Future Energy

Wind Energy Siting: Will Environmental Guidelines End the Conflicts?

 

Source:Clean Technica

If you are concerned about global warming and the effects that atmospheric carbon levels are even now having, then wind energy looks like a no-brainer.  Clearly not everyone agrees.

February 1st, the first appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval certificate in Ontario began, focusing on a small wind farm being developed by Suncor Energy Inc.  The Kent Breeze wind farm, once constructed, will  have eight turbines with 20 MW total capacity.  At issue are claims that the windfarm will cause serious harm to human health as a result of exposure to to the infrasound and/or low frequency noise and shadow flicker from wind turbines.  The appeal hearing is expected to take until March 31st and involve 16 days of testimony.

Similarly, High Country News has long followed the controversy regarding wind power development in Wyoming.  On the surface the debate in Wyoming appears to be about preserving Sage Grouse and the aesthetic of undeveloped ranchland.  However, digging deeper and it becomes a conflict between oil and gas interests and wind (see Wind Resistance: Will the petrocracy - and greens - keep Wyoming from realizing its windy potential?, Deccember 2009):

"Look closer, however, and you'll find that much of the resistance to wind actually comes from the fossil fuel industry and the politics it bankrolls.  Wyoming is the largest coal producer in the nation and the third-largest producer of natural gas; at least one town is named after an oil company. Severance taxes and royalties from these industries keep the state's government, schools and other services afloat. In an indirect and sometimes convoluted way, wind threatens that old-school energy dynamic. At an August symposium on wind energy at the University of Wyoming in Laramie, Aaron Clark, an advisor to the governor, put it candidly: "We can't let wind development hurt the state's revenue stream from extractive minerals."

The Cape Wind went through a nine year of regulatory process with opposition from no less than Sentaor Ted Kennedy, who appeared to fear the impact on his holiday home's vistas over Nantucket Sound - and its still in the courts!

And its not just in North America.  Back in August 2009, Greenpeace U.K. voiced its concerns about local councils' negative stance towards onshore wind farms:

".... of the reasons Britain’s green industrial revolution is yet to take off is the lack of domestic demand for wind turbines, and a key reason for that has been the attitude of many Conservative councils ..... a key factor behind the woes is a backlash against onshore wind farms by local authorities concerned about damage to the value of citizens’ property and to the environment — including local bird populations."

Much of the negative sentiment seems to arise because some people don't like looking at the turbines (from one description of 1.5 MW turbines: "From its base to the tip of its rotor, the GE 1.5 megawatt wind turbine is 380 feet tall. Each rotor blade is 122 feet long.") or see them as a threat to their property values (although, some of the controversy appears to be driven by entrenched industries with no interest in change).  In a word, a classic case of NIMBY'ism.  And while these types of arguments always seem to be advanced in terms of environmental or human-health claims, how real are the claims?    

Earlier this month, in an effort to address the burgeoning concerns, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service issued voluntary Draft Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines. These Guidelines have been a long-time coming.  The Fish & Wildlife Service introduction to the Guidelines that is on their website suggests a gestation of more than eight years:

"In July 2003, the Service released for a set of voluntary, interim guidelines for land-based, wind energy projects to assist developers in avoiding, minimizing and/or compensating for effects to fish, wildlife, and their habitats. Following an extended two-year public comment period, the Secretary of the Interior established the Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee under the auspices of the Federal Advisory Committee Act in March 2007 to provide the recommendations for the final guidelines. The Committee was comprised of a diversity of stakeholders, including federal, tribal, state, private industries and conservation organizations. After two years of deliberations, the Committee submitted their final recommendations to the Secretary on March 4, 2010.  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service then convened an internal working group representing several Service programs to review the Committee recommendations.  The working group used the recommendations as a basis to develop the Service’s proposed wind energy guidelines."

The Guidelines are intended to guide site-selection of land-based, wind energy projects, addressing the potential negative effects of wind energy development on fish, wildlife, and their habitats.

Briefly, the Guidelines are based on a five tiered approach to habitat and wildlife protection, including:

Tier 1 – Preliminary evaluation or screening of potential sites
Tier 2 – Site characterization
Tier 3 – Pre-construction monitoring and assessments
Tier 4 – Post-construction monitoring of effects
Tier 5 – Research

At each of the site-selection levels, users are asked to assess the risk of future impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat based on consideration of the species available, presenece of high value habitat (including "intact habitat" - as the Fish & Wildlife Service states in the Introduction, "many of North America's native landscapes are greatly diminished or degraded from multiple causes unrelated to wind energy".  So as the dispute in Wyoming shows, wind may just be the latest layer of impacts in the cake - and probably not even the most significant.)  

Once the decision to site a wind farm has been made, the Guidelines also provide best practice mitigation and management approaches - although, not in great detail.

As someone who sits down from time to time to develop similar types of guidelines, I would say that they are well thought out and drafted. And they are complimented by guidance to address risks specific to eagles in the Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance as well as by the creation of a new website which the Service is promising to maintain with new and emerging best practice as it becomes comes available.

Will this address many of the concerns around wind farms and wind turbines?  I suspect not. 

It appears to be a useful tool for addressing wildlife concerns associated wind development.  However, much of the concern around wind farms and many other kinds of development is much more visceral than the objective environmental or health concerns often cited.  It comes down to a fear of change and a desire to control the change in our own environments.  The conflicts also say something about the uneven spread of impacts and benefits.  For those living next to a wind farm the global environmental benefits of wind energy may mean little to them.

I was struck by the author's statement at the end of the article about Wyoming's wind farm conflicts:

"I slither through the fence and walk up to a turbine, until I'm directly beneath its blades. The only sound is a low-pitched sort of watery sigh, kind of like a slowed-down version of an unborn baby's heartbeat on an ultrasound. No gears grind or scream on this solitary giant, nothing spews out of it, no drill bits penetrate, and no strange fluids are shot into or sucked out of the earth. The wind blows, the arms turn, and electrons flow through cables, down the tower, under the ground, and into the power lines where they'll join up with the coal-generated electrons 13 miles away. They flow into the bloodstream of the omnipotent, tentacled organism called the grid. Somewhere, someone flips a switch. And there is light."

It says a lot about these types of conflicts - our points of comparison, our awareness of the effects of our decisions and our choices - and much too rational for most of us.

Chevy Volt: The Future of Driving? - There Seems to be Some Dispute

  Source: GM/You Tube

To mark the occaision of GM's first commercial for the Volt (on tonight's World Series opener), it seems appropriate to pull together some of the recent commentary on hybid and electric vehicles.

Lets start with the pictures:  CNET's Green Tech blog provides a photo gallery of the leading hybrid and battery-electric vehicles we can look forward to buying in the months to come.

Jeremy Cato, writing in todays Globe & Mail, reported on a J.D. Power study that concludes that "it will be difficult to convince large numbers of consumers to switch from conventionally powered passenger vehicles to hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) and battery electric vehicles (BEVs) ...." (see Buyers Like Green Cars - Until They See the Price Tag).

Qouting a J.D. Power spokesman ...

“While considerable interest exists among governments, media and environmentalists in promoting HEVs and BEVs, consumers will ultimately decide whether these vehicles are commercially successful or not,” said John Humphrey, senior vice president of automotive operations at J.D. Power. “Based on our research of consumer attitudes toward these technologies - and barring significant changes to public policy, including tax incentives and higher fuel economy standards - we don’t anticipate a mass migration to green vehicles in the coming decade.”

[J.D. Power's report is Drive Green 2020: More Hope than Reality.  You can find directions to it on the home page of the Company's website.  I didn't pursue it because I found the amount of information required to be intrusive.]

The LA Times Greenspace blog also provides a review of the report (see Hybrid, Battery-Electric Cars: Will the Hype Lead to Sales, October 27^th) but seems to strike a bit more balanced note, talking about the reasoning behind the conclusions in a bit more detail.

According to the Drive Green 2020 Report, the main reasons U.S. car buyers do not consider buying hybrids are cost, displeasing designs, performance deficiencies and maintenance concerns. Those who consider purchasing hybrids but ultimately buy internal-combustion vehicles do so because the cost of the hybrids is too high and the performance, i.e. acceleration or towing capacity, is inadequate, the report said.

Quoting J.D. Power again, .....

"There are a lot of unknowns in the market," Dunne said. "At the end of the day, consumers want to do the right thing, but they're going to consider how it impacts them financially first. The price to the consumer is paramount if you really want success. ..... While many people are interested in reducing fuel consumption and improving emissions, ..... there's no coordinated global policy in terms of how to achieve that."

Writing in the NYTimes, Christopher Jensen takes a more optimistic look at two electric vehicles in particular, reporting on test drives of the Chevy Volt and Nissan's Leaf (see Back-to-Back Drives in the Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf, October 26^th).

The Nissan Leaf and Chevrolet Volt take different approaches to environmentally friendly motoring, and they look about as dissimilar as Laurel and Hardy. But how do they compare on the road? While Nissan and Chevrolet have recently allowed some journalists to drive their vehicles at separate events, I had the opportunity last week for a rare back-to-back turn at the wheel.

And the result was ......

But what the electric tour of Hell showed is that when it comes to ride and handling, these are real cars with different dynamic natures. The Volt is a pleasant cruiser and commuter, while the Leaf is more lively and may appeal more to a driving enthusiast, albeit a driving enthusiast on a leash.

Also in CNET's Green Tech blog, is the announcement that Tesla today opened the doors of its California manufacturing plant for the production of what are absolutely the hottest green cars out there, the company's Model S sports cars.

Writing at Yale's Environment 360 blog, David Levitan looks at the promise for using electric cars to support a grid that relies on wind and other intermittent renewables (see Rising Hope That Electric Cars Can Play a Role on the Grid, October 14^th).

The electricity generation and transportation sectors may seem like two disparate pieces of a puzzle, but in fact they may end up being intimately related. The connection comes in the form of the vehicle-to-grid concept, in which a large electric vehicle (EV) fleet — essentially a group of rechargeable batteries that spend most of their time sitting in driveways and garages — might be used to store excess power when demand is low and feed it back to the grid when demand is high. Utilities and electricity wholesalers would pay the EV owners for providing that power.

Vehicle-to-grid, or V2G, is not a new idea. In fact, it’s been floating around environmental and green tech circles for a decade at least. But it has always had the tough-to-shed image of a utopian technology. Now, though, V2G — as well as simpler schemes based on smart-timed charging of the vehicles — is slowly becoming reality, evolving in quiet synergy with the worldwide push for renewable energy.

And last but not least, to accompany the article by Mr. Cato, the Globe & Mail provided the following diagram that illustrates the type of electric cars expected to be sold in the coming decade and where.

 

The diagram is a bit fuzzy when copied so here's the link to the real thing.

 

Who Wouldn't Want Wind Power?

                        

                         Source: Wash. Dept. of Fish & Wildlife

The New York Times has filed an interesting story on wind energy development under an usual heading.  In Sunday's Travel Section, writer Janna Kikissis looks at the concerns facing wind power turbines and wind power development in some of Europe's most popular tourist destinations (see Debating the Merits of Energy From the Air, NYTimes, November 25th, 2007).  Quoting the mayor of one Greek island that may be on the receiving end of a new wind farm:

"... when a mining and energy company floated a plan earlier this year to build 87 industrial wind turbines on more than a third of the island, the Serifos major, Angeliki Synodinou called it her "worst nightmare"."

Ms. Kikissis highlights an issue that faces anyone wanting to construct energy facilities almost everywhere in the world today.  At least some of the same concerns were expressed by British Columbia NGO's looking at that province's hydro power development plans (see previous post, Sustainable Hydro Power (or Not), November 19th, 2007).  And ask anyone trying to drill oil or gas well in the western half of North America about their experiences with local landowners and the permitting processes in this regard.

While many will dismiss the concerns as rampant NIMBY'ism, in most cases those whose backyards are being dug up have legitimate fears about how energy facilities that benefit all of us will impact their lives.

Smart renewable power developers are wise to pay attention to these concerns and to work closely with their neignbours to address them.  Smart governments will ensure that regulatory approval processes are in place to ensure landowners and other stakeholders can be heard in a fair, transparent forum.

Anything less will make the energy transition we are just staring far more painful than it might otherwise need be.

Wind - A European Goldrush?

                                    

High Valuations for European Wind Power Generators

Iberdrola (MCE: IBE) announced yesterday the price range for its IPO of its renewable electricity generation assets, scheduled for December 13^th.  The Wall Street Journal (among others) reported that Iberdrola had established a price of € 22.4 to 29.6 billion, with the final price to be announced December 11^th (see Show Me The Money, WSJ Online, November 20, 2007).  Once spun off, the new company, to be called Iberdrola Renovables (Spanish for renewables), will become the world’s largest renewable power company.

Iberdrola’s renewables business achieved revenues of € 695.6 million in 2006.  Assuming the assets to be spun off match those in the current Renewables business, the announced price would establish a value for the new company that was approximately 32 times 2006 earnings.  At this level, the Wall Street Journal comments that the new company, which accounts for less than 1% of U.S. electricity generation, would be worth more than such utilities as Duke Energy or the FPL Group.

Iberdrola isn’t the only utility to see gold when it looks at renewable energy.  Earlier this month, the Europe’s Suez Group (EPA: SZE) outbid 30 other groups for the right to purchase 50% of the wind power company Compagnie du Vent (see High Winds Make Some Energy Investors Giddy, Financial Times, November 13^th, 2007). 

When first announced, it was reported that Suez had offered to pay about € 325 million, placing a value of € 750 million on the company, or 65 times its 2006 revenues (€ 11.3 million) (see High Winds Make Some Energy Investors Giddy, Financial Times, November 13th, 2007).  A more recent report indicated that the final agreed price was € 321 million for 50.1% of the company, still a hefty 57 times 2006 earnings (see Suez Acquires Majority Stake in Compagnie du Vent, Energy Business Review, November 19^th, 2007).

Valuations like these suggest there is more than a bit of froth in the market for wind power assets in Europe and I’m sure there are some that are wishing it would cross the water to affect North American wind power generators.  For example, applied to Canadian Hydro Developers (TSX: KHD), an independent wind power developer and operator, 30 times 2006 revenues would almost double its current share price to $12.09 (currently $6.20).  They can but dream.

Developing US Wind Power

4,000 MW's of U.S. Wind Power in 2007

Yesterday in the Energy Roundup, a Wall Street Journal blog that reviews energy news from the WSJ and other media, Keith Johnson provided two posts looking at the pace of wind energy development in the U.S.

Ask a Wind-Power Lawyer, is an interview with Benjamin Israeli, head of the renewable energy group at Bracewell & Giuliani in Washington.  Mr. Israeli has an optimistic outlook for the U.S. wind energy sector over the coming five years, pointing to three key factors, including:

·         The current shortage of turbine components, which he sees primarily affecting the smaller project developers;

·         Potential expiry of the federal Production Tax Credit (PTC) at the end of 2008;

·         Growing influence of state regulations, particularly state renewable energy standards (renewable portfolio standards or RPS).

Blowing in the Wind gives a brief look at the pace of U.S. wind power development.  American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) data indicates that 2,300 megawatts of wind generating capacity were added through September this year and a total of up to 4,000 megawatts could be added by year-end as developers rush to get wind farms installed before the PTC expires at the end of 2008. 

While this expansion comes on top of 2,454 megawatts added in 2006, Mr. Johnson notes that wind power still only amounts to 0.7% of U.S. electrical generating capacity. 

Overall, the two posts suggest a rapidly expanding industry sector that still suffers from a boom and bust cycle based on the U.S. federal government’s failure to put in place a predictable, long-term incentive package for wind energy. 

Interestingly, the posts also paint a picture of the industry structure shifting in favour of a smaller number of large project developer/operators, at least partly in response to project development difficulties and the turbine supply issues noted above.

Leading wind power developers cited by Mr. Johnson include John Deere Wind, a division of John Deere (NYSE: DE), FPL Energy, a division of the FPL Group (NYSE: FPL), enXco (a division of Électricité de France) and PPM Energy, a division of Iberdrola S.A. (MCE: IBE).

Reinforcing the need for predictable, long-term policies, is a post by Carl Levesque in Renewable Energy Access (see Industry Leaders Explore 20% Wind Penetration Scenario, November 7^th, 2007).  Writing about the AWEA’s soon-to-be-released vision for a 20% penetration of the U.S. electrical generating market by 2030, Mr. Levesque quotes the Association’s Policy Director, Rob Gramlich, in saying that this vision would require deployment of up to 16,000 megawatts of wind power per year.  (All of a sudden a record breaking addition of 4,000 megawatts doesn’t look like so much.) 

While a number of changes including improved transmission infrastructure and siting policies are noted, it’s clear that this vision is based on the presumption of stable, long-term policy (i.e. incentives). 

Whatever else may be said about wind energy and renewable power development today, favourable government policy and incentives remain the bedrock on which this sector is being built.  With $100 dollar oil, climate change, air quality concerns and energy security needs it’s hard to imagine governments turning away from such support.  However, stranger things have happened, and with current wrangling over a U.S. energy bill, not out of the question. 

Overall, in the transition to a sustainable energy system, how government policies and incentives are provided (i.e. are they predictable and long-term relative to project development cycles?) may well prove as critical as what is provided.  Time will tell whether that is a lesson governments can act on.