DOCSLIB.ORG

United States Withouth CA Wind Farms with 15 and 20M Agl Wind Speeds (Updated 8.26.20)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
United States Withouth CA Wind Farms with 15 and 20M Agl Wind Speeds (Updated 8.26.20) Wind Farms in the United States (excluding California) and Wind Speeds at known locations Data collected from thewindpower.net and UL's Windnavigator and compiled by Wind Harvest Classification: Public Update: 26 August Contact: Kelsey Wolf-Cloud, [email protected] 1. Wind speeds will vary across wind farms. This initial estimate Note used only one lat-long per wind farm. 2. This table has an unknown accuracy level. Total Onshore Total Wind Wind Total Number of Farms in Farms Projected Projected onshore wind farms Country analyzed MW >6.5m/s MW >6.5m/s in country (MWs) (MW) at 15m agl at 20m agl 1,292 104,212 54,627 11,181 22,059 Average Wind Speed Average Average at 20m agl Onshore Wind Farm # of Wind Speed Wind Speed Power (kW) m/s Name Turbines at 80m agl at 15m agl (calculated m/s m/s using wind shear) Foote Creek Rim 82,950 130 12.19 10.93 11.15 Kaheawa II 21,000 14 10.08 8.31 8.58 Rock River 50,000 50 9.7 7.98 8.26 Kaheawa I 30,000 20 9.8 7.97 8.25 Caprock Wind Ranch 80,000 80 9.91 7.7 8.04 Wild Horse 228,600 127 8.9 7.42 7.66 Wild Horse 268,200 149 8.9 7.42 7.66 Wild Horse II 39,600 22 8.9 7.42 7.66 Pioneer 85,100 46 8.89 7.36 7.60 High Plains 99,000 66 9.07 7.35 7.63 Red Canyon 84,000 56 9.47 7.34 7.66 Auwahi Wind Farm 24,000 8 9.68 7.27 7.63 Blue Canyon II 151,200 84 9.1 7.23 7.53 Blue Canyon 74,250 45 9.04 7.11 7.40 Seven Mile Hill 118,500 79 9.19 7.06 7.39 Glenrock II 99,000 66 9.08 7.05 7.36 McFadden Ridge 28,500 19 8.67 7.05 7.30 High Lonesome 100,000 40 8.36 7 7.20 Hawai Renewable 10,560 16 9.01 6.91 7.24 Happy Jack 29,400 14 8.73 6.88 7.16 Pakini Nui 21,000 14 9.17 6.88 7.22 Dunlap 111,000 74 8.84 6.86 7.16 Wildorado 161,000 70 9.08 6.84 7.18 Blue Canyon VI 99,000 55 8.78 6.82 7.12 Tatanka Wind Project (North Dakota) 91,500 61 9.14 6.79 7.15 Llano Estacado 80,000 80 9.1 6.78 7.14 Wyoming Wind Energy Center 144,000 80 8.34 6.76 7.02 Ensign Wind 98,900 43 9.13 6.75 7.11 Silver Sage 42,000 20 8.64 6.75 7.05 King Mountain Wind Ranch 275,600 212 8.74 6.74 7.04 Campbell Hill 99,000 66 8.71 6.73 7.03 Spinning Spur I 161,000 70 8.84 6.73 7.05 Buffalo Ridge (MN) 26,280 73 8.82 6.72 7.04 Centennial Wind Energy Project (2006) 60,000 40 8.69 6.72 7.02 Rim Rock 189,000 126 8.75 6.71 7.03 Lakota Ridge 11,250 15 8.92 6.7 7.04 Tatanka Wind Project (South Dakota) 88,500 59 8.99 6.7 7.04 Gray County 112,200 170 9.02 6.69 7.05 Lake Benton I 210,000 180 8.9 6.69 7.03 Aragonne Mesa 90,000 90 8.73 6.65 6.96 North Shaokatan Wind Farm 11,880 18 8.84 6.65 6.98 Ponnequin I & II 16,500 22 8.39 6.64 6.91 Titan I 25,000 10 8.97 6.62 6.97 Bluestem 198,000 60 8.92 6.61 6.96 Shooting Star 104,000 65 8.89 6.6 6.95 Greensburg 12,500 10 8.85 6.59 6.94 Minn-Dakota Wind Farm (MN) 96,000 64 8.73 6.57 6.90 Smoky Hills 1 148,500 99 8.64 6.57 6.88 Whirlwind 59,800 26 8.92 6.57 6.92 Ponnequin III 9,900 15 8.33 6.55 6.82 Crofton Bluffs 36,000 20 8.99 6.54 6.91 Moraine I 51,000 34 8.78 6.54 6.87 North Dakota Wind I 61,500 41 8.9 6.53 6.88 Jeffers 50,000 20 8.75 6.52 6.85 Brazos Wind Ranch 160,000 160 8.75 6.51 6.84 Buffalo Ridge II 210,000 105 8.6 6.51 6.84 Cimarron Bend 400,000 200 8.83 6.5 6.85 Sleeping Bear 94,500 45 8.55 6.5 6.81 Highmore Wind Energy Project 40,500 27 8.83 6.49 6.83 Prairie Breeze 200,600 118 8.86 6.49 6.83 Cimarron I 296,700 129 8.78 6.47 6.81 Majestic 161,100 104 8.62 6.47 6.79 Ridgewind 25,300 11 8.6 6.47 6.79 Minn-Dakota Wind Farm (SD) 54,000 36 8.52 6.46 6.76 Oliver II 98,600 54 8.77 6.46 6.80 Buffalo Dunes Wind Project 249,750 135 8.72 6.43 6.77 McAdoo 150,000 100 8.76 6.43 6.77 Shaokata Power Partners Wind 11,880 18 8.7 6.43 6.77 Day County 99,000 66 8.66 6.4 6.74 Ironwood I 167,900 73 8.67 6.4 6.74 JD Wind 4 79,800 38 8.81 6.4 6.76 Spearville 249,300 160 8.66 6.38 6.72 Weatherford Wind Energy Center 147,000 98 8.44 6.38 6.70 Glenrock I 138,000 92 8.56 6.37 6.69 Red Hills 123,000 82 8.48 6.37 6.69 Big Smile Wind Farm 132,000 66 8.5 6.35 6.67 Buffalo Ridge (SD) 50,400 24 8.49 6.35 6.67 Elkhorn Valley 97,350 59 8.23 6.35 6.63 Meridian Way 201,000 67 8.47 6.35 6.67 OU Spirit 101,200 44 8.61 6.35 6.69 Woodstock Hills 10,200 17 8.46 6.35 6.67 Moraine II 49,500 33 8.56 6.34 6.68 Fenton Wind Power Project 205,500 137 8.42 6.33 6.65 Ainsworth 59,400 36 8.76 6.31 6.66 Community Wind North 30,000 12 8.41 6.31 6.63 Prairie Rose l Wind 199,920 119 8.54 6.31 6.65 Colorado Green 162,000 108 8.39 6.3 6.62 Kimball 30,000 12 8.72 6.3 6.73 Central Plains 99,000 33 8.56 6.29 6.62 San Juan Mesa 120,000 120 8.21 6.29 6.59 Top of the World - GE Energy 99,000 66 7.98 6.29 6.55 Eva Creek Windfarm 24,600 12 8.25 6.26 6.57 Frisco 20,000 10 8.56 6.26 6.61 Elkhorn Ridge 81,000 27 8.56 6.25 6.60 Peetz Table 29,700 33 8.38 6.25 6.56 Lime Wind 1,500 3 7.63 6.24 6.46 Lime Wind 1,500 3 7.63 6.24 6.46 Noble Great Plains 114,000 76 8.61 6.24 6.59 Sunray II 39,000 26 8.49 6.24 6.57 Chanarambie 85,500 57 8.55 6.23 6.58 Peetz Table (4Q) 136,500 91 8.37 6.23 6.60 Baldwin Wind 102,400 64 8.45 6.22 6.55 KODE Novus 1 120,000 60 8.58 6.22 6.57 Peetz Table (3Q) 264,000 176 8.37 6.22 6.55 Beethoven 79,550 43 8.59 6.21 6.56 Keenan II 151,800 66 8.47 6.21 6.56 Nobles 201,000 134 8.5 6.21 6.56 Wessington Springs 51,000 34 8.52 6.21 6.56 Searsburg Wind Energy Facility 6,000 12 8.44 6.19 6.52 Hopkins Ridge I 149,400 83 7.8 6.16 6.41 Hopkins Ridge II 7,200 4 7.8 6.16 6.41 Rocky Ridge 148,800 93 8.2 6.16 6.47 Lakefield 205,500 137 8.47 6.15 6.50 Northeastern Colorado Wind Energy Center - GE Energy 22,500 15 8.28 6.15 6.48 Northeastern Colorado Wind Energy Center - Siemens 151,800 66 8.28 6.15 6.48 Smoky Hills 2 100,800 56 8.36 6.15 6.48 Twin Buttes II 75,600 36 8.16 6.15 6.46 Cedar Hills Wind Facility 19,500 13 8.21 6.14 6.45 Centennial Wind Energy Project (2007) 60,000 40 8.28 6.14 6.47 Odell 200,000 100 8.33 6.14 6.47 Ashtabula I 148,500 99 8.28 6.13 6.46 Bingham Lake 15,000 12 8.45 6.13 6.47 Crosswinds 218,500 95 8.29 6.13 6.46 Elk City Wind 98,900 43 8.18 6.13 6.44 Wilton Wind Energy II 49,500 33 8.4 6.12 6.46 Limon Wind I 200,000 125 7.81 6.11 6.38 Oklahoma Wind Energy Center 102,000 68 8.34 6.11 6.45 Stateline 122,800 186 7.69 6.11 6.36 Stateline 176,880 268 7.69 6.11 6.36 Twin Buttes 75,000 50 8.12 6.11 6.42 Wilton Wind Energy I 49,500 33 8.42 6.11 6.45 Bison Wind Project 105,000 35 8.33 6.1 6.42 Eclipse 200,100 87 8.53 6.1 6.46 Ewington Wind Farm 21,000 10 8.3 6.1 6.42 Elm Creek 247,800 128 8.29 6.09 6.41 Lempster Wind Farm 24,000 12 8.07 6.09 6.40 New Mexico Wind Energy Center 204,000 136 7.81 6.09 6.36 Victory Wind Farm 99,000 66 8.43 6.09 6.43 Ashtabula - Otter Tail 48,000 32 8.21 6.08 6.40 Snyder Wind Project 63,000 21 8.5 6.08 6.44 Post Rock 201,000 134 8.19 6.07 6.39 South Plains 500,300 191 8.43 6.07 6.43 Spring Canyon I 60,000 40 8.25 6.07 6.39 Trent Mesa Wind Farm 150,000 100 8.91 6.07 6.49 Cedar Point Wind Farm 250,200 139 7.71 6.03 6.30 Crow Lake 160,500 107 8.31 6.03 6.37 Elk River 150,000 100 8.28 6.03 6.37 Elk City Wind II 99,000 64 8.06 6.02 6.32 Flat Ridge II 570,400 334 8.21 6.02 6.34 Langdon I 199,500 133 8.28 6.02 6.36 Highland 501,400 218 8.44 6.01 6.37 Lost Lakes Wind Farm 100,650 61 8.23 6.01 6.35 Camp Springs 219,000 146 8.38 6 6.36 Colorado Highlands 1 67,200 42 8.07 6 6.32 Colorado Highlands 2 23,800 14 8.07 6 6.32 Limon Wind II 200,000 125 7.74 6 6.26 Limon Wind III 205,700 121 7.74 6 6.26 Forward 29,400 14 7.5 5.99 6.25 Goodnoe Hills 24,000 12 7.13 5.99 6.25 Goodnoe Hills 70,000 35 7.13 5.99 6.25 Sweetwater 4a 135,000 135 8.5 5.98 6.24 Biglow Canyon 125,400 76 7.43 5.97 6.23 Biglow Canyon 149,500 65 7.43 5.97 6.23 Biglow Canyon 174,800 76 7.43 5.97 6.23 Hackberry 165,600 72 8.42 5.97 6.23 Intrepid 160,500 107 8.36 5.97 6.23 Crosswinds (Iowa) 21,000 10 8.26 5.96 6.22 Mountain Wind 140,700 67 7.99 5.96 6.22 Taloga 129,600 54 8.11 5.96 6.22 Cedar Creek 79,500 53 7.77 5.95 6.21 Cedar Creek II (GE Energy) 94,500 63 7.77 5.95 6.21 Cedar Creek II (Nordex) 150,000 60 7.77 5.95 6.21 Intrepid Expansion 15,000 15 8.43 5.95 6.21 Wolverine Creek 64,500 43 7.42 5.95 6.21 Goat Mountain Phase I 80,000 80 8.32 5.94 6.20 Goat Mountain Phase II 69,600 29 8.32 5.94 6.20 Broadview Wind 241,500 105 7.95 5.93 6.19 Endeavor I 25,000 10 8.21 5.93 6.19 Endeavor I 62,500 25 8.21 5.93 6.19 Endeavor II 50,000 20 8.21 5.93 6.19 Storm Lake I 108,750 145 8.4 5.93 6.19 Storm Lake II 79,500 106 8.4 5.93 6.19 Glacier II 103,500 69 7.77 5.91 6.17 Windy Point III 59,800 26 7.24 5.91 6.17 Woodward Mountain I & II 159,720 242 8.07 5.91 6.17 Camp Springs II (4Q07) 31,500 21 8.3 5.9 6.16 Pleasant Hill 22,000 11 8.19 5.9 6.16 Flying Cloud 43,500 29 8.19 5.89 6.15 Lookout 37,800 18 8.06 5.89 6.15 Langford 150,000 100 8.36 5.88 6.14 Sherbino 300,000 110 8.57 5.88 6.14 Wapsipinicon 100,500 67 8.29 5.88 6.14 Berkshire Wind Farm 15,000 10 8.09 5.87 6.13 Buffalo Gap 3 170,200 74 8.4 5.87 6.13 Indian Mesa Wind Farm 82,500 125 8.32 5.87 6.13 Bison Wind Project 87,800 36 8.31 5.86 6.12 Canadian Hills Wind 149,650 73 7.99 5.86 6.12 Windy Point I - REpower 8,000 4 7.33 5.86 6.12 Windy Point I - REpower 32,000 16 7.33 5.86 6.12 Windy Point I - Siemens 96,600 42 7.33 5.86 6.12 Windy Point II 172,500 75 7.33 5.86 6.12 Windy Point II (3Q09 portion) 29,900 13 7.33 5.86 6.12 Patu 9,000 6 7.35 5.85 6.11 Blue Canyon V 99,000 66 7.72 5.84 6.10 Bobcat Bluff 150,000 100 8.13 5.84 6.10 Morning light 101,200 44 8.32 5.84 6.10 Kit Carson Project 51,000 34 8.05 5.83 6.09 Rugby 149,100 71 7.81 5.83 6.09 Busch Ranch Wind 28,800 16 7.38 5.82 6.08 Canadian Hills Wind 148,800 62 7.88 5.81 6.07 High Prairie Wind Farm I 98,900 43 8.19 5.81 6.07 Roscoe 781,500 627 8.27 5.81 6.07 Prairie Winds ND I 115,500
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Annual Disclosure Report
    ANNUAL DISCLOSURE REPORT of the LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY (FISCAL YEAR 2020) This Annual Disclosure Report does not constitute an offer to sell or solicitation of an offer to buy any securities. The information set forth herein has been furnished by the Authority and LIPA and includes information obtained from other sources, all of which are believed to be reliable. The information and expressions of opinion contained herein are subject to change without notice and nothing herein shall, under any circumstances, create any implication that there has been no change in the affairs of the Authority, LIPA, PSEG, PSEG Long Island, National Grid or Exelon since the date hereof. Such information and expressions of opinion are made for the purpose of providing information to prospective investors and are not to be used for any other purpose or relied on by any other party. This Annual Disclosure Report contains statements which, to the extent they are not recitations of historical fact, constitute “forward-looking statements.” In this respect, the words “estimate,” “project,” “anticipate,” “expect,” “intend,” “believe” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. A number of important factors affecting the Authority’s and LIPA’s business and financial results could cause actual results to differ materially from those stated in the forward-looking statements. References to website addresses presented herein are for informational purposes only and may be in the form of a hyperlink solely for the reader’s convenience. Unless specified otherwise, such websites and the information or links contained therein are not incorporated into, and are not part of, this Annual Disclosure Report.
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2014 and 2015 Q1 EIA-923 Monthly Time Series File
    SPREADSHEET PREPARED BY WINDACTION.ORG Based on U.S. Department of Energy - Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2014 and 2015 Q1 EIA-923 Monthly Time Series File Q1'2015 Q1'2014 State MW CF CF Arizona 227 15.8% 21.0% California 5,182 13.2% 19.8% Colorado 2,299 36.4% 40.9% Hawaii 171 21.0% 18.3% Iowa 4,977 40.8% 44.4% Idaho 532 28.3% 42.0% Illinois 3,524 38.0% 42.3% Indiana 1,537 32.6% 29.8% Kansas 2,898 41.0% 46.5% Massachusetts 29 41.7% 52.4% Maryland 120 38.6% 37.6% Maine 401 40.1% 36.3% Michigan 1,374 37.9% 36.7% Minnesota 2,440 42.4% 45.5% Missouri 454 29.3% 35.5% Montana 605 46.4% 43.5% North Dakota 1,767 42.8% 49.8% Nebraska 518 49.4% 53.2% New Hampshire 147 36.7% 34.6% New Mexico 773 23.1% 40.8% Nevada 152 22.1% 22.0% New York 1,712 33.5% 32.8% Ohio 403 37.6% 41.7% Oklahoma 3,158 36.2% 45.1% Oregon 3,044 15.3% 23.7% Pennsylvania 1,278 39.2% 40.0% South Dakota 779 47.4% 50.4% Tennessee 29 22.2% 26.4% Texas 12,308 27.5% 37.7% Utah 306 16.5% 24.2% Vermont 109 39.1% 33.1% Washington 2,724 20.6% 29.5% Wisconsin 608 33.4% 38.7% West Virginia 583 37.8% 38.0% Wyoming 1,340 39.3% 52.2% Total 58,507 31.6% 37.7% SPREADSHEET PREPARED BY WINDACTION.ORG Based on U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Offshore Wind Power Economic Impact Assessment
    U.S. Offshore Wind Power Economic Impact Assessment Issue Date | March 2020 Prepared By American Wind Energy Association Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Current Status of U.S. Offshore Wind .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Lessons from Land-based Wind ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Announced Investments in Domestic Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................ 5 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Input Assumptions ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Modeling Tool ........................................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Use Cases for Distributed Wind in Rural Electric Cooperative Service Areas
    Business & Technology Report April 2021 Use Cases for Distributed Wind in Rural Electric Cooperative Service Areas Business & Technology Report April 2021 RADWIND PROJECT REPORT SERIES: Use Cases for Distributed Wind in Rural Electric Cooperative Service Areas Prepared By: NRECA Research and project partners. This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) under the Wind Energy Technologies Office Award Number DE-EE0008958. Primary Author: Alice Orrell, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory NRECA Contacts: Michael Leitman (RADWIND Project Manager) Senior Analyst, Economics & Business NRECA Business and Technology Strategies [email protected] Venkat Banunarayanan (RADWIND Principal Investigator) Vice President, Integrated Grid NRECA Business and Technology Strategies [email protected] Legal Notices This work contains findings that are general in nature. Readers are reminded to perform due diligence in applying these findings to their specific needs, as it is not possible for NRECA Research to have sufficient understanding of any specific situation to ensure applicability of the findings in all cases. The information in this work is not a recommendation, model, or standard for all electric cooperatives. Electric cooperatives are: (1) independent entities; (2) governed by independent boards of directors; and (3) affected by different member, financial, legal, political, policy, operational, and other considerations. For these reasons, electric cooperatives make independent decisions and investments based upon their individual needs, desires, and constraints. Neither the authors nor NRECA Research assume liability for how readers may use, interpret, or apply the information, analysis, templates, and guidance herein or with respect to the use of, or damages resulting from the use of, any information, apparatus, method, or process contained herein.
    [Show full text]
  • Benjamin Umd 0117E 13555.Pdf
    ABSTRACT Dissertation Title: THE EFFECTS OF INFOMEDIARIES, NONMARKET STRATEGIES AND CORPORATE POLITICAL ACTION ON INNOVATION ADOPTION By: Scott Benjamin Management and Organization Department Robert H. Smith School of Business University of Maryland, College Park June 20, 2012 Directed By: Rhonda K. Reger, PhD Associate Professor Management and Organization Department Strategic management research has recently become interested in the role of strategies that effect social stakeholders, such as the media, and how they affect the adoption of technological innovation. This dissertation consists of two essays that investigate how these stakeholders affect technological innovation adoption and how firms can increase the likelihood of having their products adopted by influencing these stakeholders. The first essay takes a fine-grained approach at investigating how the content of media coverage influences the adoption of wind projects in the United States wind energy industry. By focusing on certain characteristics of media coverage, I develop a theoretical framework that examines how coverage facilitates perception formation of an innovation in the market. Using content analysis, I examine certain characteristics of media coverage including media attention, positivity of tenor, issue diversity, economic & aesthetic issues and complexity of messaging, and hypothesize about the impact these characteristics have on how quickly stakeholders coalesce around a unified vision of a new technology. The second essay builds on the first essay by exploring how firms employ strategies in both social and political markets in an attempt to influence different segments of the general environment. I argue theoretically that general environmental segments, such as sociocultural and political markets, that were typically thought of as exogenous to the firm may be impacted by the firm.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Monitoring and Mitigation Policies and Practices at Offshore Wind Installations in the United States and Europe
    Ecological Monitoring and Mitigation Policies and Practices at Offshore Wind Installations in the United States and Europe August 2020 Michael C. Allen, Ph.D., Postdoctoral Research Associate, Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources, Rutgers University, Matthew Campo, Senior Research Specialist, Environmental Analysis & Communications Group, Rutgers University Prepared for the New Jersey Climate Change Alliance (https://njadapt.rutgers.edu/). Working Group Members: John Cecil, New Jersey Audubon Tim Dillingham, American Littoral Society Patty Doerr, The Nature Conservancy of New Jersey Russell Furnari, PSEG Kevin Hassell, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Anthony MacDonald, Urban Coast Institute at Monmouth University Martha Maxwell-Doyle, Barnegat Bay Partnership David Mizrahi, Ph.D., New Jersey Audubon Technical Reviews and Acknowledgments Joseph Brodie, Ph.D. Jeanne Herb Marjorie Kaplan, Dr.P.H. Josh Kohut, Ph.D. Richard Lathrop, Ph.D. Julie Lockwood, Ph.D. Douglas Zemeckis, Ph.D. https://doi.org/doi:10.7282/t3-wn1p-cz80 1 ABSTRACT Offshore wind energy is poised to expand dramatically along the eastern United States. However, the promise of sustainable energy also brings potential impacts on marine ecosystems from new turbines and transmission infrastructure. This whitepaper informs government officials, scientists, and stakeholders in New Jersey about the current policies and monitoring methods other jurisdictions use to monitor potential ecological impacts from offshore wind installations. We reviewed policy documents in the eastern U.S. and Europe, reviewed the scientific literature, and conducted stakeholder interviews in Spring 2020. We found: 1. Short-term (3-5 year) project-specific efforts dominate coordinated regional and project life duration ecological monitoring efforts at offshore wind farms in North America and Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • 2019 Market Report
    US OFFSHORE WIND MARKET UPDATE & INSIGHTS US OFFSHORE WIND CAPACITY GENERATION The US Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management (BOEM), has auctioned 16 US offshore wind energy areas (WEAs) designated in federal waters for offshore wind development. Each area has been leased to a qualified offshore wind developer. The ar- eas are located along the East Coast from North Carolina to Massachusetts and represent a total potential capacity of 21,000 Megawatts (MWs) of offshore wind power generation. HISTORY OF BOEM AUCTIONS AND LEASES YEAR LEASE # LESSEE STATE ACREAGE BID MW* NEXT 2012 0482 GSOE I DE 70,098 NA NA SAP *Reading volumes, some earlier estimates 2013 0486 Deepwater Wind NE RI/MA 97,498 $3,838,288 3400 TTL COP of capacity likely used 2013 0487 Deepwater Wind NE RI/MA 67,252 $3,838,288 3400 TTL FDR different calculations. 2013 0483 VA Electric & Power Co. VA 112,799 $1,600,000 2000 COP In all cases, capacity 2014 0490 US Wind MD 79,707 $8,701,098 1450 COP calculations should be considered estimates. 2015 0501 Vineyard Wind MA 166,886 $166,886 See Below FDR 2015 0500 Bay State Wind MA 187,523 $281,285 2000 TTL COP 2016 0498 Ocean Wind NJ 160,480 $880,715 See Below COP 2016 0499 EDFR Development NJ 183,353 $1,006,240 3400 TTL SAP 2017 0512 Equinor Wind US NY 79,350 $42,469,725 1000 COP 2017 0508 Avangrid Renewables NC 122,405 $9,066,650 1486 SAP 2018 0519 Skipjack Offshore Energy DE 26,332 Assigned NA SAP 2018 0520 Equinor Wind US MA 128,811 $135,000,000 1300 EXEC 2018 0521 Mayflower Wind Energy MA 127,388 $135,000,000 1300 EXEC 2018 0522 Vineyard Wind MA 132,370 $135,000,000 1500 EXEC EXEC—Lease Execution SAP—Site Assessment Plan COP—Construction & Operations Plan FDR—Facility Design Report @offshorewindus / BUSINESS NETWORK FOR OFFSHORE WIND / offshorewindus.org 1 STATE 2018 2019 MARKET GROWTH The US Offshore Wind market currently stands VIRGINIA 12 12 at 16,970 MWs and is a subset of the total US MARYLAND 366 366 potential generation capacity.
    [Show full text]
  • EIA) 2011 December EIA-923 Monthly Time Series File
    SPREADSHEET PREPARED BY WINDACTION.ORG Based on U.S. Department of Energy - Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2011 December EIA-923 Monthly Time Series File NET State MWh in State MW in Plant ID Plant Name Operator Name MW Installed State Year GENERATION CF* Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec CF* CF* (mWh) 6304 Kotzebue Kotzebue Electric Assn Inc 3.0 AK 2011 1 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57187 Pillar Mountain Wind Project Kodiak Electric Assn Inc 4.5 AK 2011 12,445 31.6% 418 59 1,564 438 936 1,090 1,300 1,429 753 1,154 1,682 1,621 7.5 12,445 12,445 4.5 31.6% 57098 Dry Lake Wind LLC Iberdrola Renewables Inc 63.0 AZ 2011 124,401 22.5% 4,340 13,601 15,149 18,430 17,297 16,785 7,124 5,735 4,036 6,320 11,154 4,430 57379 Dry Lake Wind II LLC Iberdrola Renewables Inc 65.1 AZ 2011 124,330 21.8% 4,340 13,789 16,021 19,219 16,686 16,398 6,345 5,569 3,743 6,281 11,579 4,360 57775 Kingman 1 Kingman Energy Corp 10.0 AZ 2011 6,848 7.8% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,026 1,663 2,999 1,160 138.1 255,579 248,731 128.1 22.2% 7526 Solano Wind Sacramento Municipal Util Dist 63.0 CA 2011 221,067 40.1% 6,705 12,275 17,464 27,415 29,296 29,128 24,813 25,928 14,915 11,870 12,233 9,025 10005 Dinosaur Point International Turbine Res Inc 17.4 CA 2011 23,562 15.5% 715 1,308 1,861 2,922 3,123 3,105 2,645 2,763 1,590 1,265 1,304 962 10027 EUIPH Wind Farm EUI Management PH Inc 25.0 CA 2011 46,718 21.3% 1,417 2,594 3,691 5,794 6,191 6,156 5,244 5,479 3,152 2,509 2,585 1,907 10191 Tehachapi Wind Resource I CalWind Resources Inc 8.7 CA 2011 15,402 20.2% 467 855
    [Show full text]
  • Financial Statement 2013 of Enel Green Power S.P.A
    Annual Report 2013 Annual Report2013 Annual Report 2013 Contents Report on operations Consolidated financial statements Enel Green Power | 6 Consolidated Income Statement | 110 The Group structure | 7 Statement of Consolidated Comprehensive Income | 111 Enel Green Power in the world | 8 Consolidated Balance Sheet | 112 Corporate boards and Powers | 10 Statement of Changes in Consolidated Shareholders’ Equity | 113 Letter to the shareholders and other stakeholders | 12 Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows | 114 Summary of results | 16 Notes to the financial statements | 115 Significant events in 2013 | 25 Reference scenario | 33 Economic and energy conditions in 2013 | 35 Corporate governance | 187 Electricity markets | 39 How we operate | 57 Overview of the Group’s performance and financial position | 73 Declaration of the Chief Executive Officer and the Performance and financial position by segment | 90 officer responsible for the preparation of corporate > Italy and Europe | 91 financial reports | 188 > Iberia and Latin America | 95 > North America | 98 Main risks and uncertainties | 101 Annexes Outlook | 102 Regulations governing non-EU subsidiaries | 103 Subsidiaries, associates and other significant equity investments of the Enel Green Power Group at December 31, 2013 | 192 Regulations governing subsidiaries subject to the management and coordination of other companies | 104 Related parties | 105 Reconciliation of shareholders’ equity and net income of Enel Green Reports Power SpA and the corresponding consolidated figures | 107 Report of the Independent Auditors | 210 3 Report on operations Enel Green Power Enel Green Power, founded in December 2008, is the Enel Group company entirely devoted to the development and management of the Group’s renewables generation operations around the world, with a presence in Europe and the Americas.
    [Show full text]
  • Offshore Wind Summit September 25, 30, and October 7
    Offshore Wind Summit September 25, 30, and October 7, 2020 National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & The Embassy of Denmark 1 Introductory Remarks Jessica Rackley, Energy & Environment Program Director, NGA Center for Best Practices Michael Guldbrandtsen, Counselor, Embassy of Denmark Thank You to our Sponsors States with Clean Energy Goals Source: NGA, 2020 Offshore Wind Technical Potential Source: NREL, 2016 Offshore Wind Energy Resource Assessment for the United States Today’s Virtual Meeting: Zoom Controls The Zoom menu bar appears at the If you don’t see the menu bar, move your bottom of the Zoom window once the meeting begins. mouse slightly and the bar will appear. Chat your questions Introductory Remarks Michael Guldbrandtsen Counselor Embassy of Denmark Welcome Remarks Tim Blute Director NGA Center for Best Practices Introduction to the Day – Offshore Wind Update Thomas Brostrøm CEO Ørsted North America, Offshore Offshore Wind Summit Thomas Brostrøm, CEO Ørsted North America, Offshore Offshore Wind Update September 25, 2020 Ranked most sustainable company in the world 2 Significant transformation of Ørsted over the past decade 1 Note 1: Figures taken from Ørsted’s Annual Report 2019. Excluding Radius (power distribution business which was divested during 2019) Note 2: ROCE target for 2019-2025 3 Note 3: International share calculated based on Group EBITDA excl. divestments and miscellaneous un-allocated costs totalling 16 DKKbn The first major energy company to reach net-zero emissions in its energy generation – We will become carbon neutral by 2025. – This will make Ørsted the first major energy company to reach net-zero emissions in its energy generation – far ahead of science-based decarbonization targets for limiting global warming to 1.5°C.
    [Show full text]
  • Kansas Wind Farm Pilot Agreements Per Mw
    Kansas Wind Farm Pilot Agreements Per Mw Askance Nathaniel sometimes paddles any whine misapplies perennially. Lyndon still clangs mother-liquor while eloquent Emile euhemerized that tranquilization. Refined Agustin censors, his leapers stapled revile isometrically. Easements for market value in kansas, energy farm will. Probably choose renewable energy farm is per mw were primarily utilityscale wind farms are agreements being developed a windmill pump installed. Wind-rich states-North Dakota Texas and Kansas-could accomplish this. Nysted offshore farms much is per mw from empirical and kansas to. Installing and Maintaining a secure Wind Electric Energygov. Mw be a pilot agreement between sites that in mw than texas wind farm project uncertainty in efficiency in most per mw. Project various construction is FGE Power's 5004-MW Goodnight Wind Energy farm in Armstrong. Only a pilot? Unfortunately, its prominence often corresponded to its myriad challenges. The supply curves described earlier are based on switch type of transmission and the GIS optimization described here. What is OPC's position transfer the vessel Wind Project 14 A. Power development impacts on electricity market supported by analyzing its name from wind is wind industry would complicate wind. Involving affected remained opposed after random project was communities early is critical to identifying constructed. Mw marena renovables wind turbine setbacks from kathleen sebelius, nyiso system operations will be installed. Be pushed it might have. In AC electricity, the current flows in width direction from zero to a maximum voltage, then back afraid to zero, then sentence a maximum voltage in the plate direction. Kilowatt-hour MW megawatt NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory RPS.
    [Show full text]