evanston wind park 101 2012 final output

7/30/2019 Evanston Wind Park 101 2012 Final Output

1/118

Evanston, Energy and the EnvironmeThe Answer is Blowing in the Wind

November, 2012

http://www
http://www.greenerevanston.org/http://www.greenerevanston.org/


2/118

Time vs. Global Temp. Rise

Climate Change


3/118

Evanston Wind Park Concept


4/118

Evanston Wind Park Concept


5/118

Energy 101


6/118

Power Grid Overview

Production

End User

Transmission


7/118

Power Grid


8/118

Power Grid

PJM

Territory


9/118

EnergyConsumed to

Generate

Electricity

40.04 Quads

Conversion

Losses

25.22 Quads

Gross Generationof Electricity

14.82 QuadsNet Generation of

Electricity

14.01 Quads

Supply

107.66 Quads Consumption

97.30 Quads

Expo

10.35 Q

Source:2011 US Dept. Energy Info

Administration


10/118

EnergyConsumed to

Generate

Electricity

40.04 Quads

Conversion

Losses

25.22 Quads

Gross Generation

of Electricity

14.82 QuadsNet Generation of

Electricity

14.01 Quads

Source:2011 US Dept. Energy Info

Administration


11/118

Renewable Sources

US Energy Consumption - Electric Power Sector

Source:

US Dept. Energ


12/118

Renewable Sources

US Energy Consumption - Electric Power Sector

Source:

US Dept. Energ


13/118

Electricity Sources - U.S.

Source:

US Dept. Energy Information Administration


14/118

Petroleum Natural Gas Coal Nuclear Renewable

Electricity Sources - Illinois

Illi i N El i i G i b S J l 2012


15/118

13%

43%

43%

2%

Illinois Net Electricity Generation by Source, July 2012

Petroleum Natural Gas Coal Nuclear Renewable

Source:

Energy Information Administration, EElectricity Sources - Illinois


16/118

Coal

CO2

SO2

NOX

LCOE

Water Used

MercurySource:Synapse Energy Economic


17/118

Coal

CO2

SO2

NOX

LCOE

Water Used

Mercury

Environmental cos

removal, fly ash b

factored into low

19th century techn

Can be used for b

peaker plants

Dangerous to mine

Dirtiest primary sou

production

Generates significa

impacts fish.

Emissions contribu

mercury poisoning

Previously had bee

source. New coal

expensive and pron

Source:Synapse Energy Economic

CO2


18/118

Coal

CO2

SO2

NOX

LCOE

Water Used

Mercury

Environmental cos

removal, fly ash b

factored into low

19th century techn

Can be used for b

peaker plants

Dangerous to mine

Dirtiest primary sou

production

Generates significa

impacts fish.

Emissions contribu

mercury poisoning

Previously had bee

source. New coal

expensive and pron


CO2


19/118

CO2

SO2 0

NOX

LCOE

Water Used

Source:

Synapse Energy Economic

Natural Gas

CO2


20/118

Non-renewable fo

20th century techn Cleaner than coal ( Gas fired power pla

making them good

also now being use As of 2012, natural

coal

CO2

SO2 0

NOX

LCOE

Water Used

Source:

Synapse Energy Economic

Natural Gas


21/118

Hydrofracturing - Fracking Shale Gas


22/118

Hydrofracturing - Fracking Shale Gas

Fracked Shale Gas us

million gallons of wat

Potentially pollutes gsources with a range

including toluene

Methane leakage a m

contributor

Non-renewable fossil

Source:Synapse Energy Economics - Hidden C"Water Resources and Use for HydraulMarcellus Shale Region" Arthur, J. DanPreston (May 56, 2010).
http://fracfocus.org/sites/default/files/publications/water_resources_and_use_for_hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_marcellus_shale_region.pdfhttp://fracfocus.org/sites/default/files/publications/water_resources_and_use_for_hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_marcellus_shale_region.pdfhttp://fracfocus.org/sites/default/files/publications/water_resources_and_use_for_hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_marcellus_shale_region.pdfhttp://fracfocus.org/sites/default/files/publications/water_resources_and_use_for_hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_marcellus_shale_region.pdf


23/118

Methane Emissions by Fuel Source

Source:US Dept. Energ


24/118

Methane Emissions by Fuel Source

Methane is 20 times morepotent than CO2 is as a

Greenhouse Gas.

Natural Gas systems are thesingle largest source of methaneemission in the US by far

Source:US Dept. Energ

CO2


25/118

Nuclear Power

*20k-60k gals for open loo

CO2

SO2

NOX

LCOE

Water Used

Spent Fuel Issue


CO2


26/118

Nuclear Power

The long term solution

not been figured out

The power output of th

affected by cooling po

Issues with this have b

as summer temperatu 20th century technology

Nuclear power plants ar

baseload power

Nuclear fuel is a finite re

Cost of power plants is

(200% cost overruns) an

to build

Three power plants hav

accidents, two of which


CO2

SO2

NOX

LCOE

Water Used

Spent Fuel Issue


CO2


27/118

Nuclear Power

The long term solution

not been figured out

The power output of th

affected by cooling po

Issues with this have b

as summer temperatu 20th century technology

Nuclear power plants ar

baseload power

Nuclear fuel is a finite re

Cost of power plants is

(200% cost overruns) an

to build

Three power plants hav

accidents, two of which


SO2

NOX

LCOE

Water Used

Spent Fuel Issue


CO2 0


28/118

CO2 0

SO2 0

NOX 0

LCOE

Water Used

Wind Energy


CO2 0


29/118

CO 0

SO2 0

NOX 0

LCOE

Water Used

Wind Energy

21st century tech

Typically thought

source of power.

regional group, th

and can start to b

power source.

True renewable p

Low risk/relatively

Land based wind

currently compet

should continue o

Extremely minim



30/118

Renewables

Coal Coal/CCS Natural Gas Nuclear WindHydroAssessment of Relative Benefit/Impact

C i C


31/118

More Favorable

Construction CostNew plant construction cost for anequivalent amount of generating capacity

Electricity CostProjected cost to produce electricity from anew plant over its lifetime

Land UseArea required to support fuel supply and

electricity generation

Water requirementsAmount of water required to generateequivalent amount of electricity

CO2 emissionRelative amount of CO2 emissions per unitof electricity

Non-CO2 emissionRelative amount of air emissions other thanC02 per unit of electricity

Waste productsPresence of other significant wasteproducts

AvailabilityAbility to generate electricity when needed

FlexibilityAbility to quickly respond to changes indemand

Source:Electric Power Research Institute

Coal Coal/CCS Natural Gas Nuclear WindHydroAssessment of Relative Benefit/Impact

C t ti C t

Fracked shale gas has

tremendous water*


32/118

More Favorable

Construction CostNew plant construction cost for anequivalent amount of generating capacity

Electricity CostProjected cost to produce electricity from anew plant over its lifetime

Land UseArea required to support fuel supply and

electricity generation

Water requirementsAmount of water required to generateequivalent amount of electricity

CO2 emissionRelative amount of CO2 emissions per unitof electricity

Non-CO2 emissionRelative amount of air emissions other thanC02 per unit of electricity

Waste productsPresence of other significant wasteproducts

AvailabilityAbility to generate electricity when needed

FlexibilityAbility to quickly respond to changes indemand

Source:Electric Power Research Institute

tremendous water

requirements that are

significantly worse than

conventional natural gas and

uses allegedly highly toxic

fluids which are believed to

have the ability pollute

groundwater supplies.

When wind farms areaggregated over large

geographical areas, it is

possible to more accurately

predict their power

production as a whole.

It is possible for wind

turbines to very quickly

respond to electrical

demand loads byfeathering the blades into

the wind until the power is

needed

*

*

*

*


33/118

Wind 101

Early wind energy engineer


34/118


Of all the forces of nature, I should think the wind containsthe largest amount of motive power.

All the power exerted by all the men, beasts, running-water,

and steam, shall not equal the one hundredth part of what isexerted by the blowing of the wind.

Quite possibly one of the greatest discoveries, will be thetaming and harnessing of it.



35/118


Of all the forces of nature, I should think the wind containsthe largest amount of motive power.

All the power exerted by all the men, beasts, running-water,

and steam, shall not equal the one hundredth part of what isexerted by the blowing of the wind.

Quite possibly one of the greatest discoveries, will be thetaming and harnessing of it.

Abraham Lincoln1860

Another early wind energy proponent


36/118

Thomas Edison1931

Id put my money on the sun and solar energy.What a source of power! I hope we dont have

to wait until oil and coal run out before wetackle that.

Another early wind energy proponent

Converting one form of energy to another


37/118

KineticEnergy

Mechanical Energy Elect

Overall: 42 50% Efficient but theoretical Maximum is 59.3% (

Component Rotor Gearbox Generator

Efficiency 45-52% 95-97% 97-98%

Wind Turbine Principles

Turbine Power Curve


38/118

Wind Speed at Hub Height (m

ElectricPower(kW)

How much power is in wind?

Power = d x A x v3

d = air density

A = swept areav = wind speed

For standard turbines;

A = r2, so

Power = d x r2 x v3

Wind Power Physics

Turbine Power Curve


39/118

Wind Speed at Hub Height (m

ElectricPower(kW)

How much power is in wind?

Power = d x A x v3

d = air density

A = swept areav = wind speed

For standard turbines;

A = r2, so

Power = d x r2 x v3

Wind Power Physics

2x blade radius = 4x power

2x wind speed = 8x power!!

Notic


40/118

Prime U.S. Land

Based Wind

Noticwind offsho

Wind Resourcesrelative to

Population

Notic


41/118

Prime U.S. Land

Based Wind

Noticwind offsho


Population

Notic


42/118

Prime U.S. Land

Based Wind

Noticwind offsho


Population

Notic


43/118

Prime U.S. Land

Based Wind

wind offsho


Population

Notic


44/118

Prime U.S. Land

Based Wind

wind offsho


Population


45/118

Wind Turbine Sizes over Time

From 60 cents/kWh down to 5-6

t /kWh (f l d b d i d)


46/118

1981 1985 1990 1996 1999 2001

Rotor Dia. (m) 10 17 27 40 50 71

KW 25 100 225 550 750 1,500

2005

88

2,500

LCOELevelized Cost of Energy

cents/kWh (for land based wind)

Turbine Size:Power over Time

Land based wind energy is now cost

competitive with conventional fuels


47/118

Current State-of-the-Art

Utilities need short (


48/118

Energy Storage System

Proposed Wind Farm Location


49/118

Energy Storage System

Proposed Wind Farm Location

Elevated Water Storage - Surplus E

Pumps Water Up in Elevation. Wh

Needed, Water is Sent Down to th

Power Plant Below

Net Addition Cumulative


50/118

0 MW

10000 MW

20000 MW

30000 MW

40000 MW

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 201

Source:US Dept. of Energy NCumulative vs. Annual Installed US Wind Capacity


51/118

U.S. Wind Related Manufacturing Facilities and Wind Industry Job

A 250-megawatt project

generates 1079 jobs


52/118

U.S. Wind Related Manufacturing Facilities and Wind Industry Job

522 construction jobs

432 manufacturing jobs

80 planning & development

27 for operations

18 sales slots

Natural Resource Defense Council


53/118

Historic Costs/kWh of Renewable Energy Source:US Dept. Energ

Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE)LCOE is the initial capital discount rate plus the costs of continuous


54/118

Plant Type LCOE ($/MWh)

Natural Gas CC $66

Conventional Coal $94

Advanced Nuclear $114

Terrestrial Wind $97

Solar Photovoltaic $210

Offshore Wind $243

Off

shore Wind 2020*

$100Offshore Wind 2030* $70

Relative Costs/MWh for Various Electrical Sources

Source:Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2011*From National Offshore Wind Strategy, US DOE/DOI 2011

LCOE is the initial capital, discount rate plus the costs of continuous

operation, fuel and maintenance


55/118

Land Based vs. Offshore Construction Costs

Land Based Offshore

Source:NREL 2010 Cos


56/118

Land Based vs. Offshore Construction Costs

Land Based Offshore

Source:NREL 2010 Cos


57/118

Anthropogenic Causes of Bird Mortality (per 10,000 avian deaths)

Source: Erickson et al. (2002)


58/118

Bldgs/Windows House CatsOther

Electric LinesVehicles

PesticidesComm. Towers

Anthropogenic Causes of Bird Mortality (per 10,000 avian deaths)


59/118

Source:Congressional testimony Mike Daulton, Director of Conservation PolicyNational Audubon Society, before the Committee on Natural ResourcesSubcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans, May 2007.

On balance,Audubon stronglysupports wind power as a clean

alternative energy source that reducesthe threat of global warming. Each

individual wind project, however, has aunique set of circumstances and should

be evaluated on its own merits.

- Audubon Society

Avian Concerns


60/118

Sound LevelsSource:BWEA (2007)


61/118


62/118

US Water Savings from 20% Wind Scenario Source:American Wind Ener

Cumulatively, for the electrical power generation sector, the 20% wind scenario would;

2007-2030 - avoid the consumption of 4 trillion gallons of water (8% of US water us


63/118

US Water Savings from 20% Wind Scenario

2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028

g

By 2030, annual reductions = 450 billion gallons (17% of US water usage)

Source:American Wind Ener

Source:US Dept. of Energy July 2008


64/118

Cumulative Carbon Emission Reductions Attributed to Wind

(compared to expanding the generation mix without wind energy)


65/118

Evanston Wind Park 1

Source:2010 W. Musial


66/118

Prime U.S. Land

Based Wind

US Offshore Wind Potential

The Great Lakes have the potentialof offshore wind power in water 30mshallower (cost effective foundation

Source:2010 W. Musial


67/118

Prime U.S. Land

Based Wind

Great LakesCalifornia

Gulf of Mexico

Mid-Atlantic

New England

Pacific Northwest

Sou

0-30 m 30-60 mUS Offshore Wind Potential

shallower (cost effective foundation


68/118

Great Lakes Wind Resources

19.0-20.1 mph


69/118

Evanston



70/118



71/118

Wind Park Overview


72/118

(40) 5MW Wind Turbines

Enough power for approx. 59,000 household

18 mph wind) - Evanston has 30,000 househo

CO2 abatement per 40 turbine array = 490,70

Would meet multiples of the CO2 abatement

Evanston Climate Action Plan (336%)

Wind Park Overview


73/118

1.75

Miles

7 Miles

Conceptual Wind Park Location

Wind Park would be located 7 miles

offshore, in line with the Northwesterncampus and Dawes Park

Wind Park could be located 7 milesoffshore in line with the Northweste


74/118

7 Miles

offshore, in line with the Northwestecampus and Dawes Park


Wind Park could be located 7 milesoffshore in line with the Northweste


75/118

7 Miles

offshore, in line with the Northwestecampus and Dawes Park



76/118

Evanston

Lake Michigan BathymetryProposed Evanston Offshore Windfarm

Windfarm

Conceptual Wind Park

Location

Lake Michigan Depth Chart


77/118

At 7 miles out, Lake Michiganswater depth is approx. 70 andabout 90 deep at 9 miles out.

Foundations are typically costeffective to 30m (98) water depth

Evanston

Lake Michigan BathymetryProposed Evanston Offshore Windfarm

Windfarm

Conceptual Wind Park

Location

Lake Michigan Depth Chart

Green Image for Evanston andIllinois


78/118

Regional Benefits

Green Image for Evanston andIllinois

Tourism


79/118

CO2 Reduction

Civic Pride

Jobs

Regional Benefits
http://localhost/Users/kipnis/Desktop/Images/Whole%20Foods%20Wind%20Turbineshttp://localhost/Users/kipnis/Desktop/Images/Whole%20Foods%20Wind%20Turbineshttp://localhost/Users/kipnis/Desktop/Images/Whole%20Foods%20Wind%20Turbines


80/118

View from Shore


81/118

Evanston Offshore Wind


82/118

Lake Michigan

Offshore Wind Policy


83/118

Practicality

Offshore Practicality:

Not Can But Will


84/118

Practicality

Not Can, But Will

Not a novel technology (only to US)

National Energy Strategy and Policy

Bipartisan

Economics are practical

- First projects will be mostexpensive

- Pathway to reducing costs - >$0.07/kWh or Less


85/118

Projects in Progress


86/118

Illinois RPS is 25%Renewable Energy by 2025


87/118

Renewable portfolio stand

Renewable portfolio goalRenewable Portfolio Standards (RPS)


88/118

Federal Interest & Support


89/118


States Support 2012 MultiFederal Memorandum of U

$180M for Offshore Wind


90/118


Demonstration Projects*

*Source:

http://ww

doe-putsprojects/

1. Encourage and follow State activities; get anEvanstonian on the Advisory Council
http://www.earthtechling.com/2012/03/doe-puts-180m-into-offshore-wind-demo-projects/http://www.earthtechling.com/2012/03/doe-puts-180m-into-offshore-wind-demo-projects/http://www.earthtechling.com/2012/03/doe-puts-180m-into-offshore-wind-demo-projects/http://www.earthtechling.com/2012/03/doe-puts-180m-into-offshore-wind-demo-projects/http://www.earthtechling.com/2012/03/doe-puts-180m-into-offshore-wind-demo-projects/http://www.earthtechling.com/2012/03/doe-puts-180m-into-offshore-wind-demo-projects/


91/118

2. Redouble efforts to promote awareness andfoster transparent discussions

3. Encourage and facilitate establishment of a

meteorological station4. Identify benefits and negative effects of an

offshore wind park

5. Encourage, facilitate and follow other keystudies addressing project feasibility

6. Identify grants, tax benefits, and other meansto demonstrate a favorable development

environment

7. Look at models for sharing leasing revenueand generating tax revenue

8. Actively explore and select the Citys role(s) inthe project, including direct purchase

9. Identify big concepts and projects that may

MAYORS W

FARM COMM

Report to the City CJune 20, 2011

Recommendations for Evanston

4. Identify benefits and negative effects of an

offshore wind park

5. Encourage, facilitate and follow other keystudies addressing project feasibility

6 Identify grants tax benefits and other means


92/118

6. Identify grants, tax benefits, and other meansto demonstrate a favorable developmentenvironment

7. Look at models for sharing leasing revenue

and generating tax revenue

8. Actively explore and select the Citys role(s) inthe project, including direct purchase

9. Identify big concepts and projects that mayhelp or hinder a wind park

10.Promptly designate a committee to work on

the above, especially role

11.Explore and collaborate with potentialpartners

MAYORS W

FARM COMM

Report to the City CJune 20, 2011

Recommendations for Evanston


93/118

Advisory Council Recommendations

Groundwork: map the lake for siting;regulatory toolkit; study offtake;


94/118

regulatory toolkit; study offtake;enabling legislation




95/118


Bid process: for site assessment rights




96/118


Bid process: for site assessment rights

Application: to convert bid rights intolicense for construction, maintenanceand operation, and decommission



97/118

Process Moving Forward

The Process:If started now, complete 2020 at the earliest

Advisory Council


98/118

GIS Mapping (now)

Wind Study (now)

Further Advisory (economics, off

take) Legislation (2013)

Bidding

Assessment

Application

Permitting

Construction and Operation

Operational Phase (20+ years)

Process Moving Forward

Illinois Coastal Spatial PlanningTransportation/Security


99/118

Spatial Mapping

Illinois Coastal Spatial PlanningEnvironmental Factors


100/118

Spatial Mapping


101/118

Ongoing Studies


102/118

Ongoing Studies


103/118

Wind Testing

Source: Grand Valley State University (2012)

Mid-Lake Testing - June 2012


104/118

Wind Testing

Source: Grand Valley State University (2012)

Buoy recorded 22mph average wind

speed in the middle ofthe Lake this past year

1. Environmental Factor

Visual Impacts (Viewshed)2. Marine Factors

Recreational Boating


105/118

Factors to Consider

p ( )

Fish Spawning Areas/Refuges - Reef

Threatened or Endangered Species & Habitat

Migratory Flyways of Birds and Bats

Avian Nesting, Feeding and Resting Areas

Geology and Sediments

Benthic and Aquatic Habitats

Terrestrial Ecology

Electrical and Magnetic Fields

Acoustic Impacts

Available Wind Resources

Recreational Boating

Historical/Archeological/ShipResources

Sport and Commercial Fishi

Other Existing Uses

3. Public Infrastructure

Electrical Transmission equipm

Water Supply Infrastructure

Littoral Zone

Other Public Infrastructure

4. Transportation/Security


106/118

Public Input Opportunities

The Process:Public Input

Advisory Council


107/118

Advisory Council

GIS Mapping (now)

Further Study(economics, offtake)

Legislation (2013)

Bidding

Assessment

Application

Permitting

Construction and Operation

Operational Phase (20+ years)

Public Input Opportunities


108/118

Principles

Principles:

Best practices (e.g., GLWC ToolkitJul 2011)


109/118

Jul 2011)

Openness/transparency/

inclusiveness Safeguard environment

Accommodate other resources

Public Trust Doctrine: Satisfy butsafeguard

Eye on the prize: clean, renewable

Principles


110/118

The Public

The Public

The wind is a public resource

Th l k i bli t


111/118

The lake is a public treasure

The test must be public benefit

The public sector must be deeplyinvolved

The process must be public

The public must be engaged andaccepting

The Public


112/118

Recap: Why Wind?

Why Wind?

The promise:

Abundant


113/118

Clean

Renewable Local

Cheaper

Jobs

Recap: Why Wind?

Why Offshore Wind?

Greater wind speed =


114/118

plower levelized cost

Closer to demand centers

Avoidance of someviewshed issues

Fewer competing uses

Larger turbines possibleoffshore

Economic development

Why Offshore Wind?

Why Offshore Wind?

Greater wind speed =


115/118

lower levelized cost

Closer to demand centers

Avoidance of someviewshed issues

Fewer competing uses

Larger turbines possibleoffshore

Economic development

Why Offshore Wind?


116/118

Recap: Why Lake Michigan?

Wind energy above LakeMichigan is an enormous publicresource that:


117/118

we have a national and local interest

in developing can and should be responably

explored, and

probably can and should beresponsibly developed

Recap: Why Lake Michigan?

Evanston, Energy and the EnvironmeThe Answer is Blowing in the Wind


118/118

November, 2012

http://www
http://www.greenerevanston.org/http://www.greenerevanston.org/

evanston wind park 101 2012 final output

Documents