From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 11:13 AM To: [email protected]; Launder, Kelly; [email protected]; [email protected]; Margolis, Anne; Markowitz, Deb; Governor Peter Shumlin; Darling, Scott; PSB - Clerk Subject: Lowell Mountain Reduced Production http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/53258/examples-wind-power-learnAll, I am surprised GMP did not do a timely study of Lowell's impact on the NEK grid. As a result, the $10.5 million synchronous-condenser system for power factor correction (losses of up to 3%) will not be completed until about the end of 2013. There are many factors reducing ridge line IWT CFs. Here is an excerpt from http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/169521/wind-turbine-energy-capacity-less-estimated Below are some numbers regarding the much less than expected results of the Maine ridge line IWTs for the past 12 months. http://www.coalitionforenergysolutions.org/maine_wind_thru_3q2012m1.pdf Mars Hill, 42 MW 0.353; uniquely favorable winds due to topography. Stetson I, 57 MW 0.254 Stetson II, 26 MW 0.227 Kibby Mtn 132 MW 0.238 Rollins, 60 MW 0.238 Record Hill, 50.5 MW 0.197 The Maine weighted average CF = (42 x 0.353 + 57 x 0.254 + 26 x 0.227 + 132 x 0.238 + 60 x 0.238 + 50.5 x 0.197)/(42 + 57 + 26 + 132 + 60 + 50.5) = 0.247; excluding Mars Hill, the CF would be 0.234. Note: CF reduction due to aging is not yet a major factor, as all these IWTs were installed in the past 5 years. Remember, the developers told Maine regulators their IWT projects would have CFs of 0.32 or greater, and 25- year lives to more easily obtain bank financing, federal and state subsidies and "Certificate of Public Good" approvals. The lesser ACTUAL CFs are likely due to: - Winds entering 373-ft diameter rotors varying in speed AND direction under all conditions; less so in the Great Plains and offshore, more so, if arriving from irregular upstream or hilly terrain. - Turbine performance curves being based on idealized conditions, i.e., uniform wind vectors perpendicularly entering rotors; those curves are poor predictors of ACTUAL CFs. - Wind testing towers using anemometers about 8 inch in diameter; an inadequate way to predict what a 373-ft diameter rotor on a 2,500-ft high ridge line might do, i.e., the wind-tower-test-predicted CFs of 0.32 or better are likely too optimistic. - Rotor-starting wind speeds being greater than IWT vendor brochure values, because of irregular winds entering the rotors; for the 3 MW Lowell Mountain IWTs rotor-starting speed with undisturbed winds is about 7.5 mph, greater with irregular winds. - IWT self-use energy consumption up to about 4% for various IWT electrical needs during non-production hours (30% of the hours of the year in New England due to wind speeds being too low, too high, and Page 185 outages,) and up to about 8% for various IWT electrical needs, incl. power factor correction, heating, dehumidifying, lighting, machinery operation, controls, etc., during production hours. http://windfarmrealities.org/u-minn-and-vestas-reality-check/ http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/53258/examples-wind-power-learn - CFs declining due to aging IWTs having increased maintenance outages, just as a car. - Reduced production for various reasons, such as: wind speeds being too slow or too fast; flow of one turbine interfering with another turbine’s flow; the grid’s instability/capacity being exceeded; power factor correction losses; abatement of excessive noise (nearby people need restful sleep for good health); abatement of excessive bat or bird kill. Note: US bird kill = 1 bird/day x 39,000 IWTs x 365 days/yr = 14,235,000 birds/yr. US bat kill = 2 bats/day, or 28,470,000 bats/yr, for a total of 42,705,000 animals/yr. The net effect of all factors shows up as ACTUAL CFs being about 0.25, instead of the vendor-predicted 0.32 or better, i.e., much less than estimated by IWT project developers to obtain approvals. The terrain-induced, irregular air flows to the rotor cause significant levels of unusual noises, mostly at night, that disturb nearby people. http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/84293/wind-turbine-noise-and-air-pressure-pulses Below are some articles of interest. http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/89476/wind-energy-co2-emissions-are-overstated http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/171561/co2-emissions-and-chevy-volt-vs-honda-civic-ex-l Best Regards, Willem Page 186 From: Rob Pforzheimer [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 6:52 PM To: Margolis, Anne; PSB - Clerk Subject: An Australian State will measure infrasound emitted by wind turbines http://www.epaw.org/documents.php?lang=en&article=ns49 AT LONG LAST! An Australian State will measure infrasound emitted by wind turbines Page 187 From: Annette Smith [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 2:22 PM To: Margolis, Anne Subject: Does Wind Energy in New England Reduce Fossil Fuel Consumption and GHG Emissions After the siting commission's visit to the natural gas plant, I spoke at the public hearing in Brattleboro and raised questions about the claims being made that wind turbines in New England are reducing fossil fuel consumption and GHG emissions. With 767 MW of big wind in 4 New England states at a cost of at least $2 billion, we should have real world information now about what is happening. Louise McCarren advised me to contact Anne George of ISO-NE, which I did. She punted to Eric Wilkinson. In 2009 or 2010, a pilot (who flies commercial jets) and I engaged in a round of back and forth with Eric Wilkinson and did not get our questions answered. Eric's responses this time were similarly not helpful. I asked this question about wind turbines and fossil fuel/ghg emission reduction of Liz Miller in October when she was PSD Commissioner, I asked Chris Recchia in December when he became PSD Commissioner, and I asked Scott Johnstone at your last deliberative session. I think I understand enough now that the answer is pretty clear: no, not until we have either storage or gas peaker plants that are specifically designed to ramp efficiently in response to wind energy will New England be able to claim any reduction in fossil fuel consumption or GHG emissions, especially with natural gas displacing oil and coal (and nuclear) in the New England grid. Please tell me if I'm wrong or am missing something. How does this relate to your charge? Between ISO-NE's curtailment of the already-constructed projects and the lack of evidence that wind energy in the ISO-NE grid is resulting in displacement of fossil fuels and reduction of GHG emissions, real questions exist about the PSB's due diligence in evaluating wind projects to date. How could the PSB approve projects for which there is not sufficient capacity on the grid? Why is the PSB accepting the wind developers' modeling studies about reduction of fossil fuels and ghg emissions? Below is my correspondence with Eric of ISO-NE. I didn't not receive a response to my most recent email, and do not expect one. Read from the bottom up. Annette ----------------- Annette Smith Executive Director Vermonters for a Clean Environment, Inc. 789 Baker Brook Rd. Danby, VT 05739 office: (802) 446-2094 cell: (802) 353-6058 http://www.vce.org/ [email protected] From: Annette Smith <[email protected]> Date: February 1, 2013 4:41:32 PM EST To: "Wilkinson, Eric" <[email protected]> Cc: "George, Anne" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: ISO New England Eric, I appreciate you pointing me to the wind integration study Page 188 Past ISO in-depth studies have made some conclusions regarding wind that may be helpful. From New England Wind Integration Study: “Flexible Generation: The ISO-NE system presently has a high percentage of gas-fired generation, which can have good flexibility characteristics (e.g., ramping, turn-down). Using the assumed system, the results showed adequate flexible resources at wind energy penetration levels up to 20%.” but that does not agree with what the president of the Granite Ridge natural gas plant in Londonderry NH told me last week when I attended the Vermont Energy Siting Commission's site visit. He said that his plant is the most efficient natural gas plant on the grid, it is a ramping plant rather than a baseload plant, and that it operates inefficiently when it ramps down to let the wind in. He said there are no flexible generation plants on the New England grid. The implication is that there is no fuel savings when his plant ramps in response to wind. That wind integration study was done by GE and other groups that have an economic interest in promoting wind development. The language that you quote, "which can have good flexibility characteristics" leaves enough wiggle room to indicate maybe yes, maybe no. It does not say that it "does" have good flexibility characteristics. And why does it say "using the assumed system"? What is assumed? We have an actual system in place, and either the plants are able to ramp efficiently or they are not. I also note in reading that closely that it doesn't connect the ramping to reduction of fossil fuel consumption or greenhouse gas emissions. It just says they can ramp. No argument there. And I am not disputing that wind contributed 1% of the electricity produced by generators in New England in 2012.