.

Tier 5 – Other Post-Construction Studies. This involves additional site-specific studies that may be called for based on Tier 4 studies. The Guidelines say that Tier 5 studies will not be necessary for most projects, and underscore that the tiered decision-making process steers projects away from sites where Tier 5 studies would be necessary. Tier 5 studies analyze factors associated with potentially significant impacts indicated in Tier 4 analyses, identify why mitigation measures implemented for a project were not adequate, and assess demographic effects on local populations of species of concern when demographic information is important.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
www.fws.gov

Windpower Engineering & Development

• The threshold for bird mortality has been lowered to 14 birds/ turbine/ year (from 18 birds). As a result, a mortality rate that exceeds the mortality threshold at a facility will trigger additional monitoring and mitigation obligations
• Additional information has been provided on important bird areas, including their importance and their link to significant wildlife habitats
• Monitoring methods for evaluating wildlife habitats and post-construction mortality monitoring have been revised to reflect public/industry comments and scientific recommendations
• Data submission procedures related to the Wind Energy Bird and Bat Monitoring Database have been detailed, and
• Ecological effectiveness monitoring plan information requirements have been updated to reflect the January 2011 amendments to O. Reg. 359/09.

Canadian Environmental Registry
www.ebr.gov.on.ca

Windpower Engineering & Development

The DataPortal will be based on Vista Engineering’s products letting users stay abreast of the weather data as it is collected with the ease of signing in to a secure portal.

Atmospheric Systems Corporation (ASC) and Vista Engineering are working to streamline wind instrumentation data to end users. Vista’s Engineering’s web-based Vista Data Vision (VDV) lets users collect data from multiple sites and view it from a single dashboard. VDV creates web based graphs that include time series, wind roses,

power curves, histograms, and more. In addition, VDV lets users compare data from one instrument to another with XY scatter plots. For example, the arrangement lets users continuously monitor and compare SoDAR data to that of a meteorological tower. Plus, alarms can send user defined warnings and it is capable of providing custom reports.

ASC will work as a distributor and user of Vista Data Vision products. ASC will sell VDV equipment and its experience by ASC hosted DataPortal powered by Vista Data Vision. ASC’s DataPortal will have additional automation for data collection from a variety of instrumentation along with its SoDAR products. This lets users view their data securely via the web and stay informed on the operation of their systems from where they have an internet connection.

DataPortal will be based on Vista Engineering’s products letting users stay abreast of the data as it is collected with the ease of signing in to a secure portal.

Atmospheric Systems Corp.
www.minisodar.com

Vista Engineering
www.vistadatavision.com

Windpower Engineering & Development

The theme for the conference is Iowa Wind Power: A Model for America. All members of Iowa’s Congressional Delegation have been invited and Representative Steve King is the first to confirm his attendance. Iowa Governor Terry Branstad has also been invited to attend. Denise Bode, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association, will provide a Keynote Address on Tuesday, April 10, 2012. AWEA has over 2,500 member companies and is the most influential wind industry trade group in the United States.

The conference will feature 60 industry exhibitors and a GE wind turbine blade from the TPI Composites plant in Newton on display and available to be signed by conference attendees. A reception for Iowa lawmakers will be held in the evening of April 9th. A wide variety of information sessions is being planned to cover a range of topics such as storage and alternative uses for wind energy, updates from regulatory agencies, electrical transmission project updates, small & community wind projects, and new developments in turbine and tower technology.

Displays of energy research projects from Iowa’s universities and colleges may also be included.  The conference has already attracted several sponsors. Additional conference sponsorships remain available.

Iowa Wind Energy
iowawindenergy.org

Windpower Engineering & Development

Jukka-Pekka Mäkinen, The Switch President and CEO

The Switch came to the market five years ago on a mission to bring better drive train technology to wind power generation and allows more energy per turbine. The drivers today remain the same: better quality power, more energy, and more robust, compact design for PMGs.

Despite the technology transition, we’re living in a world now marked by constant turmoil. Although many things are moving forward, there is always some force pushing true success in the renewable energy industry down. This makes it impossible to predict volumes as before.

There is a demand for higher quality products with lower prices. The times are forcing turbine manufacturers to focus on their core competences and select value-adding partners who can carry responsibility for their products and services.

The players aiming to survive and thrive in the renewable energy industry must develop organizations with an ability to work in an networked manner. Vertical integration worked fine when there were shortages of components and the industry was still emerging. But those times are past. Vertically integrated companies find themselves facing challenges due to volatile market conditions when it comes to technology, production, and inflexible organizations. They’re feeling the pain of trying to do it all themselves.

The way forward for these turbine manufacturers requires a new way of working – even a new business model – that embraces cooperation and collaboration, which leads to greater effectiveness. The perfect business model during our unpredictable times is based on specialists that know how to network and add value for better end results.

Five reasons for optimism
In spite of market uncertainty, we see reasons to believe in a bright future. For example:

• Money is available from private equity, which hasn’t been there before. This is because the wind-power industry is finally mature enough and ROI becoming more attractive due to the short payback times of wind-power installations.
• Positive signs continue for offshore, especially in certain regions or countries such as Germany, France, Denmark, the UK – and eventually China and the U.S.
• Public opinion still favors renewable energy. Most governments still have it on their agendas despite the global economic crisis.
• Real advancement in nuclear power has stalled, creating gaps between the nuclear output planned and rising energy demands. The decisions in Germany are now being followed by other countries – and are putting renewable energy back into plans with greater interest.
• In good wind locations, wind power is the cheapest way of all to produce energy. Not only is it the safest, most secure energy generation investment with the shortest payback time, it is also the fastest to build.

China’s steps ahead
China has finally placed quality ahead of quantity and wants to evaluate the performance of the turbines they are installing. Growth in the overall market has slowed, but the value of higher performance equipment has been realized. Some Chinese power producers now specify PMG and fixed price contracts in their requirements.

China’s internationalization may not have materialized as expected a few years ago. The image of poor Chinese quality slowed the process. Nevertheless, the country’s turbine manufacturers and power producers have set their sights on internationalization. This will not be the “takeover” scenario of earlier feared by many, but rather a gradual and natural internationalization process, including localization of operations with new job creation.

Time: the biggest threat to growth
Time is one of the biggest threats to a rosier growth outlook. For example, how long will it take the Chinese government to regain trust and move forward? How long will it take for turbine manufacturers to get their offshore turbines developed and installed at sea for qualification? How long will it take before turbine manufacturers realize that vertical integration is an outdated model that will actually choke their future?

The way manufacturers handle their time pressure will be critical to their success. Aligning with partners long term can alleviate some of this pressure and lead to even greater added-value innovations for the industry at large.

Opportunities for the industry in 2012
We also see that permanent-magnet  technology has good application opportunities in areas such as marine. High-speed motors are also in wider use and replacing the geared systems used in compressors and pumps.

The graph plots investments in clean and fossil-based generating capacity from 2004 to 2010 ($billion). Public opinion remains favorable towards renewable energy and positive signs continue for offshore. Despite the volatile economic situation, there is growing proof that New Energy competes effectively as a source of power generation. The installed capacity of clean energy from 2004 to 2010 has nearly matched that of fossil-based generating capacity. Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance, November 2011

We are confident about thinking once again like a winning start-up company – and are open to new partnerships and technologies that make products even better together. For instance, the horizontal supply chain collaboration between Moventas and The Switch led to the innovative FusionDrive wind turbine drive-train concept.

The company’s Model Factory concept lets clients move into new production areas such as, near-shore parks. This creates local jobs at locations convenient to final wind-farm sites.

The company is in a position to take more control in customers’ production facilities, ramping up and down in a flexible manner, and to enter regional production cooperation with them.

A recommendation for the future is to outsource risk to proven added-value partners, divide responsibility among specialists in a networked team for value-added business collaboration, and innovate new-generation turbines for the future.

The Switch
Theswitch.com

Windpower Engineering & Development

In 2010 nuclear construction starts worldwide reached their highest levels since 1980, with 16 new reactors beginning construction at 15 different locations. Construction starts decreased significantly in 2011, however, with only India and Pakistan starting to build one new reactor each during this time. There are 65 reactors currently under construction in 14 countries around the world. When these are completed, they will provide 62.6 GW of additional installed capacity. Twelve of these 65 reactors, however, have been “under construction” for more than 20 years.

Due to increasing costs of production, a slowed demand for electricity, and fresh memories of disaster in Japan, production of nuclear power fell in 2011, according to the latest Vital Signs Online (VSO) report from the Worldwatch Institute. Despite reaching record levels the previous year, global installed nuclear capacity—-the potential power generation from all existing plants—-declined to 366.5 GW in 2011, from 375.5 GW at the end of 2010.

Not surprisingly, the drop in installed capacity corresponds with a decline in global consumption of nuclear energy. Nuclear’s share of world commercial primary energy usage fell to about 5% in 2010, having peaked at about 6% in 2001 and 2002. Only four countries—-the Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia, and the United Kingdom—-increased their share of nuclear power by over one percentage point between 2009 and 2010.

Much of the decline in installed capacity is the result of halted reactor construction around the world. Although construction on 16 new reactors began in 2010—-the highest number in over two decades—-that number fell to just two in 2011, with India and Pakistan each starting construction on a plant. In addition to this dramatically slowed rate of construction, the first 10 months of 2011 saw the closing of 13 nuclear reactors, reducing the total number of reactors in operation around the world from 441 at the beginning of the year to 433.

“It’s too early to conclude that nuclear energy is beginning a long-term decline, but these numbers can hardly encourage the industry,” said Worldwatch President Robert Engelman. “The high cost of nuclear electricity generation and the widespread public perceptions that it poses unacceptable safety risks make it unlikely this form of power will help slow human-caused climate change or offer an attractive alternative to rising fossil-fuel prices any time soon.”

China is an exception to the global slump in nuclear electricity generation, in terms of both the number of plants being built and installment capacity levels. The country accounted for 10 of the 16 reactor construction starts in 2010, and that year it initiated the installment of nearly 10 GW of capacity, representing 62% of capacity construction worldwide. China currently is home to 27 reactors and has some 27 GW of capacity under construction. “Overall, the likelihood of China significantly reducing its aggressive growth in nuclear generation remains low as the country seeks to meet its rapidly growing energy demand and ambitious carbon dioxide reduction targets,”says Worldwatch MAP Fellow Matt Lucky, author of the VSO report.

The United States, too, does not appear to be abandoning nuclear power just yet. In 2010, the Obama administration approved $8.3 billion in loan guarantees for construction of nuclear reactors. In February of 2011, the administration’s budget proposal upped that amount by an additional $36 billion.

The current global decline in installed nuclear power capacity stands in stark contrast to nuclear’s surge in popularity throughout the 2000s. Although many factors are behind the decline, it is largely the result of high costs, slowed electricity demand, and lower natural gas prices in recent months. The reactor meltdown at Japan’s Fukushima plant seven months ago also likely added to the severity of the decline. Only 10 of Japan’s 54 reactors are currently connected to the grid, China froze construction on 25 reactors immediately after the Fukushima explosions, and both Germany and Switzerland announced plans to phase out nuclear power following the disaster.

“Whereas renewable-energy sources are growing at rates of up to 70% and more on an annual basis, nuclear energy is the only major energy technology experiencing negative growth,” says Alexander Ochs, Director of Worldwatch’s Climate and Energy program. “Not only is nuclear too risky from a health and security point of view, it’s also just too expensive.”

Although nuclear power remains an important energy source for many countries, including Russia and France, it is likely that its prominence will continue to decrease. To maintain current generation levels, the world would need to install an additional 18 GW by 2015 and another 175 GW by 2025. In the aftermath of Fukushima and in the context of a fragile global economy, an increase that sharp is improbable.

Further highlights from the report:

• Together, China, India, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, and South Korea have contributed about 5 GW of new installed capacity since the beginning of 2010. During this same period, nearly 11.5 GW of installed capacity has been shut down in France, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom.
• Germany alone has taken about  8 GW of installed nuclear capacity offline this year.
• Currently, 65 reactors are under construction around the world. However, 20 of these have been under construction for more than 20 years.
• Construction on the first nuclear power plant to be built in France in 15 years has been delayed until 2016, and its projected cost has grown from €3.3 to 6 billion (About $4.4 to $8 billion).
• The average age of decommissioned reactors worldwide has risen to 23 years.
• In 2009, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission received 26 nuclear reactor permit applications, but only four of those sites have plans for construction.

Worldwatch Institute
www.worldwatch.org

Windpower Engineering & Development

This article comes from MIT News

For more wedges from the Infographic: See the 'wedges' of alternative energy available

Of all the zero-carbon energy sources available, wind power is the only one that’s cost-competitive today: A 2006 report by the U.S. Energy Information Administration put the total cost for wind-produced electricity at an average of $55.80 per megawatt-hour, compared to $53.10 for coal, $52.50 for natural gas and $59.30 for nuclear power.

As a result, wind turbines are being deployed rapidly in many parts of the United States and around the world. And because of wind’s proven record and its immediate and widespread availability, it’s an energy source that’s seen as having the potential to grow rapidly.

“Wind is probably one of the most significant renewable energy sources, simply because the technology is mature,” says Paul Sclavounos, an MIT professor of mechanical engineering and naval architecture. “There is no technological risk.”

Globally, 2% of electricity now comes from wind, and in some places the rate is much higher: Denmark, the present world leader, gets more than 19% of its electricity from wind, and is aiming to boost that number to 50%. Some experts estimate wind power could account for 10 to 20% of world electricity generation over the next few decades.

• Infographic: See the ‘wedges’ of alternative energy available

Taking a longer-term view, a widely cited 2005 study by researchers at Stanford University projected that wind, if fully harnessed worldwide, could theoretically meet the world’s present energy needs five times over. And a 2010 study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory found that the United States could get more than 12 times its current electricity consumption from wind alone.

But impressive as these figures may sound, wind power still has a long way to go before it becomes a significant factor in reducing carbon emissions. The potential is there — with abundant wind available for harvesting both on land and, especially, over the oceans — but harnessing that power efficiently will require enormous investments in manufacturing and installation.

So far, installed wind power has the capacity to generate only about 0.2 terawatts (trillions of watts) of energy worldwide — a number that pales in comparison to an average world demand of 14 terawatts, expected to double by 2050. The World Wind Energy Association now projects global wind-power capacity of 1.9 terawatts by 2020.

But that’s peak capacity, and even in the best locations the wind doesn’t blow all the time. In fact, the world’s wind farms operate at an average capacity factor (the percentage of their maximum power that is actually delivered) somewhere between 20 and 40%, depending on their location and the technology.

Some analysts are also concerned that widespread deployment of wind power, with its inherently unpredictable swings in output, could stress power grids, forcing the repeated startup and shutdown of other generators to compensate for wind’s variability. Many of the best wind-harvesting sites are far from the areas that most need the power, necessitating significant investment in delivery infrastructure — but building wind farms closer to population centers is controversial because many people object to their appearance and their sounds.

A potential solution to these problems lies offshore. While many wind installations in Europe have been built within a few miles of shore, in shallow water, there is much greater potential more than 20 miles offshore, where winds blow faster and more reliably.  A good land-based site can provide a 35% capacity factor while an offshore site can yield 45% — greatly improving the cost-effectiveness per unit. Such sites, while still relatively close to consumers, are generally far enough away to be out of sight.

MIT’s Sclavounos has been working on the design of wind turbines for installation far offshore, using floating platforms based on technology used in offshore oilrigs. Such installations along the Eastern Seaboard of the United States could theoretically provide most of the electricity needed for the eastern half of the country. A study in California showed that platforms off the coast there could provide more than 66% of the state’s electricity.

Floating platforms will be essential if wind is to become a major contributor to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, says research engineer Stephen Connors, director of the Analysis Group for Regional Energy Alternatives (AGREA) at the MIT Energy Initiative. Wind energy is “never going to get big if you’re limited to relatively shallow, relatively close [offshore] sites,” he says. “If you’re going to have a large impact, you really need floating structures.”

All the technology needed to install hundreds of floating wind turbines is well established, both from existing near-shore wind farms and from offshore drilling installations. All that’s needed is to put the pieces together in a way that works economically.

But deciding just how to do so is no trivial matter. Sclavounos and his students have been working to optimize designs, using computer simulations to test different combinations of platforms and mooring systems to see how they stand up to wind and waves — as well as how efficiently they can be assembled, transported and installed. One thing is clear: “It won’t be one design for all sites,” Sclavounos says.
In principle, floating structures should be much more economical than wind farms mounted on the seafloor, as in Europe, which require costly construction and assembly. By contrast, the floating platforms could be fully assembled at an onshore facility, then towed into position and anchored.
There are also concerns about the effects of adding a large amount of variable energy production to the national supply. Ron Prinn, director of MIT’s Joint Center for the Science and Policy of Global Change, says, “At large scale, there are issues regarding reliability of renewable but variable energy sources such as wind will require adding the costs of backup generation or energy storage.”
Exactly how big is the potential for offshore wind power? Nobody knows with certainty because of insufficient data on the strength and variability of offshore winds. “You need to know where and when it’s windy — hour to hour, day to day, season to season and year to year,” Connors says. While such data has been collected on land, there is much less information for points offshore. “It’s an answerable question, but you can’t do it by brainstorming.”

And the answers might not be what wind-power advocates want to hear. Some analysts raise questions about how much difference wind power can make. MIT physicist Robert Jaffe says that wind is “excellent in certain niche locations, but overall it’s too diffuse” — that is, too thinly spread out over the planet — to be the major greenhouse gas-curbing technology. “In the long term, solar is the best option” to be sufficiently scaled up to make a big difference, says Jaffe.
Connors is confident that wind also has a role to play. “This planet is mostly ocean,” he says, “and it’s pretty windy out there.”

MIT
Mit.edu

Windpower Engineering & Development

Founders Gordon Oswald and Craig Webster from Cambridge Consultants are both joining Aveillant.

Cambridge Consultants, creator of several successful high-tech start-ups, announced the spin-off of Aveillant with venture investment from DFJ Esprit and AIFCL, the wind industry fund. Aveillant’s technology will remove concerns about aviation safety and air defense that are holding back growth in the wind-energy industry. Wind turbines in motion can mimic aircraft on an air traffic controller’s radar screen. Aveillant will provide airfields with accurate radar data to eliminate potential confusion this could cause, without a loss or compromise in performance. The need is urgent. Currently, 66% of all wind farm applications, equating to 6.5 GW (according to RenewableUK) are being delayed due to this problem in the UK alone.

Aveillant’s business will be to supply equipment and services that will reconcile wind turbines with radar. As aircraft fly over wind farms, current radar systems have difficulty distinguishing between aircraft and rotating turbine blades, potentially causing air traffic controllers to lose sight of the aircraft on primary radar display screens. This can also cause vulnerability for national air defense. Proposed solutions lead to unacceptable compromises either in radar coverage, sensitivity or accuracy. Aveillant’s wind turbine mitigation approach has been developed in consultation with key stakeholders, including wind-farm developers, airport operators, the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC), and the Ministry of Defense (MoD). The result is a single mitigation technology that promises to meet civil and MoD requirements, and will be cost-effective even for smaller wind farms, as well as generate jobs in the green-energy sector.

Aveillant will exploit a new step-change in the development of radar technology in the form of its proprietary 3D holographic radar. The Aveillant solution will recognize the presence and position of even small aircraft in the vicinity of the largest wind turbines, providing a level of accuracy that will assure safe separation of aircraft and turbine in the most demanding airspace, says the company. This capability was recognized in 2009 when successful trials of a small scale system for the MoD led to sponsorship for a proposal to the DECC’s Aviation Advisory panel. Consequently, it was the leading radar in-fill solution selected by the UK Government’s Aviation Management Board in 2010, and received offers of financial support from the Wind Industry.

This first part of a multi-million dollar investment is being funded through a consortium of Cambridge Consultants, venture capitalist DFJ Esprit, and the Wind Industry’s funding body, the Aviation Investment Fund Company Ltd (AIFCL). Founders Gordon Oswald and Craig Webster from Cambridge Consultants are both joining Aveillant.

Cambridge Consultants says it has created more than 20 companies in the past 50 years. Five of them have gone on to be listed on the London Stock Exchange, and several have been sold in multi-million dollar deals. The company has created over a billion dollars worth of value and more than 3,000 jobs through its spin outs, and is seen by many as a founding father of the Cambridge Phenomenon.

Cambridge Consultants
www.CambridgeConsultants.com

Windpower Engineering & Development

OpenWind Enterprise software is wind-farm design and optimization software based on the open source version of openWind.

A renewable-energy-consulting and information firm has released openWind Enterprise 1.3, software that further refines the wind farm design process with improved loss and uncertainty estimates. In addition to an ability to optimize for cost of energy and assess deep array impacts, current Enterprise users will receive Time-Series Energy Capture and Effective Turbulence Intensity upgrades, along with a pilot of Time-Scheduling of Turbines. These features help developers trim time off projects and meet requirements of utilities and turbine manufacturers. “This is just the first stage of an ongoing rollout of new features aimed at addressing the real needs of wind farm design,” said Nick Robinson, Director of openWind. “This new release lets clients gain more insight in the design phase of their wind farm.” A few features include:

Effective turbulence intensity provides a measure of fatigue loading on each turbine due to ambient and wake-induced turbulence. Users can calculate effective turbulence values according to the latest amendment to IEC614000-1 (ed. 3), and specify how wakes are modeled.

Times-series energy capture lets users assess diurnal and seasonal impacts of turbulence intensity and air density as well as temperature variance shutdown losses. By inserting the time-element back into the energy capture analysis, users more easily see the effects of summer and winter differences as well as different daytime and nighttime stability regimes.

Time scheduling of turbines lets users switch off individual turbines by time of day or year and switch individual turbines to a different power curve. This is particularly useful when attempting to quantify the impact of grid curtailment. For example, switching to low-noise power curves at night to meet local regulations or switching off a turbine for specific times of day when shadow flicker may be a problem.

“The addition of Time-Series Energy Capture will improve modeling accuracy,” said Erik Hale, Wind Assessment Manager, enXco.

OpenWind Enterprise software is wind-farm design and optimization software based on the open source version of openWind. There are over 3,500 users of the free community version of openWind. The openWind Enterprise version was developed for wind developers who need more powerful features, an industry-leading geographical information systems (GIS) interface, the ability to optimize for cost of energy, assess deep array impacts, and define and analyze strategies for managed shut-down of turbines.

AWS Truepower Inc.
http://www.awstruepower.com/openwind_ad1211/

Windpower Engineering & Development

Marbled murrelets nest in old growth trees and fly to the ocean to feed.

State legislatures in Washington once called a proposed wind farm on Radar Ridge near Naselle “a great idea.” But state legislator Dan Takko added, “it’s got all the good things going for it, except for that little bird.” The little bird is the marbled murrelet, a threatened species since 1992.

Concern for the robin-sized bird has been enough to kill the wind farm project. Energy Northwest and four Southwest Washington utilities canceled the Radar Ridge project, which was to include 32 wind turbines and would have been the first major wind farm in the region. About $4 million had been spent on the proposed project since 2007, but new restrictions proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were unreasonable, according to Energy Northwest. A draft environmental impact statement by the USFWS called for the Radar Ridge turbines to be shut down six months of the year during daylight hours to protect the bird.

Marbled murrelets nest in old growth trees and fly to the ocean to feed on fish. One study on the proposed wind farm concluded that the spinning blades would kill one murrelet per year at most. That seems acceptable, considering that about 18,000 of the birds are thought to exist. Wind advocate point out that, unlike hydroelectric dams, wind farms don’t harm fish.

Though the marbled murrelet was the main factor that grounded the Radar Range proposal, the crumbling market for wind-generated power and the politics blowing around the issue were likely factors, too.

One reason the Cowlitz PUD’s (a Washington state public utility district) went up 18% recently is that the utility can’t sell as much electricity from its wind farms in Klickitat County as it once did. A California law requires utilities there to buy their wind power from within the Golden State.

Possible changes to Washington’s I-937, passed by state voters in 2006, could also have a big effect on the wind power market, too. The voter-approved initiative requires utilities to get 9% of their power from “new” sources of renewable energy, such as wind. That percentage is scheduled to increase to 15% in 2020. Those seeking change point out the law’s logic-defying exclusion of hydro power as “renewable,” even though the rain falls as reliably as the wind blows.

Windpower Engineering & Development