Click on a link below to find the document you wish to view.
News Releases
Commentaries
Newsletters
Presentations
Public Service Commission Testimony & Filings
Photos
Testimony - Legislative & local
Solar hot water - Installation profiles
Letters to the editor
Catching Wind, reporting on news, events and policies affecting commercial wind energy development in Wisconsin.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Think Tank Flunks Renewable Energy Analysis
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 22, 2009
MORE INFORMATION
Michael Vickerman
RENEW Wisconsin
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org
Madison, WI (December 22, 2009) In response to a recent report from the Wisconsin Public Research Institute (WPRI) concluding that policies to increase renewable energy production would be prohibitively expensive, RENEW Wisconsin, a leading sustainable energy advocacy organization, today issued a critique documenting the faulty assumptions and methodological errors that undermine the credibility of that finding.
WPRI’s report, titled “The Economics of Climate Change Proposals in Wisconsin,” reviewed the proposal in the Governor’s Global Warming Task Force to increase the state’s renewable energy requirements on electric utilities to 25% by 2025, and estimated a total cost in excess $16 billion. RENEW’s analysis, which is online, uncovered a disturbing pattern of “methodological sleight-of-hand, assumptions from outer space, and selective ignoring of facts” that render WPRI’s cost estimate to be completely unreliable.
“It appears that WPRI’s $16 billion number was pulled out of thin air, and that its analysis is nothing more than a tortured effort at reverse-engineering the numbers to fit the preordained conclusion,” said Michael Vickerman, RENEW Wisconsin executive director.
Specifically, RENEW identified four significant errors in WPRI’s analytical approach. The critique says:
+ It relies on a grossly inflated electricity sales forecast that is completely detached from current realities.
+ The final cost estimate includes all the generation built to comply with the current renewable energy standard, a clear-cut case of double-counting.
+ The authors fail to account for existing renewable generation capacity that is not currently being applied to a state renewable energy standard.
+ There is a high likelihood that the savings from the renewable energy standard are undervalued, because the authors fail to model plant retirements in their analysis.
“In the final analysis, it would be too generous to describe the analytical approach taken here as incompetent or slipshod,” Vickerman said. “What we have here instead is disinformation, pure and simple, and it should be called out as such, especially as the Legislature begins consideration of arguably the most important economic development and environmental protection initiative in many years.”
END
RENEW Wisconsin (www.renewwisconsin.org) is an independent, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that acts as a catalyst to advance a sustainable energy future through public policy and private sector initiatives.
December 22, 2009
MORE INFORMATION
Michael Vickerman
RENEW Wisconsin
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org
Madison, WI (December 22, 2009) In response to a recent report from the Wisconsin Public Research Institute (WPRI) concluding that policies to increase renewable energy production would be prohibitively expensive, RENEW Wisconsin, a leading sustainable energy advocacy organization, today issued a critique documenting the faulty assumptions and methodological errors that undermine the credibility of that finding.
WPRI’s report, titled “The Economics of Climate Change Proposals in Wisconsin,” reviewed the proposal in the Governor’s Global Warming Task Force to increase the state’s renewable energy requirements on electric utilities to 25% by 2025, and estimated a total cost in excess $16 billion. RENEW’s analysis, which is online, uncovered a disturbing pattern of “methodological sleight-of-hand, assumptions from outer space, and selective ignoring of facts” that render WPRI’s cost estimate to be completely unreliable.
“It appears that WPRI’s $16 billion number was pulled out of thin air, and that its analysis is nothing more than a tortured effort at reverse-engineering the numbers to fit the preordained conclusion,” said Michael Vickerman, RENEW Wisconsin executive director.
Specifically, RENEW identified four significant errors in WPRI’s analytical approach. The critique says:
+ It relies on a grossly inflated electricity sales forecast that is completely detached from current realities.
+ The final cost estimate includes all the generation built to comply with the current renewable energy standard, a clear-cut case of double-counting.
+ The authors fail to account for existing renewable generation capacity that is not currently being applied to a state renewable energy standard.
+ There is a high likelihood that the savings from the renewable energy standard are undervalued, because the authors fail to model plant retirements in their analysis.
“In the final analysis, it would be too generous to describe the analytical approach taken here as incompetent or slipshod,” Vickerman said. “What we have here instead is disinformation, pure and simple, and it should be called out as such, especially as the Legislature begins consideration of arguably the most important economic development and environmental protection initiative in many years.”
RENEW Wisconsin (www.renewwisconsin.org) is an independent, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that acts as a catalyst to advance a sustainable energy future through public policy and private sector initiatives.
News releases
2009
12.22.09 Think tank flunks renewable energy analysis
12.15.09 Report: Wind turbines cause no human harm
10.30.09 PSC Approval of Bay Front Project Advances Wood Over Coal
10.23.09 Solar Outlook Set to Dim in 2010
09.15.09 State Senate strongly backs new rules for wind projects
08.27.09 PSC opens door for more in-state renewable installations
07.09.09 Statement on PSC approval of Alliant's Bent Tree project
05.08.09 State snares federal dollars for renewable energy work
01.22.09 Manitowoc County Says “No Can Do” to Windpower Project
2008
12.03.08 RENEW, Farmers Union, and partners launch Homegrown Renewable Energy Campaign
11.17.08 RENEW, Clean Wisconsin endorse Manitowoc wind project
11.11.08 RENEW's reaction to PSC rejection of Cassville coal plant
01.16.08 Calumet County morass blocks wind projects again
2007
12.18.07 Trempealeau sharply limits wind service
12.22.09 Think tank flunks renewable energy analysis
12.15.09 Report: Wind turbines cause no human harm
10.30.09 PSC Approval of Bay Front Project Advances Wood Over Coal
10.23.09 Solar Outlook Set to Dim in 2010
09.15.09 State Senate strongly backs new rules for wind projects
08.27.09 PSC opens door for more in-state renewable installations
07.09.09 Statement on PSC approval of Alliant's Bent Tree project
05.08.09 State snares federal dollars for renewable energy work
01.22.09 Manitowoc County Says “No Can Do” to Windpower Project
2008
12.03.08 RENEW, Farmers Union, and partners launch Homegrown Renewable Energy Campaign
11.17.08 RENEW, Clean Wisconsin endorse Manitowoc wind project
11.11.08 RENEW's reaction to PSC rejection of Cassville coal plant
01.16.08 Calumet County morass blocks wind projects again
2007
12.18.07 Trempealeau sharply limits wind service
Think Tank Flunks Renewable Energy Analysis
An Examination of Wisconsin Policy Research Institute’s Bogus Methodology
Michael Vickerman
RENEW Wisconsin
December 22, 2009
A report put out in November by the Wisconsin Public Research Institute contains a number of specious assertions intended to advance the proposition that a number of proposals endorsed by the Governor’s Global Warming Task Force in 2008 would be exorbitantly expensive. One particularly dubious finding in the report1, titled “The Economics of Climate Change Proposals in Wisconsin,” is its estimate of the net cost of the 25% Renewable Energy Standard (RES) proposed in the climate change bill. The “trained economists”—WPRI’s term, not mine--who worked on the report contend that the capital and operating costs of the capacity needed to meet the proposed RES would exceed $16 billion by 2025. Mindful that this estimate could become a “headline” number in the coming months, I thought it might be useful to dive into WPRI’s economic analysis and verify the methodology and assumptions that were used to reach this conclusion.
Having done this, I would like to take this opportunity to catalog the faulty forecasts, transparent double-counting and other methodological errors that enabled WPRI to arrive at this absurdly inflated cost estimate. What I’ve documented below leads me to conclude that WPRI’s $16 billion number was pulled out of thin air, and that its analysis is nothing more than a tortured effort at reverse-engineering the numbers to fit the preordained conclusion.
1. The electric sales forecast is grossly inflated. The report authors assume that annual electricity sales in Wisconsin will climb from its current level (70 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) in 2008) to 92 billion kilowatt-hours in 2025. Right now, electric load is shrinking, not growing, and 2009 sales will come in somewhere at about four billion kWh below the all-time high set in 2007. So, if we’re headed into 2010 with an electric load somewhere between 67 - 68 billion kWh/year, clearly a miracle must occur in order to lift that that number by 26% to reach the 92 billion level in 2025, especially if this climate change bill passes, which it must in order to set the new RES at 25% by 2025. My view is that the state’s electric sales will remain flat for the foreseeable future, due to a combination of continued improvements in energy efficiency coupled with subpar economic performance. So if electricity sales remain stable over the next 15 years, then the total supply of renewable energy needed to satisfy the 2025 target would be 17.5 billion kWh/year. This is considerably less than the 28.3 billion kWh of renewable generation which the report writers claim will be occasioned by the RES (See Table 4 in the report).2
The table below presents the cumulative impact of current and proposed renewable energy policy requirements using more realistic sales forecasts and
capacity requirement estimates. When the sales forecast is adjusted to mirror today’s load numbers, the capacity cost falls to $13.5 billion, using the rest of the WPRI methodology, which is clearly flawed, as we shall see.
Cumulative impact of Proposed RE standard in climate change bill
Category 2004 Baseline 2013/2015 2025
RE Percentage 3.3% 10% 25%
Total kWh Sales 68 billion/year 70 billion/year 70 billion/year
Total RE kWh supply (gross) 2.5 billion kWh/year 7 billion kWh/year 17.5 billion kWh/year
New RE kWh supply (net of 2004) -- 4.5 billion/year 15 billion/year
New RE capacity (net of 2004) -- 1,650 MW* 5,400 MW*
* Assumes 90% wind/10% biomass mix; combined capacity factor 32%
2. WPRI’s cost estimate inexplicably incorporates the cost of the current Renewable Energy Standard into the total price tag. The WPRI report purports to characterize the incremental cost of increasing the RES above current levels. However, the cost estimates used by WPRI lump in the renewable capacity that will be added to comply with the existing requirements under Act 141. It would appear that WPRI decided to include these costs because the bill would move the compliance date of Act 141’s requirement forward to 2013. This is sophistry of the highest order. The 10% renewable content target that Wisconsin utilities must attain is embedded in current law. To avoid the double-counting we see here, the authors of this report should have treated all Act 141-compliant projects as sunk costs, not as new costs. As evidenced by the table below, treating all Act 141 renewable energy acquisitions as sunk costs reduces the incremental addition of renewable generating capacity down to 3,750 MW, compared with the 6,480 MW figure that WPRI cites.
Incremental Impact of Proposed RE standard (net of Act 141)
Net RE increase 15%
New RE supply 10.5 billion kWh /year
New RE capacity 3,750 MW
When the double-counting of Act 141 generation is eliminated, the capacity costs associated with a successor RES decline to a range between $9 and $9.5 billion, compared with the $16 billion figure cited by WPRI. Implicit in that cost range is the assumption that the every kilowatt-hour that is applied toward a successor RES will be generated from a facility that hasn’t been built yet. As we shall see in the next section, that is a faulty assumption.
3. WPRI’s analysis ignores currently available renewable generating capacity that can be used to meet an RES. WPRI’s analysis assumes that all of the renewable capacity needed to meet the 2025 target will be built some time in the future. That assumption fails to account for all the existing wind capacity in the Upper Midwest that is not generating RES-compliant electricity, whether for Wisconsin or another state. Wisconsin one has one such facility--Butler Ridge in Dodge County--that has uncommitted capacity. Though it has a capacity rating of 54 MW, only 20 MW is dedicated under a long-term contract to a Wisconsin electric provider (WPPI Energy). The remaining portion of the project produces energy that is sold into the wholesale market and renewable energy credits (RECs) that the facility owner will sell to anyone wishing to acquire them. There is nothing to stop a Wisconsin utility from acquiring the REC’s from Butler Ridge’s 34 MW of uncommitted capacity and applying them to its Act 141 requirements and any successor RES.
An REC corresponds to a megawatt-hour (MWH) of electric generation, or 1,000 kWh. How is an REC worth? Over the last two years, REC’s have averaged between $5 and $10 per MWH, or from half a penny to a penny per kWh. Assuming a 30% capacity factor for Butler Ridge, the cost to a Wisconsin utility of acquiring that facility’s annual output of REC’s would range from $45,000 (at a half a penny per kWh) to $90,000 (at one penny per kWh).
As the table below indicates, Iowa is far and way the regional leader in wind generating capacity. Yet Iowa’s renewable energy standard is very modest compared with other state RES percentages, including that of Wisconsin. A significant portion of that capacity falls into one of two categories: (1) owned by an Iowa utility but not committed to that state’s RES or (2) owned by an independent power producer (e.g., NextEra Energy, Horizon Wind Energy, berdrola USA, etc.) that does not have a long-term contract with an electric provider). Furthermore, most of the wind turbines in those categories were placed in service after January 1, 2004, and as such are eligible for complying with Wisconsin’s RES. My conservative estimate of existing Iowa wind capacity that could be applied to Wisconsin’s RES, over and above those turbines that are either owned by Wisconsin utilities or producing power for Wisconsin utilities, is 750 MW. This quantity of “spare” wind capacity could significantly reduce the quantity of generation needed to be constructed to meet a 25% standard need to manufacture and install produce As with the example of Butler Ridge, any Wisconsin utility can elect to acquire the REC’s from these Iowa installations and apply them to current and future RES requirements.
It should be mentioned that more than 100 MW of existing Iowa wind capacity (e.g., Barton, Endeavor 2, Top of Iowa 2) supply Wisconsin utilities with REC’s that are dedicated to their voluntary renewable energy programs, an example being Madison Gas & Electric’s Green Power Tomorrow. Because these REC’s are being resold to a subset of utility customers at a premium, they cannot be applied to their RES requirements. However, there may come a day when these utilities decide that it would be more cost-effective to apply those REC’s to any additional RES requirement rather than build new capacity specifically for RES compliance purposes.
If we were to subtract 750 MW from our running total, the net increase would come to 3,000 MW, which would cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $7.5 billion, less than half of WPRI’s estimate.
Snapshot - Midwest Windpower Development Activity
December 2009
State Operating capacity
(in MW) Under construction (in MW)
Iowa 3253+ 199
Minnesota 1805 60
Illinois 1123 979
Indiana 730† 404
Wisconsin 449 --
Michigan 129 16
+ Total includes Alliant Energy’s 200 MW Whispering Willow project
† Total includes Horizon Wind’s 200 MW Meadow Lake project
Sources: American Wind Energy Association, Alliant Energy
4. WPRI uses the wrong metric to calculate savings from the proposed successor RES. In Table 3 of the WPRI report, the authors present the gross capacity costs of the new renewable generation and subtract the cost of avoided conventional generation to arrive at a net cost. In this case, the authors assumed that the new renewable generation would offset the construction of natural gas-fired peaking units. This formulation is reasonable in places where loads are growing and the need to build new generating capacity is well-established. However, those circumstances are no longer operative in Wisconsin, which, as noted above, has experienced a decline in retail sales, due principally to significant consumption cutbacks in the industrial sector. According to the Energy Information Agency’s latest Electric Power Monthly report, in-state generation output is running more than 2 billion kWh below last year’s totals (through August 2009). Moreover, in consideration of additional efforts by high demand customers to curb electricity usage3, a near-term rebound in overall electricity consumption is simply not in the cards. With a capacity reserve margin that is likely to approach 25% in 2010, the likelihood of a Wisconsin utility proposing to build a gas-fired peaker in the next 10 years is nil.
In light of the growing capacity overhang in Wisconsin, I believe that a more appropriate candidate for measuring savings from the proposed RES would be plant retirements. There are a number of older fossil steam generating units that require the installation of scrubbers and other pollution control technology to bring them into compliance with federal Clean Air Act regulations. There are likely to be instances where a retrofit would not be cost-effective. In those situations, the utility can either sell the generating unit to another entity, as We Energies is attempting to do with its share of Edgewater 5, or retire it.4 The savings that would accrue with retiring less efficient fossil steam units would come in two forms: an avoided capital expenditure and a reduction in operating expenses. A utility that times its renewable energy acquisitions to correspond with planned fossil plant shutdowns would accomplish two objectives. The first would be to maximize the reliability value of the renewable generation it acquires. The second would be to stabilize the asset value of its generation portfolio even as it removes an older unit off its system. Moreover, such a strategy would result in a more efficient accumulation of CO2 offsets, which, one need hardly add, is the ultimate goal of this legislation.
Other Problems
The report makes a number of other assertions that fly in the face of reality. One is that all of the new renewable generating capacity will be located in Wisconsin. No support is provided for that patently ludicrous claim. The authors are clearly oblivious of the many out-of-state wind projects that are either owned by Wisconsin utilities or are generating electricity under contract to Wisconsin utilities. As is indicated in the table below, Wisconsin utilities have not been reticent about building--or taking power from—wind energy installations located in other states.
The RES cost analysis also assumes that Wisconsin utilities will be the sole owners and operators of all post-2013 renewable generating facilities. How the report authors came to that conclusion is utterly mystifying, given the existence of such nonutility-owned installations as Butler Ridge, Forward Energy Center and Montfort in Wisconsin, not to mention the projects owned by NextEra Energy and Iberdrola Renewables listed above.
Out-of-State Windpower Projects Owned by or Under Contract to Wisconsin Utilities
(In-service dates 2004 and later)
County (State) Project Owner MW Utility Offtaker Name
(In-service date)
Worth (IA) Iberdrola Renewables 80 WPPI (50 MW)
MGE (30 MW) Top of Iowa 2 (2007)
Worth (IA) MGE 30 MGE Top of Iowa 3 (2008)
Osceola (IA) NextEra Energy 50 MGE Endeavor 2 (2008)
Hancock (IA) NextEra Energy 150 Alliant-WPL (100 MW) Crystal Lake (2008)
Worth (IA) Iberdrola Renewables 30 WPPI
Barton 1 (2009)
Howard (IA) WPS 99 WPS Crane Creek (2009 est.)
Freeborn (MN) Alliant-WP&L 200 Alliant-WP&L Bent Tree (2010 est.)
Summary
The report’s attempt to characterize the incremental cost impacts of a successor 25% renewable energy standard is fatally flawed in the following ways:
It relies on a grossly inflated electricity sales forecast that is completely detached from current realities.
The final cost estimate includes all the generation built to comply with the current renewable energy standard, a clear-cut case of double-counting.
The authors fail to account for existing renewable generation capacity that is not currently being applied to a state renewable energy standard.
There is a high likelihood that the savings from the renewable energy standard are undervalued, because the authors fail to model plant retirements in their analysis.
In the final analysis, the convergence of methodological sleight of hand, unsupportable assumptions, and computational errors in this section is telling. The attempt to double-count existing renewable generation toward the incremental costs of a successor RES is especially egregious, and plainly gives away the authors’ real intent here, which is to portray the policy in the most negative light they could conjure. It would be too generous to describe the analytical approach taken here as incompetent or slipshod. What we have here instead is disinformation, pure and simple, and it should be called out as such, especially as the Legislature begins consideration of arguably the most important economic development and environmental protection initiative in many years.
Notes:
1 http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume22/Vol22No7/Vol22No7.html
2 There seems to be computational error in Table 4 of the WPRI report. If the estimate of total electricity sales in 2025 is 94.116 billion kWh, then 25% of that number is 23.529 billion kWh, not 28.235 billion kWh as indicated in the table.
3 http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/business/78527027.html, “Nine state factories pledge to cut energy use,” Dec. 4, 2009.
4 http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/business/78724417.html, “We Energies may sell stake in Sheboygan coal plant,” Dec. 8, 2009.
Michael Vickerman
RENEW Wisconsin
December 22, 2009
A report put out in November by the Wisconsin Public Research Institute contains a number of specious assertions intended to advance the proposition that a number of proposals endorsed by the Governor’s Global Warming Task Force in 2008 would be exorbitantly expensive. One particularly dubious finding in the report1, titled “The Economics of Climate Change Proposals in Wisconsin,” is its estimate of the net cost of the 25% Renewable Energy Standard (RES) proposed in the climate change bill. The “trained economists”—WPRI’s term, not mine--who worked on the report contend that the capital and operating costs of the capacity needed to meet the proposed RES would exceed $16 billion by 2025. Mindful that this estimate could become a “headline” number in the coming months, I thought it might be useful to dive into WPRI’s economic analysis and verify the methodology and assumptions that were used to reach this conclusion.
Having done this, I would like to take this opportunity to catalog the faulty forecasts, transparent double-counting and other methodological errors that enabled WPRI to arrive at this absurdly inflated cost estimate. What I’ve documented below leads me to conclude that WPRI’s $16 billion number was pulled out of thin air, and that its analysis is nothing more than a tortured effort at reverse-engineering the numbers to fit the preordained conclusion.
1. The electric sales forecast is grossly inflated. The report authors assume that annual electricity sales in Wisconsin will climb from its current level (70 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) in 2008) to 92 billion kilowatt-hours in 2025. Right now, electric load is shrinking, not growing, and 2009 sales will come in somewhere at about four billion kWh below the all-time high set in 2007. So, if we’re headed into 2010 with an electric load somewhere between 67 - 68 billion kWh/year, clearly a miracle must occur in order to lift that that number by 26% to reach the 92 billion level in 2025, especially if this climate change bill passes, which it must in order to set the new RES at 25% by 2025. My view is that the state’s electric sales will remain flat for the foreseeable future, due to a combination of continued improvements in energy efficiency coupled with subpar economic performance. So if electricity sales remain stable over the next 15 years, then the total supply of renewable energy needed to satisfy the 2025 target would be 17.5 billion kWh/year. This is considerably less than the 28.3 billion kWh of renewable generation which the report writers claim will be occasioned by the RES (See Table 4 in the report).2
The table below presents the cumulative impact of current and proposed renewable energy policy requirements using more realistic sales forecasts and
capacity requirement estimates. When the sales forecast is adjusted to mirror today’s load numbers, the capacity cost falls to $13.5 billion, using the rest of the WPRI methodology, which is clearly flawed, as we shall see.
Cumulative impact of Proposed RE standard in climate change bill
Category 2004 Baseline 2013/2015 2025
RE Percentage 3.3% 10% 25%
Total kWh Sales 68 billion/year 70 billion/year 70 billion/year
Total RE kWh supply (gross) 2.5 billion kWh/year 7 billion kWh/year 17.5 billion kWh/year
New RE kWh supply (net of 2004) -- 4.5 billion/year 15 billion/year
New RE capacity (net of 2004) -- 1,650 MW* 5,400 MW*
* Assumes 90% wind/10% biomass mix; combined capacity factor 32%
2. WPRI’s cost estimate inexplicably incorporates the cost of the current Renewable Energy Standard into the total price tag. The WPRI report purports to characterize the incremental cost of increasing the RES above current levels. However, the cost estimates used by WPRI lump in the renewable capacity that will be added to comply with the existing requirements under Act 141. It would appear that WPRI decided to include these costs because the bill would move the compliance date of Act 141’s requirement forward to 2013. This is sophistry of the highest order. The 10% renewable content target that Wisconsin utilities must attain is embedded in current law. To avoid the double-counting we see here, the authors of this report should have treated all Act 141-compliant projects as sunk costs, not as new costs. As evidenced by the table below, treating all Act 141 renewable energy acquisitions as sunk costs reduces the incremental addition of renewable generating capacity down to 3,750 MW, compared with the 6,480 MW figure that WPRI cites.
Incremental Impact of Proposed RE standard (net of Act 141)
Net RE increase 15%
New RE supply 10.5 billion kWh /year
New RE capacity 3,750 MW
When the double-counting of Act 141 generation is eliminated, the capacity costs associated with a successor RES decline to a range between $9 and $9.5 billion, compared with the $16 billion figure cited by WPRI. Implicit in that cost range is the assumption that the every kilowatt-hour that is applied toward a successor RES will be generated from a facility that hasn’t been built yet. As we shall see in the next section, that is a faulty assumption.
3. WPRI’s analysis ignores currently available renewable generating capacity that can be used to meet an RES. WPRI’s analysis assumes that all of the renewable capacity needed to meet the 2025 target will be built some time in the future. That assumption fails to account for all the existing wind capacity in the Upper Midwest that is not generating RES-compliant electricity, whether for Wisconsin or another state. Wisconsin one has one such facility--Butler Ridge in Dodge County--that has uncommitted capacity. Though it has a capacity rating of 54 MW, only 20 MW is dedicated under a long-term contract to a Wisconsin electric provider (WPPI Energy). The remaining portion of the project produces energy that is sold into the wholesale market and renewable energy credits (RECs) that the facility owner will sell to anyone wishing to acquire them. There is nothing to stop a Wisconsin utility from acquiring the REC’s from Butler Ridge’s 34 MW of uncommitted capacity and applying them to its Act 141 requirements and any successor RES.
An REC corresponds to a megawatt-hour (MWH) of electric generation, or 1,000 kWh. How is an REC worth? Over the last two years, REC’s have averaged between $5 and $10 per MWH, or from half a penny to a penny per kWh. Assuming a 30% capacity factor for Butler Ridge, the cost to a Wisconsin utility of acquiring that facility’s annual output of REC’s would range from $45,000 (at a half a penny per kWh) to $90,000 (at one penny per kWh).
As the table below indicates, Iowa is far and way the regional leader in wind generating capacity. Yet Iowa’s renewable energy standard is very modest compared with other state RES percentages, including that of Wisconsin. A significant portion of that capacity falls into one of two categories: (1) owned by an Iowa utility but not committed to that state’s RES or (2) owned by an independent power producer (e.g., NextEra Energy, Horizon Wind Energy, berdrola USA, etc.) that does not have a long-term contract with an electric provider). Furthermore, most of the wind turbines in those categories were placed in service after January 1, 2004, and as such are eligible for complying with Wisconsin’s RES. My conservative estimate of existing Iowa wind capacity that could be applied to Wisconsin’s RES, over and above those turbines that are either owned by Wisconsin utilities or producing power for Wisconsin utilities, is 750 MW. This quantity of “spare” wind capacity could significantly reduce the quantity of generation needed to be constructed to meet a 25% standard need to manufacture and install produce As with the example of Butler Ridge, any Wisconsin utility can elect to acquire the REC’s from these Iowa installations and apply them to current and future RES requirements.
It should be mentioned that more than 100 MW of existing Iowa wind capacity (e.g., Barton, Endeavor 2, Top of Iowa 2) supply Wisconsin utilities with REC’s that are dedicated to their voluntary renewable energy programs, an example being Madison Gas & Electric’s Green Power Tomorrow. Because these REC’s are being resold to a subset of utility customers at a premium, they cannot be applied to their RES requirements. However, there may come a day when these utilities decide that it would be more cost-effective to apply those REC’s to any additional RES requirement rather than build new capacity specifically for RES compliance purposes.
If we were to subtract 750 MW from our running total, the net increase would come to 3,000 MW, which would cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $7.5 billion, less than half of WPRI’s estimate.
Snapshot - Midwest Windpower Development Activity
December 2009
State Operating capacity
(in MW) Under construction (in MW)
Iowa 3253+ 199
Minnesota 1805 60
Illinois 1123 979
Indiana 730† 404
Wisconsin 449 --
Michigan 129 16
+ Total includes Alliant Energy’s 200 MW Whispering Willow project
† Total includes Horizon Wind’s 200 MW Meadow Lake project
Sources: American Wind Energy Association, Alliant Energy
4. WPRI uses the wrong metric to calculate savings from the proposed successor RES. In Table 3 of the WPRI report, the authors present the gross capacity costs of the new renewable generation and subtract the cost of avoided conventional generation to arrive at a net cost. In this case, the authors assumed that the new renewable generation would offset the construction of natural gas-fired peaking units. This formulation is reasonable in places where loads are growing and the need to build new generating capacity is well-established. However, those circumstances are no longer operative in Wisconsin, which, as noted above, has experienced a decline in retail sales, due principally to significant consumption cutbacks in the industrial sector. According to the Energy Information Agency’s latest Electric Power Monthly report, in-state generation output is running more than 2 billion kWh below last year’s totals (through August 2009). Moreover, in consideration of additional efforts by high demand customers to curb electricity usage3, a near-term rebound in overall electricity consumption is simply not in the cards. With a capacity reserve margin that is likely to approach 25% in 2010, the likelihood of a Wisconsin utility proposing to build a gas-fired peaker in the next 10 years is nil.
In light of the growing capacity overhang in Wisconsin, I believe that a more appropriate candidate for measuring savings from the proposed RES would be plant retirements. There are a number of older fossil steam generating units that require the installation of scrubbers and other pollution control technology to bring them into compliance with federal Clean Air Act regulations. There are likely to be instances where a retrofit would not be cost-effective. In those situations, the utility can either sell the generating unit to another entity, as We Energies is attempting to do with its share of Edgewater 5, or retire it.4 The savings that would accrue with retiring less efficient fossil steam units would come in two forms: an avoided capital expenditure and a reduction in operating expenses. A utility that times its renewable energy acquisitions to correspond with planned fossil plant shutdowns would accomplish two objectives. The first would be to maximize the reliability value of the renewable generation it acquires. The second would be to stabilize the asset value of its generation portfolio even as it removes an older unit off its system. Moreover, such a strategy would result in a more efficient accumulation of CO2 offsets, which, one need hardly add, is the ultimate goal of this legislation.
Other Problems
The report makes a number of other assertions that fly in the face of reality. One is that all of the new renewable generating capacity will be located in Wisconsin. No support is provided for that patently ludicrous claim. The authors are clearly oblivious of the many out-of-state wind projects that are either owned by Wisconsin utilities or are generating electricity under contract to Wisconsin utilities. As is indicated in the table below, Wisconsin utilities have not been reticent about building--or taking power from—wind energy installations located in other states.
The RES cost analysis also assumes that Wisconsin utilities will be the sole owners and operators of all post-2013 renewable generating facilities. How the report authors came to that conclusion is utterly mystifying, given the existence of such nonutility-owned installations as Butler Ridge, Forward Energy Center and Montfort in Wisconsin, not to mention the projects owned by NextEra Energy and Iberdrola Renewables listed above.
Out-of-State Windpower Projects Owned by or Under Contract to Wisconsin Utilities
(In-service dates 2004 and later)
County (State) Project Owner MW Utility Offtaker Name
(In-service date)
Worth (IA) Iberdrola Renewables 80 WPPI (50 MW)
MGE (30 MW) Top of Iowa 2 (2007)
Worth (IA) MGE 30 MGE Top of Iowa 3 (2008)
Osceola (IA) NextEra Energy 50 MGE Endeavor 2 (2008)
Hancock (IA) NextEra Energy 150 Alliant-WPL (100 MW) Crystal Lake (2008)
Worth (IA) Iberdrola Renewables 30 WPPI
Barton 1 (2009)
Howard (IA) WPS 99 WPS Crane Creek (2009 est.)
Freeborn (MN) Alliant-WP&L 200 Alliant-WP&L Bent Tree (2010 est.)
Summary
The report’s attempt to characterize the incremental cost impacts of a successor 25% renewable energy standard is fatally flawed in the following ways:
It relies on a grossly inflated electricity sales forecast that is completely detached from current realities.
The final cost estimate includes all the generation built to comply with the current renewable energy standard, a clear-cut case of double-counting.
The authors fail to account for existing renewable generation capacity that is not currently being applied to a state renewable energy standard.
There is a high likelihood that the savings from the renewable energy standard are undervalued, because the authors fail to model plant retirements in their analysis.
In the final analysis, the convergence of methodological sleight of hand, unsupportable assumptions, and computational errors in this section is telling. The attempt to double-count existing renewable generation toward the incremental costs of a successor RES is especially egregious, and plainly gives away the authors’ real intent here, which is to portray the policy in the most negative light they could conjure. It would be too generous to describe the analytical approach taken here as incompetent or slipshod. What we have here instead is disinformation, pure and simple, and it should be called out as such, especially as the Legislature begins consideration of arguably the most important economic development and environmental protection initiative in many years.
Notes:
1 http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume22/Vol22No7/Vol22No7.html
2 There seems to be computational error in Table 4 of the WPRI report. If the estimate of total electricity sales in 2025 is 94.116 billion kWh, then 25% of that number is 23.529 billion kWh, not 28.235 billion kWh as indicated in the table.
3 http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/business/78527027.html, “Nine state factories pledge to cut energy use,” Dec. 4, 2009.
4 http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/business/78724417.html, “We Energies may sell stake in Sheboygan coal plant,” Dec. 8, 2009.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Energizing Fort Atkinson’s Schools from the Sun and Earth
By Michael Vickerman, RENEW Wisconsin
As a result of educating themselves on the connection between energy use and atmospheric pollution, several school districts in Wisconsin are taking increasingly aggressive steps to conserve energy as well as produce a portion of what they use on-site. Some have embraced ground source heat pump systems (Fond du Lac High School), while others have installed solar hot water systems (Osceola Middle School) and solar electric systems (Paul Olson elementary school in Madison). Not to be outdone, Wausau East High School recently installed a 100 kilowatt (kW) Northwind turbine, which is now the largest wind generator attached to a school building in Wisconsin.
Yet if one measures success by substantial reductions in energy expenditures and emissions reductions, there is one school district in Wisconsin that stands head and shoulders above its peers: Fort Atkinson. Serving 2,700 school-age children in a community of 12,000, the Fort Atkinson School District operates six buildings: four elementary schools, one middle school and a high school. School officials have made no secret of their aspiration to make Fort Atkinson the most energy-efficient and self-sufficient K-12 district in the state.
Since 2005, Fort Atkinson has rigorously pursued a sustainable energy agenda that integrates, in a systematic and complementary fashion, continuous monitoring of consumption, aggressive building efficiency measures, and renewable energy capture. As articulated in its 2009 energy plan, the district’s principal goals for 2010 are nothing if not ambitious:
Pare energy costs by 20% from 2005 levels;
Lower carbon emissions by 25% from 2005 levels;
Obtain EnergyStar certification for all six schools; and
Install on-site renewable production at all six schools.
Virtually every renewable energy technology or efficiency measure available to a Wisconsin K-12 district has already been or is about to be deployed somewhere in Fort Atkinson. This lengthy list includes ground source heat pumps, solar hot water systems, lighting retrofits, tankless water heaters, retro-commissioning, occupancy sensors, window replacement, and roof insulation. On the district’s 2010 installation list are a 50 kW wind generator at the high school and a 20 kW solar electric system at Purdy elementary school.
The integrated approach pursued by Fort Atkinson leads to lower operating expenses, which in turn frees up capital for renewable technologies that have higher up-front costs but will deliver energy to the school buildings long after the initial investment is paid off. At the same time, converting sunlight and wind into useful energy sources enable building owners to reduce the variability of their utility costs. For a school district, that means not having to worry about the effect of a colder-than-normal winter on next year’s budget for textbooks.
The solar water heating systems serving the high school and the middle school neatly illustrate this benefit. The radiant energy striking the rooftop panels year-round is efficiently collected and taken inside to preheat the swimming pools in each building. Except during the winter months, the incoming solar energy is sufficient to maintain pool temperatures at 84°F. Even in January, however, the savings that a solar hot water system yields simply by preheating a pool to 70°F is substantial when multiplied over several decades.
The capital required to heat a swimming pool with solar energy is not trivial. For the 48-panel system atop the high school, the installed cost totaled $192,000, while the 32-panel installation serving the middle school came in at $115,000. Dennis Kuchenmeister, who manages the district’s buildings and grounds, estimates a 5% return on investment (ROI) for the high school’s system and an 11% ROI on the middle school’s system. According to Kuchenmeister, the hot water systems will supply about 60% of the heat going into the pools, displacing the equivalent of nearly 9,000 therms a year. The district expects to save $18,000 in avoided fuel costs per year.
Kuchenmeister’s economic estimates factor in incentives from Focus on Energy covering up to 35% of the total installed cost and matching incentives from We Energies, the local utility serving the school district. By taking full advantage of available incentive dollars, the school district was able to reduce the out-of-pocket portion of installation costs by more than 50%.
Because the annual harvest of solar energy striking a particular spot rarely fluctuates by more than 10%, a building owner can be reasonably confident of how much conventional energy an installation will displace. In contrast, the cost of heating a pool with natural gas can easily triple during a 12-month period even when usage remains constant. This in fact happened to Fort Atkinson in the 12 months preceding the installation of its two solar hot water systems in the fall of 2008.
Thus, the real value of Fort Atkinson’s solar hot water installations is in minimizing the district’s exposure to the price volatility associated with unregulated fossil fuels like natural gas. And while it’s true that natural gas prices are presently at five-year lows, they could easily bounce back to 2008 levels in a year or two, depending on events over which end-users have no control. However, by installing a renewable technology that preheats their swimming pools, Fort Atkinson has effectively insured itself against a repeat appearance of the fossil fuel rollercoaster ride that most school districts would just as soon forget.
There are two other reasons why school buildings are well-matched for solar energy installations. First, the buildings themselves are dedicated to a public function that is expected to last for several generations. In such settings it is easier to justify the additional up-fronts costs, especially if the installation also communicates a valuable lesson in sustainability to the entire community. Second, most schools, especially newer ones, have an abundance of flat, unshaded roof space that can support large arrays, irrespective of building orientation.
Real-time production data from both installations can be accessed online by visiting www.fatspaniel.net and searching for the live sites listed under We Energies. The district also uses Energy Watchdog, a web-based program provided by Focus on Energy to track energy usage. This program enables Fort Atkinson to document the energy and cost reductions from measures specified in its energy plan.
The middle school is also one of four schools in Fort Atkinson equipped with ground source heat pump systems that heat and cool the buildings year-round using the nearly constant temperatures in the ground. These systems heat buildings in the winter and cool them in the summer. Ground source heat pump systems are electrically powered; no heating fuel like natural gas or propane is needed to heat the four schools.
“We essentially cut the gas line to our schools,” said Kuchenmeister during a presentation on his district’s sustainable energy initiative last November in Milwaukee.
The operational costs of ground source heat pumps are substantially lower than the HVAC systems they replace. As a result of their renovation, the three elementary schools have seen their energy intensity drop by more than one-half, even though they now have air-conditioning in the classrooms. School officials estimate that all four ground source heat pump systems will save the district $90,000 annually in fuel costs.
As with solar hot water systems, Focus on Energy provides incentives for ground source heat pumps to schools, businesses and residences. The program awarded more than $96,000 towards the four systems installed in Fort Atkinson.
According to a Focus on Energy fact sheet, “a ground source heat pump system is arguably the most efficient technology for heating and cooling Wisconsin homes and businesses.” Given its embrace of that technology and others deployed in its buildings, Fort Atkinson has become, in terms of energy sustainability, arguably the most forward-thinking school district in the state.
RENEW Wisconsin (www.renewwisconsin.org) is an independent, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization based in Madison that acts as a catalyst to advance a sustainable energy future through public policy and private sector initiatives. Michael Vickerman has been the organization’s executive director since 1991.
Solar Hot Water Systems - Fact Sheet
Fort Atkinson School District
Full Service Installers
Andy DeRocher
Mark O’Neal
Full Spectrum Solar
100 South Baldwin Street, Suite 101
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: 608.284.9495
info@fullspectrumsolar.com
www.fullspectrumsolar.com
Types of system installations:
Solar hot water, solar electric
Service Territory:
150 miles
At-A-Glance – High School SHW System
Collector space: 1,920 sq. ft (48 4'x10' panels)
Panel manufacturer: Heliodyne Gobi
Tilt angle: 45 degrees
Annual fuel savings: 8,539 therms assuming 80% efficient gas boilers
Avoided CO2 emissions: 47 tons/year
Pool Size: 4,200 sq. ft.
Preheated water volume: 188,227 gallons
Pool operating temperature: 80°F
Incoming water temperature: 55°F
Installation cost: $192,000
Focus on Energy Incentive: $50,000
We Energies match: $50,000
System payback: 10 ¾ years
Installation date: Fall 2008
At-A-Glance – Middle School SHW System
Collector space: 1,280 sq. ft (32 4'x10' panels)
Panel manufacturer: Heliodyne Gobi
Tilt angle: 45 degrees
Annual fuel savings: 8,763 therms assuming 60% efficient gas boiler
Avoided CO2 emissions: 49 tons/year
Pool Size: 2,635 sq. ft.
Preheated water volume: 96,921 gallons
Pool operating temperature: 84°F
Incoming water temperature: 55°F
Installation cost: $115,000
Focus on Energy Incentive: $40,400
We Energies match: $40,400
System payback: 4 years
Installation date: Fall 2008
As a result of educating themselves on the connection between energy use and atmospheric pollution, several school districts in Wisconsin are taking increasingly aggressive steps to conserve energy as well as produce a portion of what they use on-site. Some have embraced ground source heat pump systems (Fond du Lac High School), while others have installed solar hot water systems (Osceola Middle School) and solar electric systems (Paul Olson elementary school in Madison). Not to be outdone, Wausau East High School recently installed a 100 kilowatt (kW) Northwind turbine, which is now the largest wind generator attached to a school building in Wisconsin.
Yet if one measures success by substantial reductions in energy expenditures and emissions reductions, there is one school district in Wisconsin that stands head and shoulders above its peers: Fort Atkinson. Serving 2,700 school-age children in a community of 12,000, the Fort Atkinson School District operates six buildings: four elementary schools, one middle school and a high school. School officials have made no secret of their aspiration to make Fort Atkinson the most energy-efficient and self-sufficient K-12 district in the state.
Since 2005, Fort Atkinson has rigorously pursued a sustainable energy agenda that integrates, in a systematic and complementary fashion, continuous monitoring of consumption, aggressive building efficiency measures, and renewable energy capture. As articulated in its 2009 energy plan, the district’s principal goals for 2010 are nothing if not ambitious:
Pare energy costs by 20% from 2005 levels;
Lower carbon emissions by 25% from 2005 levels;
Obtain EnergyStar certification for all six schools; and
Install on-site renewable production at all six schools.
Virtually every renewable energy technology or efficiency measure available to a Wisconsin K-12 district has already been or is about to be deployed somewhere in Fort Atkinson. This lengthy list includes ground source heat pumps, solar hot water systems, lighting retrofits, tankless water heaters, retro-commissioning, occupancy sensors, window replacement, and roof insulation. On the district’s 2010 installation list are a 50 kW wind generator at the high school and a 20 kW solar electric system at Purdy elementary school.
The integrated approach pursued by Fort Atkinson leads to lower operating expenses, which in turn frees up capital for renewable technologies that have higher up-front costs but will deliver energy to the school buildings long after the initial investment is paid off. At the same time, converting sunlight and wind into useful energy sources enable building owners to reduce the variability of their utility costs. For a school district, that means not having to worry about the effect of a colder-than-normal winter on next year’s budget for textbooks.
The solar water heating systems serving the high school and the middle school neatly illustrate this benefit. The radiant energy striking the rooftop panels year-round is efficiently collected and taken inside to preheat the swimming pools in each building. Except during the winter months, the incoming solar energy is sufficient to maintain pool temperatures at 84°F. Even in January, however, the savings that a solar hot water system yields simply by preheating a pool to 70°F is substantial when multiplied over several decades.
The capital required to heat a swimming pool with solar energy is not trivial. For the 48-panel system atop the high school, the installed cost totaled $192,000, while the 32-panel installation serving the middle school came in at $115,000. Dennis Kuchenmeister, who manages the district’s buildings and grounds, estimates a 5% return on investment (ROI) for the high school’s system and an 11% ROI on the middle school’s system. According to Kuchenmeister, the hot water systems will supply about 60% of the heat going into the pools, displacing the equivalent of nearly 9,000 therms a year. The district expects to save $18,000 in avoided fuel costs per year.
Kuchenmeister’s economic estimates factor in incentives from Focus on Energy covering up to 35% of the total installed cost and matching incentives from We Energies, the local utility serving the school district. By taking full advantage of available incentive dollars, the school district was able to reduce the out-of-pocket portion of installation costs by more than 50%.
Because the annual harvest of solar energy striking a particular spot rarely fluctuates by more than 10%, a building owner can be reasonably confident of how much conventional energy an installation will displace. In contrast, the cost of heating a pool with natural gas can easily triple during a 12-month period even when usage remains constant. This in fact happened to Fort Atkinson in the 12 months preceding the installation of its two solar hot water systems in the fall of 2008.
Thus, the real value of Fort Atkinson’s solar hot water installations is in minimizing the district’s exposure to the price volatility associated with unregulated fossil fuels like natural gas. And while it’s true that natural gas prices are presently at five-year lows, they could easily bounce back to 2008 levels in a year or two, depending on events over which end-users have no control. However, by installing a renewable technology that preheats their swimming pools, Fort Atkinson has effectively insured itself against a repeat appearance of the fossil fuel rollercoaster ride that most school districts would just as soon forget.
There are two other reasons why school buildings are well-matched for solar energy installations. First, the buildings themselves are dedicated to a public function that is expected to last for several generations. In such settings it is easier to justify the additional up-fronts costs, especially if the installation also communicates a valuable lesson in sustainability to the entire community. Second, most schools, especially newer ones, have an abundance of flat, unshaded roof space that can support large arrays, irrespective of building orientation.
Real-time production data from both installations can be accessed online by visiting www.fatspaniel.net and searching for the live sites listed under We Energies. The district also uses Energy Watchdog, a web-based program provided by Focus on Energy to track energy usage. This program enables Fort Atkinson to document the energy and cost reductions from measures specified in its energy plan.
The middle school is also one of four schools in Fort Atkinson equipped with ground source heat pump systems that heat and cool the buildings year-round using the nearly constant temperatures in the ground. These systems heat buildings in the winter and cool them in the summer. Ground source heat pump systems are electrically powered; no heating fuel like natural gas or propane is needed to heat the four schools.
“We essentially cut the gas line to our schools,” said Kuchenmeister during a presentation on his district’s sustainable energy initiative last November in Milwaukee.
The operational costs of ground source heat pumps are substantially lower than the HVAC systems they replace. As a result of their renovation, the three elementary schools have seen their energy intensity drop by more than one-half, even though they now have air-conditioning in the classrooms. School officials estimate that all four ground source heat pump systems will save the district $90,000 annually in fuel costs.
As with solar hot water systems, Focus on Energy provides incentives for ground source heat pumps to schools, businesses and residences. The program awarded more than $96,000 towards the four systems installed in Fort Atkinson.
According to a Focus on Energy fact sheet, “a ground source heat pump system is arguably the most efficient technology for heating and cooling Wisconsin homes and businesses.” Given its embrace of that technology and others deployed in its buildings, Fort Atkinson has become, in terms of energy sustainability, arguably the most forward-thinking school district in the state.
RENEW Wisconsin (www.renewwisconsin.org) is an independent, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization based in Madison that acts as a catalyst to advance a sustainable energy future through public policy and private sector initiatives. Michael Vickerman has been the organization’s executive director since 1991.
Solar Hot Water Systems - Fact Sheet
Fort Atkinson School District
Full Service Installers
Andy DeRocher
Mark O’Neal
Full Spectrum Solar
100 South Baldwin Street, Suite 101
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: 608.284.9495
info@fullspectrumsolar.com
www.fullspectrumsolar.com
Types of system installations:
Solar hot water, solar electric
Service Territory:
150 miles
At-A-Glance – High School SHW System
Collector space: 1,920 sq. ft (48 4'x10' panels)
Panel manufacturer: Heliodyne Gobi
Tilt angle: 45 degrees
Annual fuel savings: 8,539 therms assuming 80% efficient gas boilers
Avoided CO2 emissions: 47 tons/year
Pool Size: 4,200 sq. ft.
Preheated water volume: 188,227 gallons
Pool operating temperature: 80°F
Incoming water temperature: 55°F
Installation cost: $192,000
Focus on Energy Incentive: $50,000
We Energies match: $50,000
System payback: 10 ¾ years
Installation date: Fall 2008
At-A-Glance – Middle School SHW System
Collector space: 1,280 sq. ft (32 4'x10' panels)
Panel manufacturer: Heliodyne Gobi
Tilt angle: 45 degrees
Annual fuel savings: 8,763 therms assuming 60% efficient gas boiler
Avoided CO2 emissions: 49 tons/year
Pool Size: 2,635 sq. ft.
Preheated water volume: 96,921 gallons
Pool operating temperature: 84°F
Incoming water temperature: 55°F
Installation cost: $115,000
Focus on Energy Incentive: $40,400
We Energies match: $40,400
System payback: 4 years
Installation date: Fall 2008
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Report: Wind Turbines Cause No Human Harm
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 15, 2009
MORE INFORMATION
Michael Vickerman
RENEW Wisconsin
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org
Report: Wind Turbines Cause No Human Harm
Consistent with 10-plus years of commercial wind generation operations in Wisconsin, a national report issued today concluded that the sounds produced by wind turbines are not harmful to human health, according to the state’s leading renewable energy advocacy group.
Comprised of medical doctors, audiologists, and acoustical professionals from the United States, Canada, Denmark, and the United Kingdom, the panel of reviewers undertook extensive analysis and discussion of the large body of peer-reviewed literature, specifically with regard to sound coming from wind turbines.
The panel was established by the American Wind Energy Association and the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA).
“This report corroborates testimony that RENEW presented in the ongoing Glacier Hills Wind Park hearings at the Wisconsin Public Service Commission,” according to Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin. In that proceeding, We Energies is seeking approval to construct a 90-turbine 162 megawatt wind park in northeast Columbia County.
“If there were a human health impact with wind generation, why are communities such as Rosiere in Kewaunee County and Montfort in Iowa County so supportive of the wind installations nearby?” commented Vickerman.
“The experience suggests that nearby residents gradually overcome any initial misgivings and accept the turbines for what they are: clean, visible, and environmentally benign producers of renewable energy,” he continued.
According to Dr. Robert J. McCunney, one of the authors of the national multi-disciplinary study and an occupational/environmental medicine physician and research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), "There is no evidence that the sounds, nor the sub-audible vibrations, emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects on humans."
Another member of the panel, Dr. Geoff Leventhall, an acoustical consultant on sound and health for more than 40 years, testified during recent regulatory proceedings on the proposed 162 megawatt Glacier Hills Wind Park in Columbia County.
“Attempts to claim that illnesses result from inaudible wind turbine noise do not stand up to simple analyses of the very low forces and pressures produced by the sound from wind turbines,” said Leventhall in sworn testimony.
The national study’s top findings include:
• "The sounds emitted by wind turbines are not unique. There is no reason to believe, based on the levels and frequencies of the sounds, that they could plausibly have direct adverse physiological effects."
• If sound levels from wind turbines were harmful, it would be impossible to live in a city given the sound levels normally present in urban environments.
• "Sub-audible, low frequency sound and infrasound from wind turbines do not present a risk to human health."
• "Some people may be annoyed at the presence of sound from wind turbines. Annoyance is not a pathological entity."
An executive summary of the report can be accessed here (PDF, 81KB). The full report can be accessed here (PDF, 440KB).
December 15, 2009
MORE INFORMATION
Michael Vickerman
RENEW Wisconsin
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org
Consistent with 10-plus years of commercial wind generation operations in Wisconsin, a national report issued today concluded that the sounds produced by wind turbines are not harmful to human health, according to the state’s leading renewable energy advocacy group.
Comprised of medical doctors, audiologists, and acoustical professionals from the United States, Canada, Denmark, and the United Kingdom, the panel of reviewers undertook extensive analysis and discussion of the large body of peer-reviewed literature, specifically with regard to sound coming from wind turbines.
The panel was established by the American Wind Energy Association and the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA).
“This report corroborates testimony that RENEW presented in the ongoing Glacier Hills Wind Park hearings at the Wisconsin Public Service Commission,” according to Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin. In that proceeding, We Energies is seeking approval to construct a 90-turbine 162 megawatt wind park in northeast Columbia County.
“If there were a human health impact with wind generation, why are communities such as Rosiere in Kewaunee County and Montfort in Iowa County so supportive of the wind installations nearby?” commented Vickerman.
“The experience suggests that nearby residents gradually overcome any initial misgivings and accept the turbines for what they are: clean, visible, and environmentally benign producers of renewable energy,” he continued.
According to Dr. Robert J. McCunney, one of the authors of the national multi-disciplinary study and an occupational/environmental medicine physician and research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), "There is no evidence that the sounds, nor the sub-audible vibrations, emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects on humans."
Another member of the panel, Dr. Geoff Leventhall, an acoustical consultant on sound and health for more than 40 years, testified during recent regulatory proceedings on the proposed 162 megawatt Glacier Hills Wind Park in Columbia County.
“Attempts to claim that illnesses result from inaudible wind turbine noise do not stand up to simple analyses of the very low forces and pressures produced by the sound from wind turbines,” said Leventhall in sworn testimony.
The national study’s top findings include:
• "The sounds emitted by wind turbines are not unique. There is no reason to believe, based on the levels and frequencies of the sounds, that they could plausibly have direct adverse physiological effects."
• If sound levels from wind turbines were harmful, it would be impossible to live in a city given the sound levels normally present in urban environments.
• "Sub-audible, low frequency sound and infrasound from wind turbines do not present a risk to human health."
• "Some people may be annoyed at the presence of sound from wind turbines. Annoyance is not a pathological entity."
An executive summary of the report can be accessed here (PDF, 81KB). The full report can be accessed here (PDF, 440KB).
Monday, December 7, 2009
Energizing Fort Atkinson’s schools from the sun and earth
The solar water heating systems serve Fort Atkinson high school and the middle school. The radiant energy striking the rooftop panels year-round is efficiently collected and taken inside to preheat the swimming pools inside each structure. Except during the winter months, the incoming solar energy is sufficient to maintain pool temperatures at 84°F. Even in January, however, the savings that a solar hot water system yields simply by preheating a pool to 70°F is substantial when multiplied over several decades.
As a result of educating themselves on the connection between energy use and atmospheric pollution, several school districts in Wisconsin are taking increasingly aggressive steps to conserve energy as well as produce a portion of what they use on-site. Some have embraced ground source heat pump systems (Fond du Lac High School), while others have installed solar hot water systems (Osceola Middle School) and solar electric systems (Paul Olson elementary school in Madison). Not to be outdone, Wausau East High School recently installed a 100 kW Northwind turbine, which is now the largest wind generator attached to a school building in Wisconsin.
Yet if one measures success by substantial reductions in energy expenditures and emissions reductions, there is one school district in Wisconsin that stands head and shoulders above its peers: Fort Atkinson. Serving 2,700 school-age children in a community of 12,000, the Fort Atkinson School District operates six buildings: four elementary schools, one middle school and a high school. School officials have made no secret of their aspiration to make Fort Atkinson the most energy-efficient and self-sufficient K-12 district in the state.
Since 2005, Fort Atkinson has rigorously pursued a sustainable energy agenda that integrates, in a systematic and complementary fashion, continuous monitoring of consumption, aggressive building efficiency measures, and renewable energy capture. As articulated in its 2009 energy plan, the district, the district’s principal goals for 2010 are nothing if not ambitious:
+ Pare energy costs by 20% from 2005 levels;
+ Lower carbon emissions by 25% from 2005 levels;
+ Obtain EnergyStar certification for all six schools; and
+ Install on-site renewable production at all six schools.
Virtually every renewable energy technology or efficiency measure available to a Wisconsin K-12 district has already been or is about to be deployed somewhere in Fort Atkinson. This lengthy list includes ground source heat pumps, solar hot water systems, lighting retrofits, tankless water heaters, retro-commissioning, occupancy sensors, window replacement, and roof insulation. The most recent system to be installed, a 50 kilowatt wind turbine at the high school, will be operational by Christmas 2009.
The integrated approach pursued by Fort Atkinson leads to lower operating expenses, which in turn frees up capital for renewable technologies that have higher up-front costs but will deliver energy to the school buildings long after the initial investment is paid off. At the same time, converting sunlight and wind into useful energy sources enable building owners to reduce the variability of their utility costs. For a school district, that means not having to worry about the effect of a colder-than-normal winter on next year’s budget for textbooks.
The solar water heating systems serving the high school and the middle school neatly illustrate this benefit. The radiant energy striking the rooftop panels year-round is efficiently collected and taken inside to preheat the swimming pools inside each structure. Except during the winter months, the incoming solar energy is sufficient to maintain pool temperatures at 84°F. Even in January, however, the savings that a solar hot water system yields simply by preheating a pool to 70°F is substantial when multiplied over several decades.
The capital required to heat a swimming pool with solar energy is not trivial. For the 48-panel system atop the high school, the installed cost totaled $198,000, while the 32-panel installation serving the middle school came in at $115,000. Dennis Kuchenmeister, who manages the district’s buildings and grounds, estimates a 5% return on investment (ROI) for the high school’s system and an 11% ROI on the middle school’s system. According to Kuchenmeister, the hot water systems will supply about 60% of the heat going into the pools, displacing the equivalent of nearly 9,000 therms a year. The district expects to save $18,000 in avoided fuel costs per year.
Kuchenmeister’s economic estimates factor in incentives from Focus on Energy covering up to 35% of the total installed cost and matching incentives from We Energies, the local utility serving the school district. By taking full advantage of available incentive dollars, the school district was able to reduce the out-of-pocket portion of installation costs by more than 50%.
Because the annual harvest of solar energy striking a particular spot rarely fluctuates by more than 10%, a building owner can be reasonably confident of how much conventional energy an installation will displace. In contrast, the cost of heating a pool with natural gas can easily triple during a 12-month period even when usage remains constant. This in fact happened to Fort Atkinson in the 12 months preceding the installation of its two solar hot water systems in the fall of 2008.
Thus, the real value of Fort Atkinson’s solar hot water installations is in minimizing the district’s exposure to the price volatility associated with unregulated fossil fuels like natural gas. And while it’s true that natural gas prices are presently at five-year lows, they could easily bounce back to 2008 levels in a year or two, depending on events over which end-users have no control. However, by installing a renewable technology that preheats their swimming pools, the Fort Atkinson has effectively insured itself against a repeat appearance of the fossil fuel rollercoaster ride that most school districts would just as soon forget.
There are two other reasons why school buildings are well-matched for solar energy installations. First, the buildings themselves are dedicated to a public function that is expected to last for several generations. In such settings it is easier to justify the additional up-fronts costs, especially if the installation also communicates a valuable lesson in sustainability to the entire community. Second, most schools, especially newer ones, have an abundance of flat, unshaded roof space that can support large arrays, irrespective of building orientation.
Real-time production data from both installations can be accessed online by visiting www.fatspaniel.net and searching for the live sites listed under We Energies. The district also uses Energy Watchdog, a web-based program provided by Focus on Energy to track energy usage. This program enables Fort Atkinson to document the energy and cost reductions from measures specified in its energy plan.
The middle school is also one of four schools in Fort Atkinson equipped with ground source heat pump systems that heat and cool the buildings year-round using the nearly constant temperatures in the ground. These systems heat buildings in the winter and cool them in the summer. Ground source heat pump systems are electrically powered; no heating fuel like natural gas or propane is needed to heat the four schools.
“We essentially cut the gas line to our schools,” said Kuchenmeister during a presentation on his district’s sustainable energy initiative last November in Milwaukee.
The operational costs of ground source heat pumps are substantially lower than the HVAC systems they replace. As a result of their renovation, the three elementary schools have seen their energy intensity drop by more than one-half, even though they now have air-conditioning in the classrooms. School officials estimate that all four ground source heat pump systems will save the district $30,000 annually in fuel costs.
As with solar hot water systems, Focus on Energy provides incentives for ground source heat pumps to schools, businesses and residences. The program awarded more than $96,000 towards the four systems installed in Fort Atkinson.
According to a Focus on Energy fact sheet, “a ground source heat pump system is arguably the most efficient technology for heating and cooling Wisconsin homes and businesses.” Given its embrace of that technology and others deployed in its buildings, Fort Atkinson has become, in terms of energy sustainability, arguably the most forward-thinking school district in the state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
