美 풍력시장을 진단한다(하) 송용진 작성일 2011-12-10 작성자 ( [email protected] ) 국가 미국 무역관 로스앤젤레스무역관
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
WASHINGTON – the Energy Department Released Two New
Wind Scalability and Performance in the real World: A performance analysis of recently deployed US Wind Farms G. Bothun and B. Bekker, Dept. of Physics, University of Oregon. Abstract We are engaged in researching the real world performance, costs, and supply chain issues regarding the construction of wind turbines in the United States for the purpose of quantitatively determining various aspects of scalability in the wind industry as they relate to the continued build out of wind energy in the US. Our analysis sample consists of ~600 individual wind farms that have come into operation as of January 2011. Individual unit turbine capacity in these farms ranges from 1-5 to 3 MW, although the bulk of the installations are ≤ 2.0 MW. Starting in late 2012, however, and continuing with current projects, turbines of size 2.5 – 3.0 MW are being installed. As of July 1, 2014 the Horse Hollow development in Texas has the largest individual wind farm nameplate capacity of 736 MW and 10 other locations have aggregate capacity that exceeds 500 MW. Hence, large scale wind farm operations are now here. Based on our analysis our overall findings are the following: 1) at the end of 2014, cumulative wind nameplate capacity in the US will be at ~ 70 GW or ~ 5% of total US electrical infrastructure 2) over the period of 2006—2012, cumulative wind capacity growth was sustained at a rate of 23.7% per annum, 3) production in 2013 was dramatically lower than in 2012 and was just starting to pick up in 2014 due to lingering uncertainty about the future of the -
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. -
Meridian Wind Project Hyde County, South Dakota Application to The
Meridian Wind Project Hyde County, South Dakota Application to the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission for a Facility Permit April 23, 2020 MERIDIAN WIND PROJECT, LLC 3760 State Street, Suite 200 Santa Barbara, CA 93105 Applicant: Meridian Wind Project, LLC Address: 3760 State Street, Suite 200 Santa Barbara, CA 93105 Authorized Representative: Casey Willis, Senior Advisor, Project Development Signature: Phone: 805-569-6185 Email: [email protected] Application for Facility Permit Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Project Overview .............................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Names of Participants (Administrative Rules of South Dakota [ARSD] 20:10:22:06) ...................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Name of Owner and Manager (ARSD 20:10:22:07) ........................................ 1-2 1.4 Facility Permit Application Content and Organization .................................... 1-2 1.4.1 Completeness ChecK ........................................................................ 1-3 2.0 PURPOSE OF, AND DEMAND FOR, THE WIND ENERGY FACILITY (ARSD 20:10:22:08, 20:10:22:10) ............................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Renewable Power Demand .............................................................................. -
Mojave Desert Wind Farm - Wind Farm 'Mega-Project' Underway in Mojave Desert - Los Angeles Times
Mojave Desert Wind Farm - Wind farm 'mega-project' underway in Mojave Desert - Los Angeles Times ← Back to Original Article Wind farm 'mega-project' underway in Mojave Desert The Alta Wind Energy Center — with plans for thousands of acres of turbines to generate electricity for 600,000 Southern California homes — officially breaks ground Tuesday. July 27, 2010 | By Tiffany Hsu, Los Angeles Times It's being called the largest wind power project in the country, with plans for thousands of acres of towering turbines in the Mojave Desert foothills generating electricity for 600,000 homes in Southern California. And now it's finally kicking into gear. The multibillion-dollar Alta Wind Energy Center has had a tortured history, stretching across nearly a decade of ownership changes, opposition from local residents and transmission infrastructure delays. But on Tuesday, the project is officially breaking ground in the Tehachapi Pass, a burgeoning hot spot for wind energy about 75 miles north of Los Angeles. When completed, Alta could produce three times as much energy as the country's largest existing wind farm, analysts said. It's slated to be done in the next decade. The project will probably be a wind power bellwether, affecting the way renewable energy deals are financed, the development of new electricity storage systems and how governments regulate the industry, said Billy Gamboa, a renewable energy analyst with the California Center for Sustainable Energy. "It's a super-mega-project — it'll definitely set a precedent for the rest of the state and have a pretty large impact on the wind industry in general," he said. -
Barren Ridge FEIS-Volume IV Paleo Tech Rpt Final March
March 2011 BARREN RIDGE RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT Paleontological Resources Assessment Report PROJECT NUMBER: 115244 PROJECT CONTACT: MIKE STRAND EMAIL: [email protected] PHONE: 714-507-2710 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT Paleontological Resources Assessment Report PREPARED FOR: LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER 111 NORTH HOPE STREET LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 PREPARED BY: POWER ENGINEERS, INC. 731 EAST BALL ROAD, SUITE 100 ANAHEIM, CA 92805 DEPARTMENT OF PALEOSERVICES SAN DIEGO NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM PO BOX 121390 SAN DIEGO, CA 92112 ANA 032-030 (PER-02) LADWP (MARCH 2011) SB 115244 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 STUDY PERSONNEL ....................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................. 2 1.2.1 Construction of New 230 kV Double-Circuit Transmission Line ........................................ 4 1.2.2 Addition of New 230 kV Circuit ......................................................................................... 14 1.2.3 Reconductoring of Existing Transmission Line .................................................................. 14 1.2.4 Construction of New Switching Station ............................................................................. -
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 -
Long-Term Contracts for Offshore Wind Energy Generation
D.P.U. 21-40 Responses to the Department’s First Set of Information Requests Attachment DPU 1-12 Page 1 of 156 H.O.: Alice Davey February 23, 2021 Patrick Woodcock Commissioner Department of Energy Resources 100 Cambridge St. Suite 1020, Boston, MA 02114 Subject: 1600 MW Offshore Wind RFP The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defined Environmental Justice as follows: “Environmental justice (EJ) is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies”. In other words, Environmental Justice is racial justice. As currently drafted, the 1600 MW Offshore Wind RFP fails to make support of environmental justice an important element of the RFP selection criteria, thus leaving the opportunity for the project to have a profound environmental and economic impact on the Commonwealth’s too numerous environmental justice communities to the good will of project developers. We can and must do better. This is the largest such project in the Commonwealth’s history and represents a capital investment of between $4-5B. The workers and companies engaged in this solicitation have a leg up to become the leaders of tomorrow’s offshore wind industry. Your Administration projects that half of Massachusetts’ energy may come from offshore wind by 2050. This solicitation represents just the beginning of what will be tens of billions of dollars’ worth of economic activity and tens of thousands of jobs in the decades ahead. Choices made today set the course for industry growth and workforce development for the years to come. -
Building North Carolina's Offshore Wind Supply Chain the Roadmap for Leveraging Manufacturing and Infrastructure Advantages
Building North Carolina's Offshore Wind Supply Chain The roadmap for leveraging manufacturing and infrastructure advantages March 2021Subtitle Copyright This report and its content is copyright of BVG Associates LLC - © BVG Associates 2021. All rights are reserved. Disclaimer This document is intended for the sole use of the Client who has entered into a written agreement with BVG Associates LLP (referred to as “BVGA”). To the extent permitted by law, BVGA assumes no responsibility whether in contract, tort including without limitation negligence, or otherwise howsoever, to third parties (being persons other than the Client) and BVGA shall not be liable for any loss or damage whatsoever suffered by virtue of any act, omission or default (whether arising by negligence or otherwise) by BVGA or any of its employees, subcontractors or agents. A Circulation Classification permitting the Client to redistribute this document shall not thereby imply that BVGA has any liability to any recipient other than the Client. This document is protected by copyright and may only be reproduced and circulated in accordance with the Circulation Classification and associated conditions stipulated in this document and/or in BVGA’s written agreement with the Client. No part of this document may be disclosed in any public offering memorandum, prospectus or stock exchange listing, circular or announcement without the express and prior written consent of BVGA. Except to the extent that checking or verification of information or data is expressly agreed within the written scope of its services, BVGA shall not be responsible in any way in connection with erroneous information or data provided to it by the Client or any third party, or for the effects of any such erroneous information or data whether or not contained or referred to in this document. -
Operational Impacts to Raptors (PDF)
To: John Ford, Director From: Bob Roy County of Humboldt Planning and Building Stantec Consulting Department 30 Park Drive 3015 H Street Topsham, ME 04222 Eureka, California 95501 [email protected] Date: August 23, 2019 Reference: Operational Impacts to Raptors Humboldt Wind has commissioned Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST) to review the draft EIR for the Humboldt Wind Project and provide a re-evaluation of the DEIR’s analysis of potential impacts to raptors. WEST is a firm that is expert in conducting ecological studies and analyzing complicated natural resource data. The attached memo provides WEST’s recommended analysis of the likely impacts of the project on raptors. As noted in WEST’s memo, the DEIR appears to overestimate what the likely impacts of the project will be on local and regional raptor populations. The DEIR reviews several data sets but does not set an explicit expectation of what the project’s likely impact will be. Rather, it reviews a range of potential impacts using different datasets and metrics, and then concludes that impacts will be significant and unavoidable after mitigation. However, WEST’s analysis provides compelling evidence that the DEIR’s analysis is flawed and that actual impacts at the project are likely to be significantly less than that stated in the DEIR and would not lead to local or regional populations of raptor species to fall below self-sustaining levels. Key to this analysis, or the difference between the two analyses, is that raptor impacts at the Humboldt project would not be similar to those documented at projects in central and southern California (where raptor use is far greater than at the project) and the fact that raptor use at the project site is very similar to that documented at Hatchet Ridge, where raptor fatalities have been found to be very low after three years of post-construction monitoring. -
Offshore Wind Market and Economic Analysis
Offshore Wind Market and Economic Analysis Annual Market Assessment Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy Client Contact Michael Hahn, Patrick Gilman Award Number DE-EE0005360 Navigant Consulting, Inc. 77 Bedford Street Suite 400 Burlington, MA 01803-5154 781.270.8314 www.navigant.com February 22, 2013 U.S. Offshore Wind Market and Economic Analysis Annual Market Assessment Document Number DE-EE0005360 Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy Michael Hahn Patrick Gilman Prepared by: Navigant Consulting, Inc. Lisa Frantzis, Principal Investigator Lindsay Battenberg Mark Bielecki Charlie Bloch Terese Decker Bruce Hamilton Aris Karcanias Birger Madsen Jay Paidipati Andy Wickless Feng Zhao Navigant Consortium Member Organizations Key Contributors American Wind Energy Association Jeff Anthony and Chris Long Great Lakes Wind Collaborative John Hummer and Victoria Pebbles Green Giraffe Energy Bankers Marie DeGraaf, Jérôme Guillet, and Niels Jongste National Renewable Energy Laboratory Eric Lantz Ocean & Coastal Consultants (a COWI company) Brent D. Cooper, P.E., Joe Marrone, P.E., and Stanley M. White, P.E., D.PE, D.CE Tetra Tech EC, Inc. Michael D. Ernst, Esq. Offshore Wind Market and Economic Analysis Page ii Document Number DE-EE0005360 Notice and Disclaimer This report was prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. for the exclusive use of the U.S. Department of Energy – who supported this effort under Award Number DE-EE0005360. The work presented in this report represents our best efforts and judgments based on the information available at the time this report was prepared. Navigant Consulting, Inc. is not responsible for the reader’s use of, or reliance upon, the report, nor any decisions based on the report. -
Post-Construction Avian and Bat Mortality Monitoring at the Alta X Wind Energy Project Kern County, California
Post-Construction Avian and Bat Mortality Monitoring at the Alta X Wind Energy Project Kern County, California Final Report for the Second Year of Operation April 2015 – April 2016 Prepared for Alta Wind X, LLC 14633 Willow Springs Road Mojave, California 93501 Prepared by: Joel Thompson, Carmen Boyd, and John Lombardi Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc. 415 West 17th Street, Suite 200 Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001 July 22, 2016 Alta X Year 2 Final Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Alta Wind X, LLC (Alta Wind X) has constructed a wind energy facility in Kern County, California, referred to as the Alta X Wind Energy Project (“Alta X” or “Project”). Consistent with the Alta East Wind Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), Alta Wind X is committed to conducting avian and bat mortality monitoring at the Project during the first, second, and third years of operation. Following construction in the spring of 2014, Alta Wind X contracted Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc. (WEST) to develop and implement a study protocol for post- construction monitoring at the Project for the purpose of estimating the impacts of the wind energy facility on birds and bats. The following report describes the methods and results of mortality monitoring conducted during the second year of operation of the Project, April 2015 to April 2016. As stated in the DEIR, the goal of the mortality monitoring study is determine the level of incidental injury and mortality to populations of avian or bat species in the vicinity of the Project. To this end, WEST designed and implemented a 3-year study to determine the level of bird and bat mortality attributable to collisions with wind turbines at the facility on an annual basis. -
Etapy Rozwoju Energetyki Wiatrowej W Województwie Kujawsko-Pomorskim
Moduł E1 Etapy rozwoju energetyki wiatrowej w województwie kujawsko-pomorskim Koordynator modułu - dr Dariusz Brykała Autorzy: Prof. dr hab. Zbigniew Podgórski Mgr Łukasz Sarnowski 1 5.1.1. Etapy rozwoju energetyki wiatrowej na świecie i w Europie Początki wykorzystania przez człowieka energii wiatru są trudne do jednoznacznego określe- nia. Egipcjanie już 2000 lat przed naszą erą wykorzystywali energię wiatru do napędu swoich łodzi. Z Kodeksu Hammurabiego (ok. 1750 r. p.n.e.) wynika, że energia wiatru była wykorzystywana również w Persji. W Indiach w IV w. p.n.e. powstał pierwszy opis zastosowania wiatraka do pompowania wody, a już w II wieku p.n.e w Chinach stosowano wiatraki w kształcie kołowrotów do nawadniania pól uprawnych. Na początku naszej ery wiatraki pojawiły się w krajach basenu Morza Śródziemnego. Rok 644 n.e. uznany został za datę pierwszej udokumentowanej wzmianki o wiatrakach. Pierwsze wiatraki europejskie pojawiły się w Anglii w IX wieku, we Francji w XI wieku, a od wieku XIII upowszechniły się w Europie Zachodniej. Najstarszy obraz wiatraka w Europie znajduje się na inicjale pierwszej strony rękopisu angielskiego z 1270 r. Pierwotnie wiatrak był drewnianą "bud- ką", którą obracano wokół centralnie usytuowanego słupa, tak aby ustawić skrzydła na wiatr. Rewo- lucji w konstrukcji wiatraków dokonali Holendrzy, którzy wprowadzili konstrukcje czteroskrzydłowe. Miało to miejsce w 1390 r. Rozwój wiatraków typu „holendrów” przypadł w Europie na XVII wiek. W roku 1745 angielski konstruktor Edmund Lee wprowadził w budowie wiatraka pomocnicze koło kie- rujące automatycznie wiatrak w stronę wiatru. Największy rozkwit wiatraków miał miejsce w poło- wie XIX wieku. W Europie pracowało wówczas około 200 tysięcy tego typu obiektów (Lerch, 2010).