DOCSLIB.ORG

Feasibility Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Feasibility Study GLWEC Final Feasibility Report Great Lakes Wind Energy Center Feasibility Study Final Feasibility Report Submitted as part of the Great Lakes Wind Energy Center Feasibility Study to: Cuyahoga County, Ohio Great Lakes Energy Development Task Force juwi GmbH JW Great Lakes Wind LLC Tower Press Building 1900 Superior Avenue, Suite 333 Cleveland, OH 44114-4420 Office: 216.344.9305 Principal Authors: Barbi Driedger-Marschall Peter K. Endres Ralf M. Krueger Christof van den Bruck Final Feasibility Report GLWEC Feasibility Study April 2009 GLWEC Final Feasibility Report This page intentionally left blank GLWEC Final Feasibility Report Project Team GLWEC Final Feasibility Report Notice: This report presents final feasibility results for the Great Lakes Wind Energy Center. The Great Lakes Wind Energy Center Feasibility Study is being conducted by juwi GmbH and its Ohio-based subsidiary JW Great Lakes Wind LLC, on behalf of the Cuyahoga County Great Lakes Energy Development Task Force. Please direct questions regarding the Great Lakes Wind Energy Center Feasibility Study to Ryan Miday at [email protected] or (216) 299-9326. Disclaimer: This report was prepared by juwi GmbH and its subsidiary JW Great Lakes Wind LLC, with contributions from GLWEC Project Team members. Neither juwi GmbH, JW Great Lakes Wind LLC, nor Project Team members make any warranty of representation, express or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained in this report. Neither JW Great Lakes Wind LLC, juwi GmbH, nor Project Team members assume any liability with respect to the use of, or damages resulting from the use of, any information disclosed in this report. GLWEC Final Feasibility Report Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary .................................................................................................. 1-1 2 Introduction and Scope of Work .............................................................................. 2-1 3 Preliminary Site Selection ........................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Siting Criteria ........................................................................................................ 3-2 3.1.1 Shipping Channels ........................................................................................ 3-2 3.1.2 Water Depth ................................................................................................. 3-3 3.1.3 Air Navigation and Radar .............................................................................. 3-4 3.1.4 Sailing Courses, Reefs, Dumping Grounds, and Salt Mine ........................... 3-7 3.1.5 Wind Resource ............................................................................................. 3-9 3.1.6 Distance to Interconnection Locations ........................................................ 3-10 3.1.7 Shipwrecks ................................................................................................. 3-12 3.1.8 Water Intake and Sewer Outfall Pipes ........................................................ 3-13 3.1.9 Audubon Ohio Important Bird Area ............................................................. 3-14 3.1.10 Geology ...................................................................................................... 3-15 3.1.11 Pilot Project Locations ................................................................................ 3-16 3.2 Photosimulations ................................................................................................ 3-20 3.3 ODNR Favorability Map ..................................................................................... 3-25 3.4 Port Authority Submerged Land Lease ............................................................... 3-26 3.5 Conclusions: Determination of Pilot Project Sites ............................................... 3-27 4 Wind Resource .......................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Crib Structure and Site ......................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Analysis of Wind Data .......................................................................................... 4-3 4.2.1 Wind Measurement System .......................................................................... 4-3 4.2.2 Wind Data ..................................................................................................... 4-5 4.2.3 AWS Virtual Met Tower Data ...................................................................... 4-15 4.2.4 Correlation .................................................................................................. 4-17 4.2.5 Long-term Correlation ................................................................................. 4-17 4.3 Conclusion: Wind Resource for the Pilot Project ................................................ 4-21 5 Availability Assessment and Energy Production Estimates .................................. 5-1 5.1 Availability Assessment ........................................................................................ 5-1 5.1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1.2 Definition of Availability ................................................................................. 5-1 5.1.3 Availability Assessment ................................................................................ 5-2 5.1.4 Availability Reduction through Blade Icing .................................................. 5-13 5.1.5 Conclusion of the Availability Assessment .................................................. 5-15 5.2 Energy Production Estimates ............................................................................. 5-18 6 Environmental Conditions ........................................................................................ 6-1 6.1 Avian Risk Assessment ........................................................................................ 6-1 6.1.1 Avian Profile at Project Site .......................................................................... 6-1 6.1.2 Important Bird Areas and Sensitive Habitats in Project Vicinity ..................... 6-3 6.1.3 NEXRAD Study ............................................................................................ 6-3 6.1.4 Literature Review of Risk to Birds at Offshore Wind Energy Sites ................. 6-5 6.1.5 Literature Review of Risk to Birds at Onshore Wind Energy Sites ................. 6-8 6.1.6 Conclusion: Avian Risk Assessment ............................................................. 6-8 6.1.7 Recommended Studies and Construction Guidelines ................................. 6-10 6.2 Initial Marine Ecological Assessment.................................................................. 6-13 6.2.1 Description of Study Area ........................................................................... 6-13 6.2.2 Natural Resources of Lake Erie .................................................................. 6-14 6.2.3 Water Quality .............................................................................................. 6-17 6.2.4 Fishery Resources ...................................................................................... 6-19 GLWEC Final Feasibility Report 6.2.5 Lake Bottom Habitats and Benthic Ecology ................................................ 6-24 6.2.6 Onshore Habitat and Terrestrial Communities ............................................ 6-28 6.2.7 Threatened and Endangered Species ......................................................... 6-30 6.2.8 Conclusion: Potential Impacts of Turbines on Marine Ecology .................... 6-30 6.3 Geology .............................................................................................................. 6-34 6.3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 6-34 6.3.2 Geological Conditions ................................................................................. 6-34 6.3.3 Natural Hazards .......................................................................................... 6-44 6.3.4 Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment ........................................................ 6-49 6.3.5 Foundation Types ....................................................................................... 6-53 6.3.6 Conclusions: Geological Conditions and Foundation Types ........................ 6-61 6.4 Effects of Icing, Wind, and Waves ...................................................................... 6-63 6.4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 6-63 6.4.2 Effects of Ice – Ice Evaluation of Lake Erie ................................................. 6-63 6.4.3 Effects of Wind Conditions .......................................................................... 6-78 6.4.4 Effects of Waves ......................................................................................... 6-88 6.4.5 Influence of Environmental Conditions on Foundation Concept ................ 6-100 6.4.6 Summary and Recommendations with Respect to Ice, Wind, and Waves 6-101 7 Conceptual Design of Pilot Project Turbines and Potential Offshore Research Platform............................................................................................................................. 7-1 7.1 Introduction
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wind Powering America Fy08 Activities Summary
    WIND POWERING AMERICA FY08 ACTIVITIES SUMMARY Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Dear Wind Powering America Colleague, We are pleased to present the Wind Powering America FY08 Activities Summary, which reflects the accomplishments of our state Wind Working Groups, our programs at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and our partner organizations. The national WPA team remains a leading force for moving wind energy forward in the United States. At the beginning of 2008, there were more than 16,500 megawatts (MW) of wind power installed across the United States, with an additional 7,000 MW projected by year end, bringing the U.S. installed capacity to more than 23,000 MW by the end of 2008. When our partnership was launched in 2000, there were 2,500 MW of installed wind capacity in the United States. At that time, only four states had more than 100 MW of installed wind capacity. Twenty-two states now have more than 100 MW installed, compared to 17 at the end of 2007. We anticipate that four or five additional states will join the 100-MW club in 2009, and by the end of the decade, more than 30 states will have passed the 100-MW milestone. WPA celebrates the 100-MW milestones because the first 100 megawatts are always the most difficult and lead to significant experience, recognition of the wind energy’s benefits, and expansion of the vision of a more economically and environmentally secure and sustainable future. Of course, the 20% Wind Energy by 2030 report (developed by AWEA, the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and other stakeholders) indicates that 44 states may be in the 100-MW club by 2030, and 33 states will have more than 1,000 MW installed (at the end of 2008, there were six states in that category).
    [Show full text]
  • Wind Power Feasibility Study: Proposal to East Bay Energy Consortium KEMA, Inc
    Roger Williams University DOCS@RWU East Bay Energy Consortium Documents East Bay/RWU Information Collaborative 8-31-2009 Wind Power Feasibility Study: Proposal to East Bay Energy Consortium KEMA, Inc. Follow this and additional works at: http://docs.rwu.edu/ebec Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons Recommended Citation KEMA, Inc., "Wind Power Feasibility Study: Proposal to East Bay Energy Consortium" (2009). East Bay Energy Consortium Documents. Paper 18. http://docs.rwu.edu/ebec/18 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the East Bay/RWU Information Collaborative at DOCS@RWU. It has been accepted for inclusion in East Bay Energy Consortium Documents by an authorized administrator of DOCS@RWU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Wind Power Feasibility Study Proposal to East Bay Energy Consortium Contact: Andrew Brydges, Principal Consultant (781) 418-5715 or [email protected] Proposal number 09-1865, Burlington, Massachusetts, August 31, 2009 Experience you can trust. Experience you can trust. Copyright © 2009, KEMA, Inc. The information contained in this document is the exclusive, confidential and proprietary property of KEMA, Inc. and is protected under the trade secret and copyright laws of the U.S. and other international laws, treaties and conventions. No part of this work may be disclosed to any third party or used, reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without first receiving the express written permission of KEMA, Inc. Except as otherwise noted, all trademarks appearing herein are proprietary to KEMA, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Projects and Construction Review Projects and Construction Review
    the Projects and Construction Review Construction and Projects Projects and Construction Review Ninth Edition Editor Júlio César Bueno Ninth Edition Ninth lawreviews © 2019 Law Business Research Ltd Projects and Construction Review Ninth Edition Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd This article was first published in July 2019 For further information please contact [email protected] Editor Júlio César Bueno lawreviews © 2019 Law Business Research Ltd PUBLISHER Tom Barnes SENIOR BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT MANAGER Nick Barette BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT MANAGER Joel Woods SENIOR ACCOUNT MANAGERS Pere Aspinall, Jack Bagnall ACCOUNT MANAGERS Olivia Budd, Katie Hodgetts, Reece Whelan PRODUCT MARKETING EXECUTIVE Rebecca Mogridge RESEARCH LEAD Kieran Hansen EDITORIAL COORDINATOR Gavin Jordan HEAD OF PRODUCTION Adam Myers PRODUCTION EDITOR Caroline Fewkes SUBEDITOR Robbie Kelly CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Nick Brailey Published in the United Kingdom by Law Business Research Ltd, London 87 Lancaster Road, London, W11 1QQ, UK © 2019 Law Business Research Ltd www.TheLawReviews.co.uk No photocopying: copyright licences do not apply. The information provided in this publication is general and may not apply in a specific situation, nor does it necessarily represent the views of authors’ firms or their clients. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any legal action based on the information provided. The publishers accept no responsibility for any acts or omissions contained herein. Although the information provided was
    [Show full text]
  • Excerpts from the Final Report of the Township of Lincoln Wind Turbine Moratorium Committee
    EXHIBIT 5 Excerpts from the Final Report of the Township of Lincoln Wind Turbine Moratorium Committee [Prepared by Elise Bittner-Mackin for presentation to the Bureau County, Illinois, Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the 54.5-MW 33-turbine Crescent Ridge wind facility proposed for Indiantown and Milo by Stefan Noe (Illinois Wind Energy)] After the wind turbines went online in Kewaunee County, Wisconsin, the Lincoln Township Board of Supervisors approved a moratorium on new turbine construction. The purpose of the moratorium was to delay new construction of wind turbines for eighteen months, giving the township the opportunity to assess the impacts of the 22 turbines installed by Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (WPSC) and Madison Gas and Electric (MG&E), which went online in June 1999. The following document summarizes some of the problems the Moratorium Committee faced in trying to address problems the township hadn't faced prior to turbine construction and some of the resulting changes the committee proposed as a result of its study. Verification of this information can be obtained from Lincoln Township officials. Agenda. The Moratorium Committee met 39 times between January 17, 2000, and January 20, 2002, to (1) study the impact of wind factories on land, (2) study the impact on residents, and (3) review conditional use permits used to build two existing wind factories in Lincoln Township. Survey. The committee conducted a survey on the perceived impacts of the wind turbines that was sent out to all property owners residing in the township. Each household received one vote. The results were presented on July 2, 2001, to the town board, two years after the wind factory construction.
    [Show full text]
  • MAYAKI Ezekiel Asuku.Pdf
    MULTI-CRITERIA EVALUATION OF THE APPROPRIATE OFFSHORE WIND FARM LOCATION IN NIGERIA Energy sustainability requires meeting our energy needs upon which economic development depends. The need to improve on the present power generating capacity of Nigeria, has brought about energy diversification by increasing the present energy sources to include renewable resources and this has led to the idea of this work. This work is aimed at determining the appropriate offshore wind farm location(s) in Nigeria to address the issue of wind energy availability and utilization in the country. Attributes for offshore wind farm location were collected for three Alternatives in Nigeria which are Victoria Island in Lagos, Koko offshore region of Warri and Abbonema of Port-Hacourt. Wind speeds data were collected from the Nigeria Metrological (NIMET) stations in the states under consideration while other required attributes were collected with the use of a Questionnaire which was responded to by professionals. Collected data were analyzed using fuzzy TOPSIS Multi-Criteria analysis tool. Average of a ten years wind speed for Lagos, Warri and Port-Harcourt were 6.251m/s, 7.294m/s and 7.347m/s respectively. Analytic Hierarchy Process gave a Consistency Index of 0.1230 and Consistency Ratio of 0.0843. The consistency ratio from the AHP was used to calculate the required Criteria Weight (Cw) for the fuzzy TOPSIS analysis. The results from the TOPSIS analysis showed that Lagos showed a greater advantage over the two other alternatives been considered. Finally, from the cummulative value of the analyzed attributes, Victoria Island (Lagos) has the highest figure of 233.6677 with a consideration rate of 38% and this places it above Koko (Warri) and Abonnema (Port-Harcourt) with a value of 187.7704 (30%) and 195.4378 (32%).
    [Show full text]
  • Managing the Social Impacts of Wind Power
    A WORLD BANK STUDY Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Greening the Wind ENVIRONMENTAL AND Public Disclosure Authorized SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR WIND POWER DEVELOPMENT George C. Ledec Public Disclosure Authorized Kennan W. Rapp Roberto G. Aiello WORLD BANK STUDY Greening the Wind Environmental and Social Considerations for Wind Power Development George C. Ledec Kennan W. Rapp Roberto G. Aiello Copyright © 2011 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org 1 2 3 4 14 13 12 11 Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP) reports are published to communicate the re- sults of ESMAP’s work to the development community with the least possible delay. Some sources cited in this paper may be informal documents that are not readily available. The fi ndings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this report are entirely those of the author(s) and should not be a ributed in any manner to the World Bank, or its affi liated organizations, or to members of its board of executive directors for the countries they represent, or to ESMAP. The World Bank and ESMAP do not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility whatsoever for any consequence of their use. The boundaries, colors, denominations, other information shown on any map in this volume do not imply on the part of the World Bank Group any judgment on the legal status of any territory or the endorsement of acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this publication is copyrighted.
    [Show full text]
  • Area for Consideration for the Potential Locating of Offshore Wind Energy Areas
    New York State Area for Consideration for the Potential Locating of Offshore Wind Energy Areas NYSERDA Report 17-25 September 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures . 2 List of Tables . 3 Acronyms and Abbreviations . 3 Executive Summary . 5 1.0 Introduction . 7 1 1 . Overview . 7 1 .2 New York State Offshore Wind Master Plan . 8 1 .3 Public Policy Context . 10 1 .4 Request for Wind Energy Areas . 10 2.0 Area for Consideration . 11 2 1. Area for Consideration for BOEM's Area Identification Process and the Locating of New Wind Energy Areas . 11 2 .2 Area for Consideration Selection Process . 12 3.0 Indicative Wind Energy Areas .. 18 4.0 General Schedule of Proposed Activities . 24 5.0 General Description of Objectives and Facilities . 27 5 1 . Objectives . 27 5 .2 Offshore Production Facilities and Substations . 27 5 .3 Power Transmission and Grid Connection . 29 5 .4 Onshore Support Facilities and Staging Areas . 30 This document is the result of work undertaken by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), the New York Department of State (DOS), and the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) . The Area for Consideration presented in this document fulfills one of the key goals of the New York State Offshore Wind Master Plan . The New York State Offshore Wind Master Plan, which will be completed by the end of 2017, is a joint effort between NYSERDA, DOS, DEC, the New York State Department of Labor, the New York State Department of Public Service, Empire State Development, Long Island Power Authority, New York Power Authority, and Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation .
    [Show full text]
  • The Present Status of Wind Energy Among USA, UK,Portugal and Australia
    Vol-6 Issue-4 2020 IJARIIE-ISSN(O)-2395-4396 The present status of wind energy among USA, UK,Portugal and Australia K.A.Khan1 and Md. Delowar Hossain Munna2 1Department of Physics, Jagannath University, Dhaka-1100, Bangladesh 2Department of Physics,Uttara University,Dhaka, Bangladesh Abstract The present status of wind energy among USA, UK, Portugal and Australia has been studied in this research work. It has found thatdifferent wind farms, different State/province,Coordinates and Current capacity(MW) among four countries. The secondary data has been collected and tabulated from different sources among the 4 countries. It is shown that installed capacity in USA is the best among the 4 countries. Finally, from our study it can be concluded that the wind energy is Clean & Environment friendly fuel source. It doesn't pollute air like power plant relying on combustion of fossil fuel. It is Renewable & Sustainable. Winds are caused by heating of atmosphere by the sun, earth surface irregularities and the rotation of the earth. It is Cost Effective. Wind energy is completely free. It is also found that 7,054 onshore wind turbines in operation across the UK plus a further 1,832 located offshore. It is also found that As of January 2019, the U.S. Wind Turbine Database (USWTDB) contains more than 58,000 turbines. In this study it is also shown the comparison of wind energy production among the above mentioned 4 countries. Keywords:Wind farm,Wind Turbine Database (USWTDB),onshore wind farm, offshore wind farmand Current capacity. I. Introduction Renewable energy technologies use resources straight from the environment to generate power.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Potential EMF Effects on Fish Species of Commercial Or Recreational Fishing Importance in Southern New England
    OCS Study BOEM 2019-049 Evaluation of Potential EMF Effects on Fish Species of Commercial or Recreational Fishing Importance in Southern New England U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Office of Renewable Energy Programs OCS Study BOEM 2019-049 Evaluation of Potential EMF Effects on Fish Species of Commercial or Recreational Fishing Importance in Southern New England August 2019 Authors: David B. Snyder, William H. Bailey, Ph.D., Katherine Palmquist, Ph.D., Benjamin R.T. Cotts, Ph.D., and Kimberley R. Olsen Prepared under Contract 140M0119F0012 By CSA Ocean Sciences Inc. 8502 SW Kansas Ave. Stuart, Florida 33478 and Exponent 17000 Science Dr., Suite 200 Bowie, Maryland 20715 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Office of Renewable Energy Programs DISCLAIMER Study concept, oversight, and funding were provided by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Environmental Studies Program, Washington, D.C., under Contract Number 140M0118A0003, BPA Call Order Number 140M0119F0012. This report has been technically reviewed by BOEM, and it has been approved for publication. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the U.S. Government, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. REPORT AVAILABILITY To download a PDF file of this report, go to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management website at www.boem.gov/Environmental-Studies-EnvData/, click on the link for the Environmental Studies Program Information System (ESPIS), and search for 2019-049.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of the Offshore Wind Energy Industry Ccrreeaattiinngg Tthhee Cclleeaann Eenneerrggyy Eeccoonnoommyy Analysis of the Offshore Wind Energy Industry
    CREATING THE CLEAN ENERGY ECONOMY Analysis of the Offshore Wind Energy Industry CCrreeaattiinngg tthhee CClleeaann EEnneerrggyy EEccoonnoommyy Analysis of the Offshore Wind Energy Industry Primary Authors Jennifer Todd is an Economic Development Associate at IEDC. Jess Chen is a Research Fellow and a PhD candidate at American University. Frankie Clogston is an IEDC Consultant and a PhD candidate at Johns Hopkins University. Primary Editors Liz Thorstensen, Vice President of Knowledge Management & Economic Development Practice, Tye Libby, Associate, Knowledge Management and Development Acknowledgements IEDC is grateful to the Rockefeller Brothers Fund for its generous support of this research project. Special thanks Lauren Avioli, Emily Brown, and Patrick McHugh for research support, and Mishka Parkins, who provided technical assistance for the creative design of the report. © Copyright 2013 International Economic Development Council This report was made possible by a grant from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. International Economic Development Council IEDC is the world's largest membership organization serving the economic development profession, with over 4,500 members, and a network of over 25,000 economic development professionals and allies. From public to private, rural to urban, and local to international, our members represent the entire range of economic development experience. IEDC is dedicated to helping economic developers do their job more effectively and raising the profile of the profession. When we succeed, our members create more high-quality jobs, develop more vibrant communities, and generally improve the quality of life in their regions. The issue of sustainability has been designated a strategic priority by the IEDC Board of Directors. Further, sustainability and policy responses to climate change are growing issues for our members.
    [Show full text]