DOCSLIB.ORG

2013-03-11 Nspml-Nspi (Ca-Sba) Ir-01-46

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2013-03-11 Nspml-Nspi (Ca-Sba) Ir-01-46 Maritime Link Project (NSUARB ML-2013-01) NSPML Responses to Consumer Advocate/Small Business Advocate Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-1: 2 3 With reference to Application, page 15, lines 5-8, what electricity markets would have 4 improved access with the Project? 5 6 Response IR-1: 7 8 The Project will provide access to Newfoundland and Labrador’s hydroelectric resources and 9 other sources of generation that are expected to be developed in NL as well as improve access to 10 NB and New England markets. Date Filed: March 11, 2013 NSPML (CA/SBA) IR-1 Page 1 of 1 Maritime Link Project (NSUARB ML-2013-01) NSPML Responses to Consumer Advocate/Small Business Advocate Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-2: 2 3 With reference to Application, page 16, lines 2-6: 4 5 (a) Please explain and quantify how the Project will also increase Nova Scotia’s 6 capacity to develop new intermittent sources of electricity, such as wind, and 7 incorporate them in the Nova Scotia’s electrical transmission system. 8 9 (b) Please explain and quantify how the transmission upgrades postulated for the 10 “Other Import” alternative would increase Nova Scotia’s capacity to develop new 11 Intermittent sources of electricity, such as wind, and incorporate them in the Nova 12 Scotia’s electrical transmission system. 13 14 Response IR-2: 15 16 (a) With the addition of the Maritime Link, a second interconnection to new, incremental and 17 dispatchable renewable energy, NS Power will have the ability to schedule the NS Block 18 daily and it will be able to optimize the daily profile of the NS Block within the agreed 19 parameters. This will enhance the ability to respond to other intermittent sources like 20 wind. Additionally, the Surplus Energy could be used to fill in for periods when wind 21 production is below schedule. 22 (b) In the Other Import scenario, there is a required capital investment in the second interconnection or tie between NS-NB. This second tie will allow the import of energy and capacity and allow the first tie to remain available for balancing intermittent energy sources. The limitation of the “Other Import” is that the same market exists as with the original tie, therefore there is no new source of energy. NS Power’s needs for the energy will increase the demand placed upon this market. The Maritime Link on the other hand brings new sources and potential new counterparties. Date Filed: March 11, 2013 NSPML (CA/SBA) IR-2 Page 1 of 1 Maritime Link Project (NSUARB ML-2013-01) NSPML Responses to Consumer Advocate/Small Business Advocate Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-3: 2 3 With reference to Application, page 17, lines 2, 13-14; page 105, lines 13-15; page 106, lines 4 3-4; page 149, line 12; and page 150, lines 3-4; please explain why only the Project but not 5 the “Other Import” alternative supports the development of additional intermittent 6 renewable energy resources in Nova Scotia, such as wind and tidal. 7 8 Response IR-3: 9 10 Please refer to SBA-IR2. 11 12 One of the benefits of an energy loop in Atlantic Canada, enabled through the Maritime Link, is 13 the creation of an electricity market that has abundant supply of energy. The energy flowing 14 through this new loop is reliable energy and of such quantities that it can serve as back-up for 15 Wind and eventually tidal. The “other import” does not enable an energy loop and as a result 16 could only import a specific amount of energy into Nova Scotia and would provide limited 17 additional energy to support a back-up for wind or tidal. 18 19 It should also be noted that the location of the Maritime Link provides access to energy in the 20 vicinity of where NS Power’s coal fired units will be required to come off line to meet new 21 Federal emissions regulations. This ensures that transmission capacity throughout the entire 22 province will continue to be used when electricity starts flowing from Newfoundland and 23 Labrador. Based on its location and where most of the energy demand is in Nova Scotia, the 24 other import would leave these transmission assets underutilized in Cape Breton. Date Filed: March 11, 2013 NSPML (CA/SBA) IR-3 Page 1 of 1 Maritime Link Project (NSUARB ML-2013-01) NSPML Responses to Consumer Advocate/Small Business Advocate Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-4: 2 3 With reference to Application, page 18, lines 25, please quantify the remaining technical 4 potential for hydroelectric generation in Nova Scotia. Distinguish new sites from nameplate 5 expansions at existing facilities. 6 7 Response IR-4: 8 9 There are no further large scale (>30 MW) hydroelectric generation identified in Nova Scotia by 10 NS Power. The sites that exist for small scale hydro are limited, as well as difficult to justify 11 economically and environmentally. The two hydro river systems not developed in Nova Scotia 12 are in salmon bearing rivers in sensitive ecological areas – Northeast Margaree River in Cape 13 Breton and St Mary’s River in Guysborough County on mainland Nova Scotia. NS Power 14 considers neither to be viable from an environmental perspective alone. NS Power has very 15 modest expansion opportunities at existing sites. Most of the improvement opportunity is in 16 technologically upgrading components, automating the facilities and extending life through re- 17 investment. Date Filed: March 11, 2013 NSPML (CA/SBA) IR-4 Page 1 of 1 Maritime Link Project (NSUARB ML-2013-01) NSPML Responses to Consumer Advocate/Small Business Advocate Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-5: 2 3 With reference to Application, page 18, lines 25-26: 4 5 (a) Please quantify the remaining technical potential for natural gas generation in Nova 6 Scotia. Distinguish new sites from expansions at existing facilities. Please base the 7 analysis on unused pipeline capacity. 8 9 (b) For new gas fired peakers or combined cycle plants located in Nova Scotia, what 10 pipeline or local distribution system improvements would be needed, if any, to 11 support gas assurance requirements for each technology type? 12 13 (c) For new gas fired peakers or combined cycle plants located in Nova Scotia, what 14 upstream pipeline system improvements would be needed, if any, to support 15 deliverability into the Province for each technology type? 16 17 (d) What assumptions did NSPML or its advisors make regarding the emergence of 18 new natural gas supplies in New Brunswick, Sable Island, or Deep Panuke to 19 support gas fired generation in Nova Scotia? 20 21 (e) What assumptions did NSPML or its advisors make regarding the utilization of the 22 Repsol Canaport LNG import terminal over the study period to support gas fired 23 generation in Nova Scotia? Date Filed: March 11, 2013 NSPML (CA/SBA) IR-5 Page 1 of 3 Maritime Link Project (NSUARB ML-2013-01) NSPML Responses to Consumer Advocate/Small Business Advocate Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Response IR-5: 2 3 (a-c) Natural gas generation limits in the province would be based upon existing infrastructure 4 (generation and pipelines) and available supply, and the cost of the generation would be 5 subject to market or contracted prices available. Currently, the Province is fed by a single 6 pipeline that has a technical capacity of 600 mcf/day North to South if a source exists to 7 fill the pipe. The Lateral pipeline to Halifax has a capacity of approximately 100 mcf/day, 8 and can support the 500 MW of existing gas generation currently located in Dartmouth, 9 Nova Scotia. Any further gas generation added to the Halifax lateral will restrict the 10 potential to produce more electricity at peak demand. If we assume the 100 mcf/day 11 supports 500 MW, the main line if only serving Nova Scotia (not New Brunswick and 12 New England) and dedicated to generation only, we could assume 3000 MW would be 13 possible (500MW/100mmcf x 600 mmcf= 3000 MW). There presently exists about 14 1000 MW of natural gas based generation in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The 15 growth to 3000 MW would be an unrealistic level of capital investment without multiple 16 pipelines and back-up generation alternatives. 17 18 (d) NSPML has not included any limitation on the use of natural gas generation in the 19 modeling other than the emission constraints which would be required. NSPML is aware 20 of the publicly stated plans of Exxon Mobil to initiate decommissioning plans for SOEP 21 and the expected life Encana has proposed for Deep Panuke. NSPML is also aware of the 22 progress in potential for shale gas development in New Brunswick. These were not used 23 to modify or alter the natural gas price forecast used in the alternatives analysis. 24 However, the expectation that SOEP may finish production by 2017 and that Deep 25 Panuke has an expected life of 13 years would indicate that by the mid 2020’s there is a 26 higher degree of concern that gas prices will be pressured higher than lower for our 27 region without new source development. Despite natural gas prices in the US being 28 depressed by shale gas, the gas market in New England remains volatile and demand 29 spikes place upward pressure on prices in our region. Date Filed: March 11, 2013 NSPML (CA/SBA) IR-5 Page 2 of 3 Maritime Link Project (NSUARB ML-2013-01) NSPML Responses to Consumer Advocate/Small Business Advocate Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 2 (e) NSPML has not limited the use of any source of natural gas, including LNG imports, in 3 selecting the use of natural gas generation in the dispatch plans for the alternatives.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Powering Renewable Energy in Canada and Abroad
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by bepress Legal Repository WINDWIND ENERGY AND ITS IMPACTIMPACT ONON FUTURE ENVIRONMENTALENVIRONMENTAL POLICY PLANNINGPLANNING:::: POWERINGPOWERING RENEWABLERENEWABLE ENERGY IN CANADA AND ABROAD byby KamaalKamaal R. Zaidi INTRODUCTION Given the tremendous pressure of using finite conventional sources of energy, many countries around the world are turning to renewable sources of energy to cushion against rising costs, while diversifying the means of delivering energy to their citizens. Wind energy is one such example of an innovative strategy to provide energy to citizens in a cleaner, abundant and reliable fashion. As society turns away from conventional sources like coal and natural gas (fossil fuels) due to the rising electricity costs and its deleterious impact on the environment, government-sponsored efforts and technological innovation are pushing wind energy to the forefront of creative environmental policy planning. More specifically, government legislation through financial incentives encourages public and private businesses to participate in pursuing renewable energy sources with more vigor. This paper examines the role of wind energy in Canada and abroad in terms of how its growing emergence is being recognized as one of the best methods of implementing sound environmental regimes that are replacing expensive conventional methods of energy extraction and utilization. Part I will examine the history and background of wind energy. Here, an overview of wind energy use in various cultures and time periods will be examined. Part II explains the role of wind energy in the context of the Kyoto Protocol. As part of this global initiative, wind energy is reviewed as to how it contributes to a “green” economy.
    [Show full text]
  • Presentation by Paul Gipe to Bundesverband Windenergie On
    Disclaimer: The views expressed are those of Paul Gipe and are not necessarily those of the sponsor. Disclosure: Paul Gipe has worked with Aerovironment, ANZSES, APROMA, ASES, AusWEA, AWEA, BWEA, BWE, CanWEA, CAW, DGW, DSF, EECA, ES&T, GEO, GPI Atlantic, IREQ, KWEA, MADE, Microsoft, ManSEA, NRCan, NRG Systems, NASA, NREL, NZWEA, ORWWG, OSEA, PG&E, SeaWest, SEI, USDOE, WAWWG, WE Energies, the Folkecenter, the Izaak Walton League, the Minnesota Project, the Sierra Club, and Zond Systems, and written for magazines in the USA, Canada, France, Denmark, and Germany. Paul Gipe, wind-works.org Wind Rush of 2005-2007 The North American Market is Like a Bucking Bronco at a Texas Rodeo "Yee Ha! Ride Em Cowboys!" Paul Gipe, wind-works.org World Wind Generating Capacity 2006 Megawatts (Thousands) Europe 60 North America Asia 40 20 0 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 Year Paul Gipe, wind-works.org 2006 World Wind Capacity 12,000 MW 48,000 MW 12,000 MW Paul Gipe, wind-works.org World Wind Capacity 2006 ~70,000 MW South America 1% Europe Asia 66% 16% Africa 0% North America 17% Paul Gipe, wind-works.org World Major Wind Markets Germany Spain USA India 0 5 10 15 20 25 Total MW in 2006 Paul Gipe, wind-works.org World Wind 2,000 MW Club Denmark Italy China Britain 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 Megawatts in 2006 Paul Gipe, wind-works.org World Wind 1,000 MW Club Portugal Japan Netherlands Canada Austria France 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Megawatts in 2006 Paul Gipe, wind-works.org Major Wind Markets Growth Rate
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Renewable Energy Technologies for the Sustainable Development of the Isle of Jura
    ASSESSMENT OF RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ISLE OF JURA International Class 2012 Energy and Environmental Management/SESAM University of Flensburg, Germany MARCH 2012 THIS REPORT IS COMPILED BY THE 2012 CLASS OF THE ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME, UNIVERSITY OF FLENSBURG. TEAM MEMBERS Resha Piya Umer Jamil Dian Apriyani Pitoon Junthip Samuel Oguah Phuong Le Quyen Elizabeth Mosqueda Mir Tanweer Husain Alexandra Vasileskaia Alfa Haile-Mariam Abraha Alexander Komakech Akena Francisco Gonzalez Pasalagua SUPERVISORS Prof. Dr. August Schläpfer, Dipl.-Ing. Wulf Boie John Kuteesakwe Dorsi Germann COVER PHOTO: CRAIGHOUSE ON JURA AND STONE PIER scotlandinfo.eu/isle-of-jura.htm ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS With this note of acknowledgement, we wish to express our heartfelt gratitude to all individuals and organizations that have assisted us throughout this assessment study. This study could not have been successfully done without the support from the Jura Development Trust (JDT) and Community Energy Scotland (CES). Our special thanks go to these individual personalities for their relentless contribution towards this work; Mr. John Potts and Rob Tiger from the Jura Development Trust (JDT) for continuously supporting us during the research and Mr. Felix Wight of Community Energy Scotland (CES) for providing the vital pieces of information needed for this study. Our appreciation also goes to Mr. Andrew Fletcher (Ardlussa), Mr. Ally Miller (Forest Estates) and Willy Cochrane (Manager-Jura Distillery) for sharing their experience and information on hydro projects and distillery processes. We would also like to express our sincere appreciation to all residents of Jura for welcoming us into this beautiful town and their homes.
    [Show full text]
  • Wind Energy and Its Impact on Future Environmental Policy Planning: Powering Renewable Energy in Canada and Abroad
    WIND ENERGY AND ITS IMPACT ON FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY PLANNING: POWERING RENEWABLE ENERGY IN CANADA AND ABROAD by Kamaal R. Zaidi INTRODUCTION Given the tremendous pressure of using finite conventional sources of energy, many countries around the world are turning to renewable sources of energy to cushion against rising costs, while diversifying the means of delivering energy to their citizens. Wind energy is one such example of an innovative strategy to provide energy to citizens in a cleaner, abundant and reliable fashion. As society turns away from conventional sources like coal and natural gas (fossil fuels) due to the rising electricity costs and its deleterious impact on the environment, government-sponsored efforts and technological innovation are pushing wind energy to the forefront of creative environmental policy planning. More specifically, government legislation through financial incentives encourages public and private businesses to participate in pursuing renewable energy sources with more vigor. This paper examines the role of wind energy in Canada and abroad in terms of how its growing emergence is being recognized as one of the best methods of implementing sound environmental regimes that are replacing expensive conventional methods of energy extraction and utilization. Part I will examine the history and background of wind energy. Here, an overview of wind energy use in various cultures and time periods will be examined. Part II explains the role of wind energy in the context of the Kyoto Protocol. As part of this global initiative, wind energy is reviewed as to how it contributes to a “green” economy. Part III discusses the technology behind wind energy generation.
    [Show full text]
  • Community-Scale Wind Energy for Aquidneck Island
    CommunitCommunity-Scaley-Scale WindWind EnergyEnergy A Presentation to the communities of Aquidneck Island Sally Wright, PE Research Fellow, Renewable Energy Research Laboratory, University of Massachusetts Supported by the Renewable Energy ResearchSupported Laboratory, by the UMass Amherst The US www.ceere.org/rerlDepartment of Energy Community-Scale Wind Power: Agenda •• Why Why WindWind Power?Power? •• Community-scale Community-scale windwind –– Technology Technology –– Economics Economics –– Process Process // NextNext StepsSteps –– Impacts Impacts Point of view: Spirit Lake Schools, Iowa Point of view: Spirit Lake Schools, Iowa thethe communitycommunity -- needsneeds factualfactual supportsupport forfor importantimportant decisionsdecisions Renewable Energy Research Laboratory, UMass Amherst www.ceere.org/rerl Why Renewables? Impacts of Fossil Fuels •NOx,•NOx, SOSO22,, COCO22 •• Mercury, Mercury, Dioxin,Dioxin, Particulates,Particulates, COCO •• Oil Oil Spills,Spills, mountainmountain toptop removal,removal, ash,ash, sludge,sludge, …… Renewable Energy Research Laboratory, UMass Amherst www.ceere.org/rerl Why Renewables? Impacts of Fossil Fuels • Electricity: Largest industrial source of air pollution. – 2/3 SOx – 1/4 NOx – 2/5 CO2 – 1/3 Mercury Renewable Energy Research Laboratory, UMass Amherst www.ceere.org/rerl Impacts of Fossil Fuels: Sulphur Dioxide – SO2 –Acid Rain • Where it comes from: – 67 % of SO2 emissions in US from fossil-fuel power plants • Effects: – acid rain – smog • Health impacts: – smog triggers asthma attacks
    [Show full text]
  • Fundamentals of Wind Energy
    Fundamentals of Wind Energy Paul Gipe, wind-works.org Power in the Wind P1AV 3 2 Where is air density (kg/m3), A is area (m2), and V is velocity (m/s); thus 2V3 = 8P Paul Gipe, wind-works.org Seasonal Wind Distribution Avg. Monthly Wind Speed (mph) 18 16 ! ! ! ! ! 14 ' & ' & ! ' &! ' ! ! ! & ! & ' ! 12 & & ' 10 ' & & & && ' ' 8 ' ' ' 6 ! Amarillo, Texas 4 & Erie, Penn. ' San Francisco, Calif. 2 0 Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Month Paul Gipe, wind-works.org Rayleigh Wind Speed Distribution Frequency of Occurrence % 0.16 0.14 5 m/s 6 m/s 0.12 7 m/s 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 01234567891011121314151617181920 Wind Speed Bin Paul Gipe, wind-works.org Increase in Wind Speed with Height " V=Vo (H/Ho) 1.6 Wind Shear Exponent 1.5 , 0.1) 0.14 (1/7)& 0.2* 0.25 * * 1.4 * * & & * & 1.3 & * ) & ) ) 1.2 * & ) ) , , & ) , , * ) , 1.1 & , ) , , 1 &),* 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 H/Ho Paul Gipe, wind-works.org Increase in Power with Height 3" P=Po (H/Ho) 3.5 * Wind Shear Exponent * 3 , 0.1) 0.14 (1/7)& 0.2* 0.25 * * & 2.5 & * & & 2 * ) & ) ) * & ) ) , , 1.5 & ) , , , * ) , & , ,) 1 &),* 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 H/Ho Paul Gipe, wind-works.org Change in Wind Speed & Power with Height 2 X Height 5 X Height 25 to 50 m 10 to 50 m Wind Speed 1.1 1.25 Wind Power 1.35 1.99 1/7 (0.14), Low Grass Prairies Paul Gipe, wind-works.org Annual Energy Output (AEO) Estimating Methods • Back-of-the-Envelope (Swept Area) Simple Approximation • Power Curve & Speed Distribution Method Used by the Pros Accuracy Dependent Upon Data • Manufacturers’ Tables
    [Show full text]
  • March 26, 2007 Wind Energy Cooperative Development In
    March 26, 2007 Wind Energy Cooperative Development in Anglophone Canada For the Canadian Co-operative Association By Paul Gipe1 Background2 In North America, renewable energy advocates and especially community renewable energy advocates often use the terms community wind development and cooperative wind development interchangeably. This derives from the effort of Anglophone North Americans to describe a uniquely continental European phenomenon of share ownership structures that allow local investment in, ownership of, and often managerial control of renewable energy projects. Mark Bolinger has explored at length the distinctions between the various ownership structures in Europe and their relevance to North America.3 Further, community renewable advocates include renewable energy systems owned individually, for example by a single farmer, as well those owned by First Nations, municipal governments, or other community entities. Community renewable advocates do make a distinction between large central station projects owned by state enterprises (Crown corporations), and projects smaller in scale that may or may not be connected at distribution voltages. For example, it is not unheard of for community wind projects in Germany and Denmark to be connected at transmission voltages. Some of these projects can be quite large.4 Community renewables may include small solar power systems operated by individual farmers and homeowners, but typically does not include small household-size wind turbines. Wind turbines are significantly more cost effective at commercial scale and the community wind movement in continental Europe has focused exclusively on commercial-scale turbines.5 Denmark has long been known for the high concentration of shared ownership wind turbines (fællesmølle), as well as wind turbines owned individually by farmers.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Analysis of Community Wind Power Development Options in Oregon
    A Comparative Analysis of Community Wind Power Development Options in Oregon Prepared for the Energy Trust of Oregon by Mark Bolinger, Ryan Wiser, Tom Wind, Dan Juhl, and Robert Grace July 2004 About the Authors Mark Bolinger Mark Bolinger is a research associate at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), as well as an independent consultant. Mark’s research focuses on renewable energy economics, markets, policies, and programs. Through his work at LBNL, Mark has written extensively on community wind power development in Europe and North America. Mark received a B.A. from Dartmouth College and holds an M.A. in Energy and Resources from the University of California, Berkeley. Ryan Wiser Ryan Wiser is a scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and is principal of Wiser Consulting. Mr. Wiser founded Wiser Consulting in 1995, a firm that emphasizes economic, policy, and business analysis of renewable electricity markets. At LBNL, Mr. Wiser manages, leads, and conducts research in the planning, design, and evaluation of renewable energy programs, green marketing opportunities, and renewable energy economics. Mr. Wiser has advised numerous state and federal organizations in the development of their renewable energy programs. Mr. Wiser received a B.S. from Stanford University and holds an M.S. and Ph.D. in Energy and Resources from the University of California, Berkeley. Tom Wind Mr. Wind is the owner of Wind Utility Consulting. As a professional consulting electrical engineer, Mr. Wind specializes in wind generation projects and in the integration of wind generation into the utility grid system. He has been the project engineer for several small distributed wind generation projects in the Midwest.
    [Show full text]
  • Big Wind in Ontario by Steven Moore
    Big Wind in Ontario by Steven Moore How many times can a man turn his head. And pretend that he just doesn't see? The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind. The answer is blowin' in the wind. Bob Dylan Is wind a practical source of electrical energy? Absolutely. The most common measurement of electricity production and consumption is a 1,000 watt unit called a kilowatt (kW). That’s what ten 100-watt light bulbs draw, or one toaster, or a small microwave. But light bulbs and microwaves aren’t on all the time, so total electricity requirements require a time factor. Consumption of a kilowatt for an hour is a kilowatt-hour (kWh). According to the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA), the average modern home requires 8,000 kWh of electricity per year. That’s about 22 kWh per day. That may sound like a lot, but leave those light bulbs on for two hours and they’ve consumed 2 kWh all by themselves. There are two basic options for producing all this power for Canadians: Option A • Option B • Small, cheap decentralized production • Huge, expensive centralized power generating • Small grids, failures and disruptions localized stations • Free renewable fuel • A massive, inter-tied grid transmitting failures • Fuel supply secure as well as electricity • No harmful byproducts • Costly, non-renewable fuel • Simple systems requiring little maintenance • Fuel supply insecure • Generation byproducts include air and water pollution, nuclear waste toxic for 10,000 years • Complex systems requiring expensive maintenance Easy choice, eh? Well, Canada’s energy Big Brains have consistently chosen Option B.
    [Show full text]
  • Boston Harbor Islands Renewables Planning Guide Consisted of the Following Tasks
    BOSTON HARBOR ISLANDS RENEWABLES PLANNING GUIDE Submitted by the Urban Harbors Institute University of Massachusetts Boston 100 Morrissey Blvd. Boston, MA 02125-3393 (617)287-5570 and the Island Alliance 408 Atlantic Avenue, Suite 228 Boston, MA 02110-3349 (617) 223-8530 Funded by The Massachusetts Technology Collaborative Renewable Energy Trust As the final product of the Predevelopment of Renewables in the Boston Harbor Islands National Park Area by University of Timeless ☯ Massachusetts Technologies Amherst May 2005 Table of Contents Table of Contents i List of Figures and Tables iii Introduction 1 I. Basis and Background for Renewable Energy on the Boston Harbor Islands 4 II. The Boston Harbor Islands National Park Area: Existing and Planned Conditions A. Institutional Setting of the BHINPA 7 The BHI Partnership Island Alliance Advisory Council B. Park Planning 9 C. Park Financing and Revenue Generation 9 D. The Affected Environment 10 Existing Conditions and Use of Each Island 11 Plans for Future Use and Development of the Islands 14 E. Regional energy distribution system 16 Interconnection 19 III. Resource Analysis A. Amount of Resource 20 Wind 20 Solar 24 B. Renewable Energy Resource Analysis: Power and Energy Estimations Wind 26 Photovoltaics 28 IV. Identification of Alternative Technologies and Sites A. Wind Power 29 Technologies Preliminary Identification of Sites for Further Study B. Photovoltaics 33 Preliminary Identification of Sites for Further Study C. Development and ownership options 34 D. Financing 35 i E. Operation and maintenance (O&M) 35 V. Environmental, Community and Regulatory Assessment A. Overview of environmental and community impact criteria 36 Issue, existing conditions, regulatory authorities, findings Wind Power Birds 36 Navigable Airspace 40 Terrestrial and Wetlands Resources 43 Historic, Cultural, and Archeological Resources 44 Aesthetics and community acceptance 47 Native American interests 49 B.
    [Show full text]
  • Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
    Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Title Financial Innovation Among the Community Wind Sector in the United States Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9xj4h565 Author Bolinger, Mark Publication Date 2011-07-07 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Financial Innovation Among the Community Wind Sector in the United States Mark Bolinger, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory To be published in: Wind Energy International 2011/2012 by the World Wind Energy Association In the relatively brief history of utility-scale wind generation, the “community wind” sector – defined here as consisting of relatively small utility-scale wind power projects that are at least partly owned by one or more members of the local community – has played a vitally important role as a “test bed” or “proving ground” for wind turbine manufacturers. In the 1980s and 1990s, for example, Vestas and other now-established European wind turbine manufacturers relied heavily on community wind projects in Scandinavia and Germany to install – and essentially field-test – new turbine designs. The fact that orders from community wind projects seldom exceeded more than a few turbines at a time enabled the manufacturers to correct any design flaws or manufacturing defects fairly rapidly, and without the risk of extensive (and expensive) serial defects that can accompany larger orders. Community wind has been slower to take root in the United States – the first such projects were installed in the state of Minnesota around the year 2000. Just as in Europe, however, the community wind sector in the U.S. has similarly served as a proving ground – but in this case for up-and-coming wind turbine manufacturers that are trying to break into the broader U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • CONTRACT AW-03 FINAL REPORT August 30, 2006
    CONTRACT AW-03 FINAL REPORT August 30, 2006 Page 1 of 10 Executive Summary Project Resources Corporation (PRC) proposed installing 5.4 MW of wind generation capacity that would employ a new wind turbine model interconnected to the electric distribution grid in Southwestern Minnesota. The “S88” 1.8 megawatt turbines selected were new to the United States and promised to perform well in Midwest wind regimes. PRC also proposed attempting to employ a new form of project financing that would enable groups of farmers to invest in wind projects without exposure to the usual project development risks that often challenge farmers hoping to get involved in wind project ownership. While there were numerous unexpected challenges encountered in the process of planning, financing, and constructing the projects, PRC believes that the end result exceeds that originally intended. Namely, the technology employed meets the intent of the contract, possibly better than the Enron Wind equipment originally contemplated, and the financing employed for the projects matches together several sources of Minnesota-based equity and debt that were not contemplated originally. Key areas highlighted in this report are interconnection challenges and financing challenges. Conclusions and recommendations are made around such issues as distributed generation and non-conventional wind project financing. Page 2 of 10 Background Project Resources Corporation (PRC) surveyed regional electrical distribution substations in 1999-2001 to explore the potential for distributed wind generation in Minnesota and identify likely candidates for distribution-connected wind generation projects. This process included distribution substations owned by both investor owned utilities and cooperative utilities. PRC identified several dozen distribution substations that appeared generally suitable for interconnection of wind projects of less than 10 MW.
    [Show full text]