Wind Energy in Virginia: JMU and Beyond - CiteSeerX

Wind Energy in Virginia: JMU and Beyond

Submitted to the Integrated Science and Technology Program

At James Madison University In partial fulfillment of a B.S. degree in

Integrated Science and Technology

By

Greg Allen Bryan Franey Matthew Heck Adam Jones David Strong

Under the faculty guidance of

Dr. Jonathan Miles

April 24, 2002 ________________________

________________________

________________________

________________________

________________________ ________________________

Faculty Advisor Signature

2

Table of Contents

Wind Energy in Virginia: JMU and Beyond .................................................................... 1

List of Figures .................................................................................................................... 6

List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... 8

Abstract............................................................................................................................... 9

Chapter 1: Introduction................................................................................................... 10

1.1 Overview ............................................................................................................... 10

1.2 Background ......................................................................................................... 11

1.2.1 The State-Based Anemometer Loan Program ............................................... 11

1.2.2 Wind at James Madison University ............................................................... 12

1.3 Purpose and justification..................................................................................... 13

1.4 Goals and objectives ............................................................................................. 14

1.4.1 SBALP Program ............................................................................................ 14

1.4.2 On-campus study ........................................................................................... 14

1.5 Literature survey .................................................................................................. 15

Chapter 2: Wind as an energy resource......................................................................... 18

2.1 What is wind power .............................................................................................. 18

2.2 History of wind power .......................................................................................... 19

2.3 Capturing wind power: old and new technologies............................................. 23

2.4 Meteorology: wind measurement and anemometer towers .............................. 27

2.5 Siting of wind turbines and wind farms.............................................................. 30

2.6 Introduction to WAsP........................................................................................... 32

Chapter 3: State Based Anemometer Loan Program ..................................................... 33

3.1 History of the program......................................................................................... 33

3.2 Program overview............................................................................................... 33

3

3.3 Implementation and administration of the program....................................... 34

3.4 Equipment ........................................................................................................... 35

3.5 Application (See appendix A for example) ......................................................... 38

3.6 Loan Agreement (See appendix B for example)................................................. 39

3.7 Contract (See appendix C for example).............................................................. 40

3.8 Website................................................................................................................. 40

3.9 Press Release (See appendix D for example) ...................................................... 41

3.10 Benefits to borrower ........................................................................................... 41

3.11 Benefits to the state, DOE, and JMU .............................................................. 42

3.12 Results ................................................................................................................ 42

Chapter 4: Borrowers...................................................................................................... 44

4.1 Robert Preston (Installed 10/18/01)..................................................................... 44

4.1.1 The site........................................................................................................... 44

4.1.2 Installation........................................................................................................ 45

4.1.3 Lessons learned................................................................................................ 45

4.1.4 Data .................................................................................................................. 46

4.1.5 Conclusions...................................................................................................... 46

4.2 Jaye Baldwin (Installed 12/12/01)........................................................................ 47

4.2.1 The site............................................................................................................. 47

4.2.2 Installation........................................................................................................ 47

4.2.3 Lessons Learned............................................................................................... 47

4.2.4 Data .................................................................................................................. 48

4.2.5 Conclusions...................................................................................................... 48

4.3 Tim Altizer (Installed 12/21/01)......................................................................... 49

4.3.1 The site............................................................................................................. 49

4.3.2 Installation........................................................................................................ 49

4.3.3 Lessons Learned............................................................................................... 49

4

4.3.4 Data .................................................................................................................. 50

4.3.5 Conclusions...................................................................................................... 50

4.4 Dick Stokes (Installed 1/10/02)........................................................................... 50

4.4.1 The site............................................................................................................. 50

4.4.2 Installation........................................................................................................ 51

4.4.3 Lessons Learned............................................................................................... 51

4.4.4 Data .................................................................................................................. 51

4.4.5 Conclusions...................................................................................................... 51

4.5 Henry’s Point (Installed 2/24/02)....................................................................... 52

4.5.1 The site............................................................................................................. 52

4.5.2 Installation........................................................................................................ 52

4.5.3 Lessons Learned............................................................................................... 52

4.5.4 Data .................................................................................................................. 52

4.5.5 Conclusions...................................................................................................... 53

4.6 Northampton County Landfill (Installed 2/24/02) ............................................. 53

4.6.1 The site............................................................................................................. 53

4.6.2 Installation........................................................................................................ 53

4.6.3 Lessons Learned............................................................................................ 54

4.6.4 Data .................................................................................................................. 54

4.6.5 Conclusions...................................................................................................... 54

Chapter 5: Feasibility study of east JMU campus.......................................................... 55

5.1 Justification for wind power on the east campus of James Madison University

....................................................................................................................................... 55

5.2 Selection of meteorological tower site ........................................................... 58

Chapter 6: Wind modeling with WAsP ........................................................................... 62

6.1 WAsP hierarchy .................................................................................................. 62

6.1.1 WAsP project ................................................................................................. 62

6.2 Site description .................................................................................................... 63

6.2.1 Orography ...................................................................................................... 64

5

6.2.2 Surface roughness .......................................................................................... 65

6.2.3 Shelter effects................................................................................................. 70

6.3 Wind atlas ............................................................................................................ 73

6.3.1 Meteorological station .................................................................................... 73

6.3.2 Observed wind climate .................................................................................. 74

6.4 Resource grid....................................................................................................... 77

6.5 Turbine site.......................................................................................................... 78

Chapter 7: Impact of wind power on east campus.......................................................... 81

7.1 Technical issues ............................................................................................... 81

7.1.1 Regulations: federal, state, and university ................................................ 81

7.1.2 Grid connection............................................................................................. 84

7.1.3 Maintenance.............................................................................................. 85

7.2 Environmental impact ...................................................................................... 85

7.2.1 Avian mortality ......................................................................................... 86

7.2.2 Noise issues............................................................................................... 89

7.2.3 Wind Turbine Testing and Safety ............................................................. 90

7.2.4 Emission reduction impact........................................................................ 95

7.2.5 Other considerations ...................................................................................... 96

7.3 Public perception ............................................................................................ 96

7.3.1 General public and JMU administration concerns.................................... 97

7.3.2 Photomontages of turbine on JMU campus .............................................. 99

Chapter 8: East campus economic analysis.................................................................. 103

Chapter 9: Conclusions and Recommendations........................................................... 110

9.1 SBALP Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................... 110

9.2 East campus conclusions and recommendations ........................................... 111

References ...................................................................................................................... 113

6

List of Figures

Figure 2.3.1. Ancient Dutch windmill (The Franklin Institute Online)........................... 23

Figure 2.3.2. Fan windmill typical of middle America (Vintage Windmills, 2002). ...... 24

Figure 2.3.3. Enron 750-kW airfoil turbines in Culberson County, Texas (Enron Wind).

................................................................................................................................... 25

Figure 2.3.4. Fundamental forces associated with function of an airfoil......................... 25

Figure 2.3.5. Horizontal axis is seen on the left while a vertically oriented device is seen

at right. ...................................................................................................................... 26

Figure 2.4.1 The Hadley Convection Cell Model (Western Illinois University).............. 28

Figure 2.4.2. A three cup anemometer............................................................................. 29

Figure 2.4.3. A wind vane................................................................................................ 30

Figure 2.5.1. The airflow around a building structure (AWEA, 2002). .......................... 31

Figure 3.1. Schematic of 20m tower. ............................................................................... 35

Figure 3.2. Cup anemometer............................................................................................ 36

Figure 3.3. Wind vane....................................................................................................... 36

Figure 3.4. Wind Explorer Logger Kit............................................................................. 37

Figure 3.5. Data plug. ...................................................................................................... 37

Figure 4.1. Locations of erected anemometers. ............................................................... 44

Figure 4.1.1. Preston monthly average wind speeds........................................................ 46

Figure 4.1.1. Baldwin monthly average wind speeds. ..................................................... 48

Figure 5.1.1. Sites considered and final location of tower............................................... 59

Figure 6.1.1. The upper left corner of the screen shot shows the WAsP hierarchy......... 63

Figure 6.2.1. Orographic map of Harrisonburg, Virginia quadrangle. ............................. 65

Figure 6.2.2. Topographic map of Harrisonburg and surrounding quadrangles............... 68

Figure 6.2.3. MapEdit window shows the height contours and topographic bitmap....... 69

Figure 6.2.4. MapEdit window showing fully digitized roughness areas and orography. 70

Figure 6.2.5. Illustration showing the possible effects of an obstacle on wind flow........ 71

Figure 6.2.6. Example of the parameters used by WAsP to calculate the shelter effects of

an obstacle................................................................................................................. 72

Figure 6.2.7. Obstacle diagram of buildings on east campus of JMU. ............................ 73

7

Figure 6.3.1. Map of Harrisonburg quadrangle showing locations of both the

meteorological tower and the turbine site. ................................................................ 74

Figure 6.3.2. Shows a two-year trend for wind speed in both Charlottesville and Staunton,

Virginia and the four months of data collected in Keezletown, Virginia. ................ 75

Figure 6.3.3. Predicted monthly averages for Keezletown and measured averages for

Charlottesville and Staunton. .................................................................................... 76

Figure 6.3.4. Observed wind climate in Keezletown, Virginia. ...................................... 77

Figure 6.4.1. Resource grid of wind speed in Harrisonburg quadrangle. Low wind speed

areas are shown in light blue and higher wind speed areas are shown in dark blue. 78

Figure 6.5.1. Power curve of Bergey ExcelS wind turbine. ............................................ 79

Figure 6.5.2. Predicted wind climate window for turbine site.......................................... 80

Figure 7.3.1. Logarithmic trendline and equation for scaling......................................... 100

Figure 7.3.2. Turbine appearance while traveling south on Interstate 81....................... 101

Figure 7.3.3. View of the Begey Excel from Carrier Drive just past the JMU College

Center. ..................................................................................................................... 102

Figure 9.1.1.. Shows the effect that the turbine cost and the annual energy output also

given as wind classes have on the net benefits of the investment over a thirty year

lifetime. ................................................................................................................... 107

Figure 9.1.2. Net benefits of the Bergey Excel while varying the discount rate. .......... 108

8

List of Tables

Table 5.1.1. Potential courses benefiting from turbine..................................................... 57

Table 6.2.1. Surface characteristics and their associated roughness classes and lengths.66

Table 6.2.2. Shows the wind speed in m/s with increased height and roughness length.. 67

Table 7.1.1. Bergey’s estimated costs of wiring and installing Excel 10-kW system...... 84

Table 7.2.1 Avian Collision Mortality in the United States (NWCC, 2002).................... 87

Table 9.1. Life cycle costs of 10-kW Bergey EXCEL-S............................................... 104

Table 9.2. Simple and discounted payback for the Bergey Excel-S at the JMU turbine

site. .......................................................................................................................... 104

Table 9.3. Net benefits of Bergey Excel system at JMU site. ........................................ 105

Table 9.4. Summary table of sensitivity analysis results. .............................................. 106

Table 9.4. Future value of investment in a CD earning 10% annual interest. ................ 109

9

Abstract

We have administered the Wind Powering America (WPA) State-Based Anemometer

Loan Program (SBALP). The State-Based Anemometer Loan Program helps develop

wind expertise throughout the nation, allows Virginia and the National Renewable

Energy Laboratory gather data across the state, and heightens the awareness and

development of the nation’s wind resources. This program involves siting, permitting,

installation, data collection, as well as other tasks required to place a meteorological

tower for the program at each of ten different locations. Thus far, data has been collected

at six sites and is currently under analysis.

We also have begun preliminary studies on the feasibility of installing a wind turbine on

the east campus of James Madison University. We have assisted in siting a 30-meter

meteorological tower that will gather wind data for future analysis by JMU students. We

have studied and modeled other local wind data and have researched relevant issues

surrounding wind energy, including visual and noise impacts, regulations, and grid

interconnection. We have developed a preliminary economic analysis for a 10-kW

turbine located where the 30-meter meteorological tower now stands. The ultimate goal

of this study is to further wind energy progress at James Madison University and

throughout the state of Virginia.

10

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Overview

Wind is a natural resource that has been harvested for centuries. The first uses for wind

began in 5000 B.C. when sailboats were used on the Nile River. As time progressed,

man harnessed the wind’s potential in many different ways. In 1000 A.D. windmills in

the Middle East used windmills to grind grain. The Dutch refined various forms of wind

technology, and used windmills to drain lakes and marshes in the Rhine River Delta. It

was not until the late 19th century that this technology was brought to the United States,

when in 1854 the American windmill was invented. With the rise of industrialization,

and the advent of the steam engine, the use of windmills gradually declined.

Industrialization, however, did contribute to the development of the wind turbine, which

began in Denmark as early as the 1890’s. These wind turbines were the first to be used to

generate electricity. Wind turbine technology further advanced and in the 1980s reached

the point of utility sized wind farms for large-scale electricity generation. With our

current knowledge of the adverse effects of typical coal and oil energy production, we

find wind to be a clean, renewable energy source with countless benefits to the

environment. Because of this and the rise of wind energy as an economically competitive

source of energy, we have based our thesis on the development of wind power.

We have administered the Wind Powering America (WPA) State-Based Anemometer

Loan Program (SBALP). SBALP helps provide landowners with accurate wind speed

measurements, allows Virginia and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory to gather

data across the state, and heightens the awareness and development of the nation’s wind

resources. This program involves informing the general public, reviewing applications,

siting, installing, and collecting and analyzing data for ten meteorological (MET) towers

at different locations. Thus far, data has been collected at six sites and is currently under

analysis.

11

We also have concluded preliminary studies on the feasibility of installing a wind turbine

on the east campus of James Madison University. We have assisted in siting a 30-meter

MET tower that will gather wind data for future analysis by JMU students. We have

studied and modeled other local wind data and have researched relevant issues

surrounding wind energy, including visual and noise impacts, regulations, and grid

interconnection. We have developed a preliminary economic analysis for a 10-kW

turbine located where the 30-meter meteorological tower now stands. The ultimate goal

of this study is to further wind energy progress throughout the state of Virginia, and at

James Madison University.

1.2 Background

1.2.1 The State-Based Anemometer Loan Program

SBALP was created by the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Wind Powering America

(WPA) initiative out of the Philadelphia Regional Office (PRO). The framework for this

program is based on WPA’s Anemometer Loan Programs that are being implemented in

Utah and North Dakota, as well as the Native American Anemometer Loan Program.

The DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) oversees all of these

programs. The Native American program allows tribes to borrow a MET tower in order

to measure the available wind resource in their area. Using these data, they can then

decide whether the purchase of a wind energy system would be economical and/or

practical. Through a set of eligibility requirements, an application process, and a set of

agreements, Native Americans can participate in this program. The same structure

applies to North Dakota and Utah where landowners in the state may participate in the

program.

Virginia’s SBALP provides landowners with an opportunity to analyze their own wind

resource. With this information, they can then determine whether or not a wind turbine

would be a wise investment. Also, NREL and the state will use the data to better assess

12

the wind resource in Virginia and validate models. This data is public and will hopefully

spur wind energy developments throughout the state.

1.2.2 Wind at James Madison University

The Integrated Science and Technology (ISAT) program at JMU has a strong focus on

renewable energies. The ISAT program teaches students to understand the technical

aspects of renewable energies, the environmental benefits of renewable energies, as well

as the economical and political aspects. In each of the past three years, thesis groups

have participated in wind energy projects, though none specifically addressed the JMU

campus.

Demetrist Waddy and Margaret James completed the first senior thesis involving wind

energy (The Feasibility of Wind Power in the Shenandoah Valley) in 1999 under the

direction of Dr. Jonathan Miles. They studied available data and previous research from

the National Park Service to determine if the installation of a wind turbine was viable in

the area. They completed calculations to predict turbine performance, assessed the wind

resource in the valley and its surrounding areas, and recommended sites for potential

wind-monitoring stations. Three specific sites were examined in Shenandoah National

Park; Big Meadows, Dickey Ridge, and Sawmill Run. Big Meadows provided the

highest wind speeds of the three sites. They concluded that Big Meadows could be used

as an area for small-scale wind energy production, but was not an ideal location for a

turbine.

In 2000, the team of Scott Abbett, Dan Brewer, Brian Kaulback, Loren Pruskowski, and

Kevin Schulte conducted further research relating to the development of wind energy

(Wind Resource Assessment and Feasibility Study). They investigated the feasibility of a

wind farm at a site adjacent to the Mount Storm Power Station in West Virginia. Their

objectives included calculating the annual energy output using a variety of models,

developing an environmental impact assessment, performing an economic analysis on the

site, and understanding public policies with respect to wind energy. They determined

13

that wind energy was viable at this site and presented a design that would be the most

economically beneficial.

In 2001, Jeanette Studley, Amy McGinty, Ben Orr, John Caley, and Andrea Illmensee

expanded upon the Mount Storm study from the previous year. This group developed a

working model of the wind resource at Mount Storm, researched regulations and issues

surrounding the installation of a wind farm, and studied marketing strategies that have

been successful for wind plants in the past. They also produced a photomontage

describing what the wind farm would look like and performed an economic analysis

based on the suggested turbine layout.

None of these previous studies have focused on the wind energy resource available on

JMU’s campus. One focus of our project is strictly on the JMU campus and its

immediate surroundings to determine what kind of wind energy resource is available to

JMU.

1.3 Purpose and justification

The state of Virginia, being heavily reliant on coal, has not examined its wind energy

resource. By providing anemometer towers to measure a location’s wind speed and

direction, we believe people will gain a better idea of their wind resource. We selected

sites that will most likely show a favorable wind resource. The data collected is available

to the general public and will be used by NREL. Thus, in addition to the landowner

borrowing the tower, residents in the area of the anemometer will have concrete data to

help decide whether wind power might be feasible for them.

In addition to producing energy, a wind turbine on the JMU campus would yield many

other benefits. James Madison University is one of the country’s leaders in training

students to enter the renewable energy industry. Wind energy is one of many renewable

energy sources discussed and studied in classroom activities. However, JMU has long

lacked the hands-on experience of renewable energy systems in real life situations. For

14

the past three years, JMU students have traveled to Malta for hands-on experience with

wind energy. A wind turbine on campus and readily available for analysis would

complement the University’s recently purchased photovoltaic system. The wind energy

system would spark interest both in the students and the entire JMU community,

providing an opportunity to increase general understanding of the technology. A wind

turbine would serve as a landmark for James Madison and would generate interest from

other institutions and prospective students nationwide.

1.4 Goals and objectives

1.4.1 SBALP Program

The overall goal of SBALP is to collect data in the state of Virginia for wind energy.

Through the administration of this project, landowners and their neighbors will have the

opportunity to learn understand what type of wind resource is available to them. With the

landowners support of this project we have placed eight of ten loaned wind-measuring

devices and recorded wind data for a year. After a year, the towers will be relocated and

new landowners will have the opportunity to measure their wind resource. By making

this information available to landowners and the general public, we hope to see the first

commercial wind farm in the state go up, as well as see a large increase in the amount of

small wind energy systems that are used throughout the state.

1.4.2 On-campus study

The intention of the study of the east campus of JMU is to determine whether or not the

purchase of a 10-kW wind turbine would be feasible for the University. By installing a

30-meter MET tower and modeling other local wind data, we expected to find that an

adequate wind resource exists. In addition to the data gathered, we will examine other

issues surrounding wind energy specific to the east campus of JMU. This includes

educational benefits, technical issues, environmental impacts, and public perception. We

also conducted a preliminary economic analysis to decide whether or not the installation

15

of a 10-kW wind turbine on the east campus of JMU would be beneficial to the

University and its community.

1.5 Literature survey

We referenced a number of resources throughout the paper for both specific and general

information. The following gives a description of each source in the order they are listed

on the references page:

� The American Wind Energy Association homepage (www.awea.org) provided a good

background on many aspects of wind resources, economics, policy, and development.

This comprehensive resource was utilized in many areas of our research.

� Alternative Energy: Facts, Statistics, and Issues by Paula Berinstein gave a nice

overview of the wind industry. It presented some useful statistics that were relevant

for our introductory chapters.

� The Bergey WindPower homepage (www.bergey.com) was very useful in regard to

their specific products and features. Since we are considering adding a Bergey

turbine to the meteorological tower, this also provided estimates for various costs.

� Introduction to Energy by Edward S. Cassedy and Peter Z. Grossman examined the

past and future development of large-scale wind farms in the United States.

� Windpower.org, organized by the Danish Wind Industry Association, provided

excellent background information on a variety of wind energy issues. Its “Guided

Tour” was very helpful in allowing us to gain general and specific knowledge on

wind energy.

� Public Attitudes Towards Wind Farms in Scotland: Results of a Residents Survey,

written by Anna Dudleston, was based on research by the Scottish Executive Central

16

Research Unit on the perceived and actual impacts of wind farms. The statistics

helped prove our beliefs that the negative aspects of wind turbines are commonly just

misperceptions based on a lack of public knowledge.

� Enron Wind Corporation’s homepage (www.enronwind.com) provided a number of

turbine pictures used in the paper.

� 1001 Questions Answered About The Weather by Frank H. Forrester explains how

wind power changes drastically with wind velocity.

� The Franklin Institute Online homepage (www.franklininstitute.org) provided a

picture of an ancient Dutch windmill.

� Wind Power for Home and Business by Paul Gipe was an extremely useful resource

conveying information on history, wind applications, measuring wind, estimating

output, economics, and other issues associated with wind energy. This was a very

inclusive source, which was used for a variety of the topics that we covered.

� The Honeywell Obstruction Lighting website

(http://www.airportsystems.honeywell.com/) presented background information on

lighting regulations. It also gave information regarding specific features and

applications of the lighting beacon we ordered from Honeywell Airport Systems.

� The James Madison University 1998-1999 Undergraduate Catalog provided us with

an understanding of James Madison University’s mission and, specifically, the goals

of the College of Integrated Science and Technology. This was useful when

identifying the benefits for specific courses as well as the college as a whole.

� “Hawk-Watching in Virginia” by Kerrie Kirkpatrick and Myriam Moore (from A

Birder’s Guide to Virginia) gave us a general idea on raptor flight patterns in the state

of Virginia.

17

� The Handy Weather Answer Book by Walter A. Lyons was very helpful in explaining

the history of wind measurement.

� We utilized the National Renewable Energy Laboratory homepage (www.nrel.gov) in

a number of ways. It provided excellent information on wind turbine type testing

discussed in the safety section of the paper. It also had many images of Bergey

turbines that we used in creating our photomontages.

� The National Wind Coordinating Committee homepage (www.nationalwind.org)

allowed us access to the NWCC’s various publications on a wide range of wind

energy topics. These were especially helpful on environmental issues that we

addressed.

� The WAsP 7.0 Help Facility by Riso National Laboratory was used to assist in the

development of the WAsP model. In addition, the Help Facility was used as a

reference when explaining the various features of WAsP.

� Birds of Rockingham County Virginia, published by the Rockingham Bird Club, was

an insightful resource on the birds of Rockingham County. This helped us gain a

better knowledge on the raptor species that live in or pass through Harrisonburg.

� Species Information: Threatened and Endangered Animals and Plants

(http://endangered.fws.gov/wildlife.html), a webpage off the U.S. Fish & Wildlife

Service homepage, listed all of the endangered and threatened species in the United

States. We used this to determine the effect of a wind turbine on any endangered

species in the Harrisonburg area.

� Vintage Windmills Online Magazine (www.vintagewindmills.com) provided a

history of American wind power and a picture of the typical agricultural windmill

found in the Midwest.

18

Chapter 2: Wind as an energy resource

2.1 What is wind power

It is important to have some understanding of why wind power is so attractive. As with

any other renewable energy, the increased production of electricity from wind decreases

reliance on traditional energy sources. It is also important for the U.S. to diversify its

sources of energy, as this will provide increased security and independence. As it

currently stands, the United States relies heavily on oil-producing nations for much of its

energy needs. An increase in renewable production will decrease our dependence on

other nations for oil, as well as other traditional sources.

Aside from the strictly economic advantages, wind energy delivers significant

environmental benefits. An elevated environmental awareness has developed around the

globe. Wind power systems do not emit the harmful byproducts that are associated with

traditional energy sources. The only emissions associated with wind turbines occur

during construction and are minimal. Another advantage to wind energy is that it

requires no fuel. Fuel is essential for most types of energy production, and it is often

expensive or in limited supply. Wind, a plentiful resource, is the only input for the

turbines. Furthermore, a wind turbine requires minimal maintenance once installed as it

can operate on its own.

We should also consider the negative features and impacts of wind energy. From the

energy production side, wind itself is intermittent and largely unpredictable. Despite

declining costs, wind energy is still more expensive than traditional sources such as coal

and natural gas. Without monetary incentives, it is currently difficult for wind energy to

significantly contribute to U.S. energy production.

As clean and harmless as wind turbines appear, environmental concerns have arisen

nonetheless. Wind turbines can disrupt wildlife habitats, create noise, and erode land in

some instances. In particular, they sometimes interfere with avian flight patterns, leading

19

to death by direct contact or electrocution. The flight patterns of birds are a factor that

planners must consider when determining wind turbine sites.

There are many other factors pertaining to wind power siting. Wind energy is not

practical in areas where there is little to no wind resource. It is extremely important to

collect and analyze wind measurements before developing sites to determine the nature of

the wind resource present. Collection of wind measurements allows for the estimation of

power output and economic viability. The United States has a good wind resource with

the exception of some southeastern, eastern, and central states. Montana, Wyoming,

North Dakota, and other Great Plains states comprise the windiest areas in the country.

The west, northeast, mid-Atlantic, the Carolinas, and Virginia are also considered to have

“good” resources (Berinstein, 2001).

In 1997, the U.S. achieved a generating capacity of 1,620 megawatts (MW) out of a total

capacity of 778,513 megawatts. This represents approximately 1.7% of all renewable

capacity (Berinstein, 2001). From a numerical standpoint, this may not seem very

impressive. It is more important to realize in which direction the industry is headed.

Most of the renewable electricity growth in the U.S. is expected to derive from wind,

biomass, and geothermal technologies. The American Wind Energy Association

(AWEA) believes that North Dakota, South Dakota, and Texas have enough wind to

power the entire United States. Total U.S. wind capacity increased by 12% in 1998,

while global capacity increased by 35%. By June 30, 1999, utilities had completed large-

scale wind projects which accounted for 858.7 additional megawatts of generation

capacity (Berinstein, 2001).

2.2 History of wind power

Humans have been harnessing wind for centuries. Sailboats use wind for transportation.

Dutch windmills were used as far back as the 1400s to pump water out of swamps. Even

further back, middle easterners built windmills in the 11th century (Lyons, 1998). The

Netherlands, however, must be credited with making wind power what it has become

20

today. By 1900, they had installed 40 MW of electricity-generating turbines (Lyons,

1998). In the United States, windmills were first seen in the mid-1800s. Used on farms

to irrigate and grind grain, up to 6 million metal fan windmills were in place by 1950

(Nelson, 1990).

Wind is a growing form of major power generation in the United States and around the

world. The market for wind power did not really exist in the U.S. until the government

passed the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA) in 1978. From then on,

California took the lead in worldwide wind development during the 1980s, partly a result

of its vast wind resource, favorable incentives, and low-cost lands at certain sites (Gipe,

1995). Still, wind power development was sporadic throughout the second half of the

1980s for a variety of reasons. Low oil prices, unexpected costs, and slow technological

advancements all contributed to a lull in the industry over this period (Berinstein, 2001).

During the 1990s, the U.S. government helped bring the wind industry back to life with

various types of incentives to promote investment in, and production of, wind energy.

Such incentives included investment tax credits, production tax credits, property tax

reductions, accelerated depreciation, government loans, and net metering. In addition, as

the design of wind turbines has improved, maintenance costs have fallen and investment

costs have dropped to an estimated one fourth of what they were in the late 1980s

(Berinstein, 2001). During this time, wind energy spread to other states including Texas,

Iowa, Hawaii, and Minnesota.

Only recently have wind turbines become economically competitive with fossil fuel

technologies. Concerns over global warming have changed public perception of

renewable energy. The controversy over ratification of the Kyoto Protocol reduction in

carbon dioxide emissions has been one major source of publicity. States have passed

laws requiring that a certain percentage of their electricity generation derive from

renewable sources. This concept of a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) has been lead

by Texas, which plans to have 2,000 MW of renewable generation by 2009 (AWEA,

2002).

21

The federal government has also learned the importance of tax rebates in order to

promote and make wind power more affordable. The wind energy Production Tax Credit

(PTC) was recently extended for another 2 years. This credit pays 1.7 cents per kWh

produced by newly constructed turbines (Danish Wind Industry Association, 2002). This

incentive guarantees that 1.7 cents will be paid over the first 10 years of the turbine’s

lifetime. The price will be adjusted for inflation over the ten years the credit is paid to

the utility.

Another federal initiative, known as Wind Powering America, is administered by the

Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. This

program has set extremely high goals for the growth of wind power in America. The

objectives include the production of better wind resource maps, the use of wind turbines

to displace 35 million tons of CO2 by 2020, and a 5 percent portion of national electricity

generation from wind power by 2020 (DOE, 2002).

Progress in engineering of wind turbines has also made a huge difference in making wind

power more economically attractive. As recently as 1998, 500-kW units were the highest

capacity turbines on the market (Lyons, 1998). Today companies such as Vestas and

Bonus have installed much larger turbines with capacities up to 1.5MW, which can

power up to 1,500 homes (DOE WPA brochure). Danish companies already have 2-MW

and 2.5-MW prototypes in operation and expect to have them on the market soon (Danish

Wind Industry Association).

Small wind turbines for residential consumers are also emerging in the marketplace. In

the early 1980s, there was a sharp increase of new wind power firms starting up

following the new federal tax incentives. Most of those companies went out of business

due to the failure of many systems. Turbine blades were susceptible to breakage, and the

overall maintenance costs made the purchase of a turbine economically unattractive.

However, the advances made since then have created a solid market for companies such

22

as Bergey WindPower, the nation’s leader in small wind systems (Bergey, 2002). Bergey

was founded in 1977 and now has installations in 70 countries.

There are several reasons why a consumer would wish to purchase a small wind turbine.

Farmers may install a turbine to pump water from one location to another in order to feed

livestock, irrigate crops, or grind grain. People in remote locations may use a turbine

with a battery system to supply electricity. The biggest reason for the growth of small

wind is the implementation of net metering programs. Net metering (although laws vary

from state to state) is described as follows: at times when a turbine is producing more

electricity than the household is consuming, the power meter at that house spins

backwards, effectively selling the surplus power back to the utility. The price paid for

that power depends on the state law. Some states offer compensation at the generation

cost the utility reports. Others pay back at the retail cost that the consumer usually pays

on their monthly bill. Since systems cost tens of thousands of dollars (not including

installation), net metering is the only mechanism that makes buying a system

economically feasible.

The future for wind power is very promising. The number of large-scale wind farms has

been growing at a rapid pace. States such as Texas, Iowa, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania

have recently established new farms with capacities up to 193 MW (Enron Wind).

Deregulation of the power industry has paved the way for consumers to decide the

company from which they would prefer to buy their electricity. Some locales even allow

customers to buy renewable energy through green certificates. In such a system, the

buyer is assured through a stringent auditing system that the energy they purchased is

indeed renewable. The end user pays a slightly higher price than usual, a reflection of the

higher generation costs associated with renewables. This marketing scheme is often

referred to as green pricing. As America’s wind resource becomes more completely

understood and public acceptance of aesthetics, noise and avian impact improves, the

wind industry will continue to grow.

23

2.3 Capturing wind power: old and new technologies

The sailboat was the first technology to utilize the wind’s energy. They were essential to

the discovery of new lands, progression of commerce, and development of fishing

industries over thousands of years. Only recently has wind been harnessed for use on

land. The original windmills, started in the Middle East, served to move water and grind

grain. Since then, the Dutch led the world in developing wind power to its full potential.

The first windmills in the Netherlands were used primarily to turn wetlands into areas

where agriculture could occur. These devices look like the stereotypical windmill shown

in Figure 2.3.1.

Figure 2.3.1. Ancient Dutch windmill (The Franklin Institute Online).

During the past century and a half, there have been more modern devices used worldwide

for the same agricultural purposes.

24

These have a much different look and are made of metal fans as shown in Figure 2.3.2.

Figure 2.3.2. Fan windmill typical of middle America (Vintage Windmills, 2002).

The characteristic that links both the ancient and modern windmills seen in the two

figures above is their aerodynamic function. Both use the wind to “push” them around a

central hub. The design is similar to the way a sail works on a boat. One may notice that

the design seen in Figure 2.3.2 seemingly takes advantage of all the available wind power

by intercepting the wind across the entire circular analogous with the blades, while

turbines installed today have only two or three narrow blades. The problem with the

older designs is the limitations on efficiency associated with drag devices. It has been

determined scientifically that only 33 percent of the available power can be harnessed

using a drag design.

The newer design models for wind power use the same aerodynamic properties that allow

an airplane to fly. The concept of lift achieved by using an airfoil has allowed for vast

improvement in turbine efficiency. The efficiency limit for lift devices is 59 percent, an

impressive number considering that significantly less material is needed to build a lift

machine. An airfoil is synonymous with an airplane wing, which works by taking

advantage of the law of conservation of mass. As air flows over the wing (which is

cross-sectional shaped like an irregular teardrop), it must travel a longer path to reach the

other end on one side than the other. As the air on the longer side must travel faster to

25

meet the corresponding air at the other end, it produces a low-pressure area that provides

the necessary lift for an airplane to float, or in this case for a turbine to spin. Figure 2.3.3

shows the look of a modern turbine while Figure 2.3.4 is a free-body diagram to help

explain the forces involved in airfoil performance.

Figure 2.3.3. Enron 750-kW airfoil turbines in Culberson County, Texas (Enron Wind).

Figure 2.3.4. Fundamental forces associated with function of an airfoil.

26

It is important to mention that there are several different turbine designs that have been

invented over the years with both drag and lift features. The images shown so far in this

chapter all feature what is known as a horizontal axis, meaning the blades turn about an

axis parallel to the direction of the wind. Another way to capture wind is via a vertically

oriented axis where the rotation is perpendicular to the movement of the wind. Figure

2.3.5 shows examples of both orientations.

Figure 2.3.5. Horizontal axis is seen on the left while a vertically oriented device is seen at right.

Aside from the development of lift devices, other advancements have been made to

improve the performance of wind turbines. While the smaller residential turbines use a

wind vane that directs the hub (where the blades are connected to the spinning axis)

toward the wind, large-scale generators have different methods of turning the rotor

towards the direction of flow. Since the several hundred kilowatt and megawatt towers

are extremely tall, they experience forces that may compromise their structural stability.

Each tower contains a motor that turns the hub towards the wind slowly in a procedure

known as yawing. The movement must be done slowly to reduce the magnitude of stress

from torque put on the tower.

Self-starting is another feature associated with newer wind power devices. Instead of

waiting for the wind to start the rotation of the blades, the turbine has the ability to begin

rotation using a motor. This serves to increase the efficiency of the turbine since it takes

much more wind to begin rotation of the blades than it does to keep them rotating.

27

When winds become too strong for safe generation to take place, turbines have the ability

to effectively shut themselves down. Extremely powerful winds pose a large threat to the

safety of the tower due to torque. Small turbines have the ability to fold their blades back

behind the hub in a feature known as furling. Large-scale wind turbines have brakes that

simply stop the rotation of the blades until conditions improve.

Power conditioning after generation is necessary before delivering power to the

electricity grid. Large wind farms include a complicated system that takes the variable

power generated and matches it to the power being sent through the nearby transmission

lines. Small wind turbines require an inverter that is located near the connection to the

house line.

2.4 Meteorology: wind measurement and anemometer towers

Wind itself is a product of the sun’s uneven heating of the earth’s surface. As the air at

the equator heats faster than the air at other latitudes, it creates an area of rising hot air,

resulting in a low-pressure system. Low-pressure systems are characterized by rising air,

while high-pressure systems involve sinking air. As this equatorial air rises, it eventually

cools and begins its descent back towards the surface. This parcel of air is effectively

split at the top of the troposphere, and, subsequently, half descends in the Northern

Hemisphere and half in the Southern Hemisphere. The air generally reaches the surface

on its descent around the 30-degree line of latitude. Since this air is sinking, these

regions experience high-pressure conditions. This pattern results in a cycle of air

movement known as a convection cell.

28

Figure 2.4.1 shows the model generally used in meteorology to describe the movement of

air in the atmosphere.

Figure 2.4.1 The Hadley Convection Cell Model (Western Illinois University).

The model is known as the Hadley Convection Cell Model and involves six cycles that

cover the earth.

The direction of surface winds is not solely determined by the action of convection cells.

A force known as the Coriolis force deflects winds in the Northern Hemisphere to the

right and winds in the Southern Hemisphere to the left. The Coriolis Effect is a

phenomenon associated with the earth’s rotation. The resultant prevailing wind

directions shown in Figure 2.4.1 are indicated at the left by the curved arrows.

Despite knowledge of these global patterns, a site will experience wind from all

directions at some time during the year. This is a result of ever-changing weather

conditions that are accompanied by surface and upper-level high and low pressure

systems crossing a region every week. The air that encompasses a high-pressure system

will circulate in a clockwise motion, while the air surrounding a low pressure system will

circulate in a counterclockwise fashion. An example may clarify this explanation. If a

high pressure is located to the immediate south of a given location, it will experience a

westerly flow. On the other hand, if the same site experienced a low pressure to its south

it would observe an easterly wind.

29

One more wind phenomenon of importance is sea breezes. Large wind farms are often

built on the shore or even offshore since there are almost no obstructions and usually

constant winds. The notion of a sea breeze is very similar to that of a Hadley cell.

During the day, as the land heats up faster than the water due to differences in specific

heat, the air over the land rises. This forms an area of low pressure and a vacuum effect

that forces the air over the water to replace the rising air. The coast thus experiences

refreshing cool winds during the day. In the evening the opposite is true. The land cools

faster than the air over the sea, resulting in movement of air from the land to the sea. Sea

breezes are attractive to wind developers since they provide a predictable and consistent

resource.

There are many ways to locate and measure a wind resource at a given location. The

deformation of vegetation by consistent winds is one visible characteristic of many

decent wind sites. In a process known as flagging, trees with obvious damage from wind

exposure can be a somewhat accurate measure of a wind resource. However, observing

even dramatic flagging will not be enough evidence to ensure a good wind turbine site.

The only way to be sure of a location’s resource is to use anemometers, wind vanes, and

a strategic analysis plan.

Anemometers are instruments that measure wind speed. The first anemometer was

designed by Robert Hooke in 1667 (Lyons, 1998). These devices look much like a

horizontally oriented wind turbine with three or four cups that are allowed to spin as the

wind blows as shown in Figure 2.4.2.

Figure 2.4.2. A three cup anemometer

30

These anemometers may store data in electric data plugs that can be retrieved at a later

time or they may send the data instantaneously to another locating via telephone lines.

The other device needed to gather sufficient wind data is a wind vane, which measures

the direction of the wind (shown in Figure 2.4.3). The vane records data in the same

manner as the anemometer. The vane always faces the wind like an anchored boat will

naturally do when sitting in the water.

Figure 2.4.3. A wind vane.

These two instruments should be placed at a potential site for at least one year to collect

data. They need to be located on a high tower (20 m - 50 m) above the ground and in a

place free from building and tree turbulence. Accurate measurement of velocity is crucial

since wind power is very sensitive to velocity. It is a function of the cube of the velocity,

meaning a 15-mph velocity can harness 3.4 times the power of a 10-mph measurement.

2.5 Siting of wind turbines and wind farms

Even with all the climatic data available, it is very difficult to pick out exact plots of land

suitable for development of large-scale wind farms. The average wind speed at one

location may be drastically different than a spot only a few hundred feet away. This

microclimate phenomenon is primarily the result of surface roughness factors.

Vegetation, usually trees, is the most common source of turbulence that can slow winds

and make a site inadequate. Since wind power is very sensitive to changes in velocity,

even the slightest interference will seriously reduce the potential power generation of

location. The best areas to investigate for development are high ridge tops with minimal

vegetation. The ideal scenario is a ridge normal to the prevailing wind direction, so many

31

turbines can be placed directly in the path of the wind without interfering with each other.

Another attractive site can come in the form of a large flat field, which are characteristic

of many farms in the Midwest. These areas typically have only a few trees and,

therefore, experience very little turbulence from obstructions.

It is usually more favorable that a site under consideration be away from major cities to

prevent objections from those concerned about potential negative impacts. Places far

from populated areas are also more attractive because their lease prices will most likely

be less expensive. Open farmland is a common site for wind farms for several reasons.

Farms often have acres of wide-open space with minimal roughness from short crops,

which will not significantly affect the winds at hub height. Leasing farmland is also a

good choice because only small portions of land are needed while grazing or crop

growing can easily continue alongside the turbines.

Buildings are another large source of turbulence. As a general rule, any spot within 20

times the height of a building is subject to interference by that structure (AWEA, 2002).

Figure 2.5.1 illustrates this point.

Figure 2.5.1. The airflow around a building structure (AWEA, 2002).

Another issue associated with siting a wind farm is its proximity to the nearest electricity

grid connection. It may cost several thousands of dollars for each kilometer the power

has to be transported before it can connect to the main transmission line. This also favors

32

flat farmland since mountainous terrain, although in many cases more windy, may

complicate construction of towers and placement of wires to grid connection.

Finally, and most importantly, a site cannot be developed until sufficient data have been

collected to evaluate the wind resource available. The standard industry practice is to

collect at least one year of wind data before being convinced that the site is viable.

Average wind speeds of 10 to 12 mph are needed to support a large farm (Lyons, 1998).

Anemometers are generally placed at several heights to establish a quality wind profile at

a location. It is also worth mentioning that even with one year of data it is hard to be sure

of a site’s potential. There really is no such thing as a “typical meteorological year”, so

the data recorded is sure to vary from what is to be expected over the lifetime

performance of the turbine.

2.6 Introduction to WAsP

The most important factor in determining the feasibility of a wind turbine at any location

is the availability of a wind resource. The erection of a wind turbine is a significant

investment, so proper care must be taken in studying the resource. For our study of the

James Madison University campus, we chose to the software package, Wind Atlas

Analysis and Application Program Wind (WAsP) developed by the Wind Energy

Department at the Risø National Laboratory in Denmark,�to model the wind flow in the

surrounding area. WAsP uses the local topography and observed wind data collected at a

meteorological station to generate a predicted wind climate for a given area. Once a

predicted wind climate is available, WAsP allows for the development of a resource grid

and calculation of an annual energy output. A resource grid shows the ideal location for

turbine or wind farm sites within the studied area. An annual energy output or AEO is

the total energy delivered by a wind turbine at a specific location over the course of a

year. This information is vital to an economic analysis and ultimately the decision of

whether or not to build a wind turbine on the campus of JMU.

33

Chapter 3: State Based Anemometer Loan Program

3.1 History of the program

The State-Based Anemometer Loan Program (SBALP) was established in early 2001 by

the Department of Energy's (DOE) Wind Powering America initiative managed by the

Philadelphia Regional Office (PRO). This program loaned 10 anemometers (wind

measuring devices) to James Madison University (JMU). SBALP evolved from the

Native American Anemometer Loan Program. This program allows tribes to borrow

anemometers and use them to estimate their wind energy resource. Because the

anemometers are borrowed, there is no cost to the tribes to conduct measurement of their

wind energy resource. Successful state-based programs are also being administered in

Utah and North Dakota and other state programs are being established throughout the

country.

3.2 Program overview

James Madison University (JMU) is administering the Virginia State Based Anemometer

Loan Program (SBALP) with support from a grant from the Virginia Department of

Mines, Minerals and Energy (DMME) and assistance from the National Renewable

Energy Laboratory (NREL). SBALP was established by the U.S. Department of Energy's

(DOE) Wind Powering America initiative out of the Philadelphia Regional Office (PRO).

The program is designed to spur the development and use of wind power in the state of

Virginia by helping potential wind turbine users to characterize their wind resource.

JMU has received ten wind-measuring anemometers through SBALP. Six of these

anemometers have been loaned to land owners, providing them the opportunity to

estimate their wind energy resource while providing wind data to Virginia and NREL.

The last four will be loaned out in the next few months. JMU is responsible for receiving

applications from interested parties to the program, selecting which sites are most

appropriate for the wind energy study, distribution and installation of the anemometers,

34

and gathering and processing the data. NREL and DMME will work with JMU as

partners on the project.

Applications are accepted in a rolling acceptance format. Each time a tower becomes

available to be loaned, all the applications are reviewed and the best site is chosen based

on the discretion of JMU.

3.3 Implementation and administration of the program

The Virginia State-Based Anemometer Loan Program (SBALP) was started out of the

Philadelphia Regional Office (PRO) of the Department of Energy (DOE). PRO issued a

request for proposal (RFP) to all of the states within the region. Dr. Jonathan Miles

submitted a proposal for James Madison University to be awarded the program.

The approved proposal awarded JMU the program. In order to do so the structure for the

program had to be laid. The following sections describe in detail all of the materials that

were created to carry out the program.

The general procedure for the program is to first generate interest through press releases,

press articles, and word of mouth. The next step is to educate everybody with interest

whether through the Internet, mailings, or phone calls. If the person is still interested

then they would review the loan agreement and contract, and then they would fill out an

application. That application would remain on file for the duration of the program.

If an application is approved then the applicant is notified and asked to sign a contract.

JMU will then schedule an installation date with the applicant. The materials would be

taken to the borrowers site and installed. A typical installation requires 5 hours of time

and at least 4 people. After the towers are up for a year’s period, JMU will disassemble

the tower and move it to a different location. A report of all of the data collected is then

generated and given to the borrower so they can take the next step towards a turbine

purchase if the data is suitable.

35

3.4 Equipment

The equipment loaned to JMU by the PRO are ten identical NRG-NOW System 20 meter

Wind Explorer Tall Tower Kits with ten NRG-NOW System 20 meter Wind Explorer

Logger Kit and ten NRG-NOW System 20 meter Wind Explorer Sensor kits. One of

each item is loaned to a borrower. The Tall Tower Kit consists of ten 2-meter sections of

tower that are placed on top of one another to form the 20-meter tower. The tower is

pictured here:

Figure 3.1. Schematic of 20m tower.

At 6 meters, 12 meters, and 18 meters the tower is supported by a set of guy wires. These

guy wires extend 42 feet from the base of the tower and are attached to anchors. The

typical anchors used for these tower are screw in anchors.

36

The 20 meter Wind Explorer sensor kit consists of an anemometer and a wind vane. The

anemometer, pictured below, is the wind-measuring device positioned at the top of the

20-meter tower. The cups are spun by the wind. The speed of the anemometer is sent

down the length of the tower to the logging device.

Figure 3.2. Cup anemometer.

The wind vane is a directional measurement device that is place on top of the 20-meter

tower with the anemometer. Knowing the direction the wind is coming from and how

frequently is important to optimally site a wind turbine.

Figure 3.3. Wind vane.

37

The 20-meter Wind Explorer Logger Kit is shown below.

Figure 3.4. Wind Explorer Logger Kit.

The logger is attached to the bottom of the tower head height to make it easy to read the

output and to exchange the batteries and data plug. A signal is received from the

anemometer and wind vane via wires. This signal is then translated into readable data

that is collected on the data plug.

Figure 3.5. Data plug.

The data plug records all of the information the Wind Explorer processes. The Wind

Explorer averages the data it receives over ten-minute intervals and this information is

then recorded on to the data plug.

38

3.5 Application (See appendix A for example)

Based on the siting techniques described in Chapter 2 we came up with an application

that demonstrates the information needed to assess the potential for a good wind energy

resource for a given site. The general information, name, address, email, and phone

number with the best time to call are necessary for contact information. The address is

also useful to locate the site on a topographical map to do further site assessment. The

elevation of the site is important because in general, as indicated in Chapter 2, the wind

speed increases as the height increases. The number of acres of the site helps again in

siting to determine if there is enough land area to support a 20-meter tower. The next few

questions are designed to show the reason for a landowner wanting to borrow a tower.

The application asks whether or not an applicant would use a turbine at a grid connected

or non-grid connected site. The type of electricity load question is to get an idea of the

size of a project that might be considered. The distinction between pumping water and

electricity usage is made because DMME is in the process of creating incentive programs

for using wind energy to pump water.

It is important that we know the landowners intended use of wind energy because if they

are interested in pumping water then we would like to make them aware of the incentives

available. The next question gives the applicant an opportunity to elaborate on the

purpose/goal of their wind energy project. The applicant is then asked to describe their

site in greater detail. It is important to know the soil type so that the proper anchors can

be used in the installation of the tower. The amount of open space available again is

important based on the siting criteria listed in Chapter 2. The applicant is then asked to

describe the elevation. As stated before elevation is important; however, if the site has a

high elevation but is in a deep valley then the greater elevation wind speeds cannot be

taken advantage. Any obstacles that might influence wind flow are also considered. The

20-towers are extremely sensitive to obstructions so it is important to be sure that the site

has enough open space to support the tower.

39

Finally, there is a list of items for the applicant to consider and provide with the

application. A proof of ownership is necessary to be sure they own the property that they

intend to use for a tower. A hand drawn sketch or illustration of the property to further

demonstrate obstacles is requested. A topographic map is requested to show the

elevation of the site relative to the surrounding landscape. If energy export is the intent

of the applicant than we ask that they do some research on the transmission possibilities.

Legal and zoning issues often surface in the erection of a tower and we place the

responsibility of researching these issues on the applicant. The bottom of the application

requires the applicants signature to ensure that the loan agreement has been read and is

agreed to, and the terms associated with the application are accepted.

3.6 Loan Agreement (See appendix B for example)

The Loan Agreement was designed to explain the procedure of the program and the

participation required from a landowner and becomes a binding agreement when the

landowner signs the contract. This is necessary so that the landowner knows their

responsibilities in the program and is held responsible for fulfilling these responsibilities.

The first paragraph provides a brief background of the program and indicates the major

participants. The second paragraph describes the eligibility requirements to be fulfilled

by a borrower. A proof of ownership is necessary to be sure that the applicant owns the

land where the tower would be installed. It is also necessary to make sure an applicant

knows this is a Virginia program and applicants outside of Virginia will not be accepted.

Next the borrowing process indicates the general timeline for the program. The

application and approval section is the binding part of the agreement to ensure that the

borrower will replace the batteries and data plugs as indicated. Also, this section asks the

borrower to consider what they will do with the wind speed data that is collected at the

site. The loan agreement section indicates that a contract must be signed in order to

participate in the program. The duration of the loan agreement is 13 months to account

time for installation, collecting one year of data, disassembly and return to JMU. The

equipment is given a brief description in the next section. The anemometer installation

section explains that JMU will carry out the installation of the tower and that if the tower

40

would need to be lowered for any reason that the borrower will contact JMU. The wind

data will be processed by JMU. This data will be collected by data plugs at the logger

and the borrower will be responsible for mailing the data plugs to JMU. Because the

program is government funded all data collected at a site will be public domain and

anybody has the ability to gain access to it upon request. Upon completion of the

program JMU will use all of the data collected to generate a report for the site. The

anemometer will be disassembled by JMU upon completion of the data collection.

Finally the last section describes the roles and responsibilities of JMU and indicates a

contact for any questions, comments or suggestion.

3.7 Contract (See appendix C for example)

The content of the contract was generated based on the contract between JMU and PRO.

It is necessary to pass the liability of the equipment on to the landowner so that they are

responsible while they are in possession of the equipment. JMU cannot assume liability

for the equipment while it is located on somebody else’s personal property.

3.8 Website

The website address is http://www.jmu.edu/sbalp. This site was created to ease the

number of mailings that would need to be made and to reduce the number of phone calls

necessary to explain the program. The website also provides a means for people to learn

about the program at their convenience. The website consists of a home page with

pictures of the first install, a program page that describes the program, a history page that

indicates the roots of the program, an equipment page to describe the equipment loaned,

an application page to provide the loan agreement and application, a contract page to

provide the contract required to be signed prior to acceptance, a frequently asked

questions page to provide more information that is not included elsewhere, a contact

information page to give people another option to receive more information, and a links

page that has links to the project administrators and major stakeholders, as well as links

to where more information can be received.

41

3.9 Press Release (See appendix D for example)

In order to spread the word about the program a press release was developed and sent out

to all of the newspapers in the state. This press release was written to attract the average

landowner to the potential for measuring the wind energy resource at their site at no cost.

The press release is very simple and can be read and understood by most average

newspaper readers. This was done to attract the most amount of people throughout the

state and to generate interest in wind energy in the state. Also, the number of responses

is useful to determine the demand for wind energy in the state.

3.10 Benefits to borrower

The major benefit to a landowner in participating in this program is the ability to study

the wind speeds at their site over a year’s period. As indicated in Chapter 2, at least a

year of wind speed measurements are needed in order to get an accurate representation of

the wind energy resource at a site. After this year’s data set is complete the borrower can

compare their data with data from a nearby airport or other wind speed collection facility.

This helps the borrower determine if the data set they have is a typical meteorological

year. If the landowner is interested in small wind energy systems, then they can take this

data set to a turbine manufacturer and they can say the output they desire from a turbine.

The manufacturer can then take that data and compare it to their power curves, as

described in Chapter 2, and decide which turbine purchase would be right for the

landowner. The payback can then be determined by doing an economic analysis on the

turbine.

By participating in this program all of the guessing of wind speeds and potential output is

virtually eliminated. A landowner can purchase a turbine and feel comfortable in the

output they expect.

42

If the data set indicates an exceptional wind energy resource for the landowner’s site and

their desire is to have a utility sized wind farm on their property, the landowner can take

that data to a developer. The developer can then investigate the site further and

determine if the site can be developed in to a wind farm. If this were to happen the

landowner would receive money in the form of a landowner’s lease so that the developer

can put wind turbines on their property.

3.11 Benefits to the state, DOE, and JMU

The program has a number of benefits to other stakeholders outside the individual

landowner. The data is useful to the state, DOE, other landowners, and many others in

the development of wind resource maps of Virginia. Modeling techniques can be used to

map the wind resource throughout the state, but without physical data taken at sites, these

models cannot be validated.

The major benefit to the program is to promote the use of wind energy and in turn the

increased use of wind energy has many benefits. Wind energy requires no use of natural

resources and causes no pollution, so for a state that is heavily reliant on coal for

electricity the increased use of wind energy would benefit in the reduction of pollution.

Wind energy can also be used to pump water to livestock as opposed to the livestock

going down into rivers and streams for water and in the process polluting these

waterways. This pollution reduction would be very beneficial in the Chesapeake Bay

watershed. Another benefit of the increased use of wind energy in Virginia is for

economic development. Many of the areas of high potential for wind energy

development are economically depressed and the income generated through the use of

wind energy would benefit Virginia’s economy.

3.12 Results

The press release, press articles written about tower installations, and word of mouth

have helped generate over 200 inquiries in the program. Out of these 200 inquiries

43

approximately 70 applications have been received. These results indicate a great interest

in wind energy in Virginia. SBALP is only the first step in promoting the use of wind in

the state and the great response we have gotten shows that more can be done in the state

and the public will support it.

44

Chapter 4: Borrowers

Upon completion of the written thesis, six of the SBALP’s anemometers have been

erected throughout the state of Virginia. Two anemometers on the east coast, two in

southwestern Virginia, one in Rockingham County, and one in Loudon County. The

following figure gives a numbered map of the locations of the sites in order of

installation.

Figure 4.1. Locations of erected anemometers.

The following is a list of all borrowers and background information on the site and any

additional information including lessons learned.

4.1 Robert Preston (Installed 10/18/01)

4.1.1 The site

Robert Preston was the first landowner to receive a tower through SBALP. Rob is a

Virginia Tech mechanical engineering graduate. His now works on his Harrisonburg,

1

2

3 6

5

4

1. Robert Preston

2. Jaye Baldwin

3. Tim Altizer

4. Dick Stokes

5. Henry’s Ponit

6. Northampton County Landfill

45

VA poultry farm in Rockingham County. His qualifications for the tower were more

based on his advanced interest in the program than the quality of his site. Rob contacted

our group long before the structure for the program had been laid and a press release

released. Because of his close proximity to JMU his site was appealing to use as a test

site for our first tower installation.

4.1.2 Installation

The installation on Rob Preston’s farm occurred on Thursday, October 18, 2001 and the

installation team consisted of Dr. Miles, Ken Jurman, Adam Jones, Greg Allen, Bryan

Franey, Dave Strong, Matt Heck, Tyson Utt, and Rob Preston. Dr. Miles used his truck

to transport the equipment to the site. The installation lasted approximately 6 hours and

many things were learned. One issue that came up was using the screw in anchor to raise

the tower. This anchor is positioned so that it can be attached to the gin pole and the

tower can be lifted using a winch. As we began to raise the tower, it was noticed that the

anchor was starting to come up out of the ground. As a result we elected to attach the

winch to Dr. Miles’ truck.

4.1.3 Lessons learned

It was found that after the first installation we were in need of the following pieces of

equipment:

• global positioning system/Compass • hard hats • 2 crowbars • 2 measuring tapes • open ended wrench set for base plate • wooden stake • hammer • support blocks for tower raising • extra straps to secure wires around tower • small screw set for Wind Explorer • level

46

We also needed to determine how to handle the exchange of the data plugs and batteries.

One flaw was later discovered in Rob’s installation. The anchors are not meant to be

installed like tent posts, but rather they are supposed to be in line with the guy wires.

Due to the firmness of the soil, the flaw did not need to be corrected but was made note

of for later installations. This was the reason that the anchor began to come out of the

ground as the tower was being raised.

4.1.4 Data

Monthly Wind Speed Averages

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

10.5

11

October November December January February

Month

Win

d S

peed

(mph

)

Figure 4.1.1. Preston monthly average wind speeds.

4.1.5 Conclusions

Rob’s wind speed data indicates that he is in a Class II wind speed region. Robs

intentions are to use the wind speed at his property to provide electricity to his home. A

Class 2 region indicates that his property is only feasible for the use of small wind, and

even this use would result in a long payback. A further economic analysis would need to

be done to determine the size of the system that should be purchased and the payback that

would be obtained through such a purchase.

47

4.2 Jaye Baldwin (Installed 12/12/01)

4.2.1 The site

Jaye Baldwin was the second landowner to receive a tower through SBALP. Jaye is

currently a Christmas tree farmer in Whitetop, VA. Whitetop is located in Grayson

County in the southwest portion of Virginia. The area is mountainous with elevations on

the order of 4,000 feet.

4.2.2 Installation

The installation on Jaye Baldwin’s farm occurred on Wednesday, December 12, 2001 and

the installation team consisted of Greg Allen, Bryan Franey, Dave Strong, and Matt

Heck. Greg Allen used his jeep to transport the equipment to the site. Upon arrival at

Jaye’s home, we were taken to the site areas that Jaye had picked out. The location we

selected was on the ridge top of his property in an area that he had been clearing with his

bulldozer. The tree cover had been cleared to allow for enough space for the installation.

The soil was very loosely packed due to the heavy activity in the area. This was a large

concern as we screwed in the anchors. We could bring them a little bit out of the ground

simply by pulling on the anchors. In order to determine if the soil was strong enough to

hold the anchors for a year, we used the screw in anchor to lift the tower. After the tower

was successfully lifted and suspended for a while, it was determined that although there

is a good bit of give in the anchors, they would remain in the ground. The bulldozer was

then attached to the winch and anchor just to be safe. This was the only stumbling block

in Jaye’s installation.

4.2.3 Lessons Learned

It was found that after the second installation we were in need of the following pieces of

equipment:

• global positioning system • compass

48

Determining the soil type before going to a site is very important. We need to have

different types of anchors with us when we go to a site so that we can be prepared if we

find an area of very loose soil like Jaye’s place.

4.2.4 Data


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

December January February March

Month

Win

d S

peed

(mph

)

Figure 4.1.1. Baldwin monthly average wind speeds.

4.2.5 Conclusions

Jaye’s wind speed data indicates that he is in a Class III wind speed region. Jaye’s

intentions are to utilize the wind speed to its fullest at his site. The wind speeds obtained

at his site indicate that further study needs to be done to determine if the site would be

appropriate for wind farm development. If Jaye were to utilize the wind speed for small

wind energy use than a further economic analysis would need to be done to determine the

size of the system that should be purchased and the payback that would be obtained

49

through such a purchase. The high wind speeds indicate that a small wind energy system

would be very economical in his location.

4.3 Tim Altizer (Installed 1/21/01)

4.3.1 The site

Tim Altizer’s farm is in Tazewell County just West of Tazewell, VA at an elevation of

approximately 2300 ft.. The anemometer is on the top of a ridge, in the grazing area for

his beef cattle.

4.3.2 Installation

The installation took place at the farm on Monday, January 21, 2002. Tim Altizer’s farm

was approximately five hours from the campus at James Madison University, and we

arrived at the site at approximately 12:30 PM. Having never visited the site before, we

needed to choose the location of the anemometer. We initially considered one of two

ridges on his property. The two ridges were at approximately the same elevation, with

low tree cover to the East of both ridges. Because of the steep slope and rock soil on the

first ridge, we decided to place the anemometer on the second, southernmost ridge. The

wind speeds were very high that day, and ridge was slightly sloped. We used much

caution while raising the tower, as the wind was blowing perpendicular to the direction of

lifting. The installation took a total of about four hours.


We learned the importance of a very good description of the land prior to visiting the site.

We had a good idea of the soil type, elevation, proximity to trees, and orientation of the

land prior to going to the site. It is essential that all of these criteria, however, are met

with confidence.

50

We also learned an appreciation for the impact the weather can have on an installation.

The wind created many safety concerns, and we spent a substantial amount of time

ensuring a safe installation.

We also directly addressed the problem of cattle on the land. At the time of the

installation, the cattle were not grazing in the anemometer location. However, the land is

used part of the year for grazing. In March, 2002, Mr. Altizer erected an electric fence

around the entire footprint of the tower, preventing cattle from rubbing up against the

guywires.

4.3.4 Data

(data not yet available)

4.3.5 Conclusions

Although difficult to draw many conclusions with the limited data, Mr. Altizer’s property

would be a good site for a small wind system. Mr. Altizer would like to look into a wind

system for pumping water from the stream to a higher elevation for his cattle, and data

shows adequate wind for that purpose.

4.4 Dick Stokes (Installed 2/10/02)

4.4.1 The site

Dick Stokes lives in Bluemont, Virginia on a 60-acre property in Loudon County. We

received many applications in Loudon County, and chose Mr. Stokes’ location for a

variety of reasons. The anemometer was placed in an open field southwest of his house.

The elevation was approximately 200 ft.

51

4.4.2 Installation

The installation took place on Saturday, February 9, 2002. We arrived at Mr. Stokes’

location at approximately11:00 am. The installation team included David Strong, Greg

Allen, Dodge Perry, Tyson Utt, and Adam Jones. Despite a small amount of rain, the

installation was successful. We had slight problems with the stability of the base plate

while initially lifting the tower, and a small problem with the hand winch. The ground

was suitable for the anchors, and the weather posed no problems. By this installation, we

had worked through many of the common installation problems. Overall, this installation

was successful.


There were not many lessons learned at Mr. Stokes’ property. We worked efficiently,

and the land and equipment posed minimal problems throughout the day. We could have

come with more information for the landowner regarding small wind systems,

instrumentation, and any other useful information.

4.4.4 Data

(data not yet available)

4.4.5 Conclusions

Data from Mr. Stokes’ property alone will not give us a good idea of the available wind

in Loudon County. Coupled with data from nearby, we will be able to assess the amount

of wind in the area.

52

4.5 Henry’s Point (Installed 2/24/02)

4.5.1 The site

The Henry’s Point location was the fifth location to receive a tower through SBALP.

Rick Hall is the landowner at the site in Accomac County located on the eastern shore of

the Delmarva Peninsula. Rick Hall is a farmer growing crops such as tomatoes and

cucumbers. Dr. Miles, Ken Jurman, and Matt Heck had previously visited the site to

determine the feasibility of an install at the site.

4.5.2 Installation

The installation at the Henry’s Point location occurred on Saturday, February 24, 2002

and Sunday February 25, 2002 and the installation team consisted of Adam Jones, Matt

Heck, Bunty Dharamsi and Peter Salmon. Because of the proximity to marshland and the

soil type at the site a different set of break-out anchors were used. On Saturday, the team,

with the assistance of Rick and his machinery, measured out the positioning of the

anchors and dug the holes. Rick used an auger on a piece of his machinery. These holes

were dug to about 4 feet in depth. On Sunday the team placed the anchors in the holes

and used a metal rod to cause the anchor to flatten itself which allows for its strong

holding power. The remainder of the installation went smoothly.


It is important to secure the far set of guy wires as the tower gets close to the upright

position. Due to a sudden change in wind speed the tower would have blown over had

we not previously secured the anchors.

4.5.4 Data

(Data not yet available)

53

4.5.5 Conclusions

The wind speeds expected at the Henry’s Point site are expected to be great enough to

support the development of a wind farm. This prediction is based on the study done by

Willow Thomas in the Appendix and the knowledge that the wind speeds on the shore are

generally high.

4.6 Northampton County Landfill (Installed 2/24/02)

4.6.1 The site

The Northampton County landfill was the sixth location to receive a tower through

SBALP. Tim Hayes, the director for the Northampton County Department of Sustainable

Development, is in charge of the site. The site is located on the eastern shore of the

Delmarva Peninsula on top of a landfill that towers above the surrounding land. Dr.

Miles, Ken Jurman, and Matt Heck had previously visited the site to determine the

feasibility of an install on the landfill.

4.6.2 Installation

The installation at the Northampton County landfill occurred on Sunday, February 24,

2002 and the installation team consisted of Greg Allen, Tyson Utt, and Dodge Perry. Dr.

Miles used his truck to transport the equipment to the site. The landfill had been covered

with a layer of topsoil and the section of the landfill being used for the tower was not

expected to have any activity in the next year. The anchor installation was the most

difficult part of the landfill install. Because of the tough soil it was very difficult to screw

the anchors in. As a result the landfill manager had to use large blocks of cement to

secure one of the anchors.

54


Again, determining the soil type before going to a site is very important. It would have

been helpful to have arrowhead type anchors for the install and not to use the screw in

anchors.

4.6.4 Data

(Data not yet available)

4.6.5 Conclusions

The wind speeds expected at the Northampton County landfill site are expected to be

great enough to support the development of a wind farm. ProVENTO has already

expressed interest in developing the site in conjunction with their Cape Charles site.

55

Chapter 5: Feasibility study of east JMU campus

5.1 Justification for wind power on the east campus of James Madison

University

Considering the local wind resource, geographic features, and educational curriculum of

James Madison University, the placement of a small-scale wind turbine on campus seems

a natural step for the university, provided that the data collected during the next two years

demonstrates an appreciable wind resource. A wind turbine on the James Madison

University campus would yield many benefits that cannot be easily evaluated through an

economical analysis. Placement of a wind turbine on campus would be useful for

educating students, building a stronger reputation for JMU and its College of Integrated

Science and Technology (CISAT), and promoting renewable energy locally and across

Virginia. Although methods and tools exist to place a monetary value on such non-

market benefits, including market valuation and contingent valuation, these values are

highly debatable and would require a much more in-depth study. Some people would

argue that such a monetary analysis is essential for sound policy, but in this case we will

merely address these benefits without a specific financial objective in mind.

Before considering wind power as a source of electricity, one must be sure that a

sufficient resource exists. Casual observation by people familiar with the Harrisonburg

area suggests that the east (CISAT) campus of JMU is prone to a considerable wind

resource. Although Harrisonburg is located in a valley, the east campus is elevated well

above the surroundings. The existing buildings and future construction plans on this

campus present sizable obstacles that we must consider when evaluating wind potential.

However, we do not believe that these will be significant barriers given our chosen

location. We have installed a 30-meter meteorological tower in an elevated, relatively

open area to measure the wind speeds and directions on campus. The data that the

anemometer accumulates over the next few years will allow JMU to make a reasonable

prediction on whether a small-scale turbine would be operationally feasible.

56

Providing a “quality, comprehensive” education is a primary objective of James Madison

University (JMU, 1998). In particular, the College of Integrated Science and Technology

emphasizes a hands-on, real-world type experience in its curriculum. An excerpt from

the CISAT mission of states that “The college seeks and creates new models through

innovative curriculum development and uses the advancing knowledge of science and

ever-evolving technologies to integrate the changes in a rapidly shifting world into the

professional lives of faculty and students” (JMU, 1998, p.208). Wind power applies a

technology that is growing in the real world and has potential to expand further in coming

decades. Therefore, it would be beneficial for students to gain a better understanding of

this technology.

A wind turbine would provide an opportunity for students to learn first-hand how a wind

turbine operates. Students could observe how the turbine functions on a daily basis and

study technical aspects of its operation, including the generation and transmission of

electricity. Such a learning experience would be especially advantageous for students

and faculty in the environment and energy sectors of the Integrated Science and

Technology major. It could also benefit other courses outside of CISAT including

general science, physics, and potentially statistics courses. Table 5.1.1 displays a few of

these courses and how they may use a turbine to their educational advantage.

57

Table 5.1.1. Potential courses benefiting from turbine Course Use for turbine

ISAT 301:Instrumentation and Measurement in Energy

Serves as a working model to demonstrate the performance of turbines, also could be useful for data collection and analysis

ISAT 413: Options for Energy Efficiency

Study technical parts of system and energy losses and efficiency

ISAT 410: Sustainable Energy Development

Observe daily operation, features, mechanics, and performance output during wind portion of course

ISAT 320, 321: Fundamentals of Environmental Science and Technology

Demonstrates a model of non-polluting energy production, students could calculate the amount of pollution prevented from its performance

ISAT 491, 492, 493: Senior Thesis Continue performance study and economic analyses; potentially begin work towards more turbines on JMU campus

GSCI 101: Physics, Chemistry and the Human Experience

Students can learn the physics of how the turbine converts wind power into electricity

GSCI 115E: Earth Systems, Cycles and the Human Imapct

Study of windy areas, consideration of reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the turbine

GSCI 104: Scientific Perspectives Special study of renewable energy could feature the newly installed photovoltaic panels as well as the turbine

PHYS 215: Energy and the Environment

Study energy conversions, thermodynamic restrictions, and environmental impact

For all of these courses a turbine would provide a working example for students to learn

by, helping to balance a learning process that is often abstract. Supplementing textbook

material with real-life experience and modern technology adds to the learning experience

of students. The College of Integrated Science and Technology prides itself on providing

students with a unique learning experience, and the installation of a wind turbine would

surely have tremendous educational benefits.

Similarly, a wind turbine would serve as a very visible symbol of the university’s

determination to provide students with the best education possible and to promote

renewable energy in an environmentally conscious world. In conjunction with the solar

panels in front of the ISAT building, a wind turbine would help to boost the reputation of

JMU on a national level as a technologically advanced university. This prominence

would help the expansion of the university by helping attract the best and brightest

58

students. The turbine would provide a lasting image to prospective students who see it in

person or in recruitment brochures. It projects a strong image of a university that cares

for the environment and the education of its students.

Finally, we should not overlook the impact that such a project would make to promote

renewable energy in local and state communities. A turbine on the JMU campus would

complement the Student-Based Anemometer Loan Program in helping change the public

perception of wind power. The construction of the turbine would help raise awareness of

the potential of wind energy and renewable energy in general across Virginia. It may

encourage Virginians to consider wind energy as an electricity option in the future. The

university could use this as an opportunity to teach the general public about renewable

sources. As more people become educated about the increasing feasibility of renewable

energy, utilization of renewable resources will continue to grow.

5.2 Selection of meteorological tower site

In selecting the tower site on campus, we considered all of the criteria that we established

for a satisfactory anemometer site for off-campus locations, as well as additional site

requirements determined by campus administration. As will be discussed later, campus

administrators had major concerns over the aesthetics of the tower in certain locations.

This process occurred over a six-month period until we established a final location

suiting everyone’s needs. We believe that the chosen site will provide good wind data

and will be a good location for a wind turbine in the future.

Originally, the following six sites were considered on the JMU East campus for the

placement of the tower:

A. Corner of faculty parking lot (D2) at top of hill B. Slightly to the right and below student commuter lot (C10) C. Grassy area between Carrier Dr. and gravel driveway D. Behind new extension of resident parking lot (R3) E. Hilltop to right of University Blvd. entrance to campus F. Adjacent to softball field near modular building

59

Figure 5.1.1. Sites considered and final location of tower.

The JMU administration, faculty, students, facilities management all visited and

evaluated each site based on several criteria. At the beginning of the process, we had

planned on erecting an NRG 20-meter meteorological tower to support a wind vane, wind

anemometer, and a data collection system. Thus, in collaboration with Dr. Jonathan

Miles, our team rated the sites based on the following criteria:

a. Viability of wind data to be collected b. Remoteness from pedestrian and vehicular traffic c. Visual impact d. Ease of installation

In addition, Mr. Ken Jurman of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy

and Mr. Tony Jiminez of the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy

Laboratories visited each site and provided additional input.

N ♦A

♦B

♦C

♦D

♦E ♦F

G

60

Our first preference was to place the tower on top of the hill to the right of the University

Blvd. entrance to campus (Site E). Dr. Miles, Mr. Jurman and Mr. Jiminez all agreed that

many features of this location make it the most desirable for gathering wind data. Its

relatively high elevation and remoteness from buildings and obstructions would likely

yield viable wind data. Secondly, this location sees little pedestrian traffic that could

potentially interfere with the structure. However, since a tower at this site would be

visible from traffic entering and exiting the East campus, JMU administrators believed

that the tower would have a negative impact on aesthetics. This small portion of campus

has been set aside to be preserved in a more natural condition.

Our second preference was the grassy area between Carrier Dr. and gravel driveway (Site

C). This location would be fairly good and offers a large footprint for installation, but

has several drawbacks as well. Turbulence from trees to the east of the site would

interfere with the data to an unknown extent, and future construction planned to the west

would also have some impact. Pedestrian traffic more often passes near this location than

it does at site E.

All student and expert parties deemed the area adjacent to the softball field as acceptable,

but not desirable. Though surrounded by ample space, we believe that trees to the north

and south would greatly interfere with wind data. These obstructions, its relatively low

elevation and its remote location would not likely provide data representative of the east

campus.

Finally, we considered sites A, B, and D to be impractical, as there is not sufficient space

for safe erection of the NRG 20-meter tower. The guy wires require a 42-foot distance

on each of four sides to safely install the towers. The manufacturer recommends against

installation at these sites.

Based on our recommendations and the preferences of JMU administration in regard to

aesthetics and safety, another proposal arose. The administration offered to provide

partial funding for a freestanding, 30-meter meteorological lattice tower to be placed at

61

site B. The tower would measure wind speed and direction, as well as other climactic

variables that ISAT students and faculty could benefit from. Such a tower would not

require support wires and JMU administrators deemed it more aesthetically pleasing. In

addition, this eliminates the possibility of students tripping with the guy wires or

interfering with them. In the absence of support wires, the area slightly to the right and

below the student commuter lot (site B) provides a sufficient footprint to construct this

tower.

However, facilities management considered the site too close to the grounds for future

construction. A track is planned on being built directly to the east of this site. Dr. Miles,

in collaboration with JMU administrators and facilities management, determined the area

directly behind student commuter lot C10 (site G in Figure 5.3.1) to be the best overall

location.

This location has a relatively high elevation with few major obstructions in its

surroundings. The Health and Human Services building to the southwest of the site is a

large obstruction, but it should not cause a great disruption to wind flow due to its

distance from the site and the direction of prevailing winds. Thus, data gathered at this

location should serve as representative of the east campus. It will also not hinder any

vegetation growth or wildlife, being in a already developed area. Although this location

directly abuts a parking lot, this does not infringe upon any safety or proximity

specifications. There is enough open area to place a freestanding tower, where a tower

with support wires would not have been feasible. Site G fits all of our criteria for a

desirable location, and we expect that it will yield reliable, valid wind data in this

position.

62

Chapter 6: Wind modeling with WAsP

In the absence of sufficient wind data on a site, as is the case in our project, the most

effective way to determine the annual energy output is to develop a computer model of

the surrounding region. For our project, we chose to use WAsP (Wind Atlas Analysis

and Application Program), which has earned a reputation as an industry standard for wind

resource assessment and the siting of wind turbines and wind farms (WAsP 7.0 Help

Facility). WAsP was released in 1987 and has been employed by over 800 users in more

than 70 countries worldwide (www.wasp.dk). WAsP consists of five main “calculation

blocks”: raw data analysis, generation of wind atlas data, wind climate estimation,

estimation of wind power potential, and calculation of wind farm production. This

chapter will focus on the functions of WAsP and how they were applied to our feasibility

study.

6.1 WAsP hierarchy

WAsP, itself, is a relatively simple program to run. Obtaining the materials used to

create a wind model, however, can be difficult and/or tedious. WAsP is organized in a

hierarchical fashion. When WAsP is first opened, the user is presented with an empty

white window. To begin working, a new workspace must be created which becomes the

‘root’ of the entire program. All projects within a WAsP model branch off from a

common workspace. After creating a workspace, the next step is to add all the elements

of the site being investigated. These items are referred to as ‘hierarchy members’ or

‘members’ for short.

6.1.1 WAsP project

The first member of the workspace root is the ‘project.’ The project contains all the

elements for a given situation within a particular site. To add a project to the workspace,

the user must right-click on the workspace icon, first select ‘Insert New’, and then select

63

‘Project.’ For example, in Figure 6.1.1, the CISAT workspace contains two different

projects for testing separate conditions.

Figure 6.1.1. The upper left corner of the screen shot shows the WAsP hierarchy.

6.2 Site description

James Madison University is located in midwestern Virginia in the city of Harrisonburg.

The area is known as the Shenandoah Valley as the Blue Ridge Mountains can be seen to

both the east and the west. The Shenandoah Valley is characterized by rolling hills,

scattered forests, and large agricultural areas. Several small towns and suburban areas

also fill the landscape. Looking at a wind resource map of Virginia, one would not

expect the Harrisonburg area to be an ideal place to do a wind feasibility study.

However, the east portion of JMU campus, separated from the west by Route 81, is

located at a high point in the valley at an elevation of 1490 ft. In addition to the relatively

high elevation, there is strong anecdotal evidence of the winds present on the east side of

campus offered by students who walk around the area each day.

A wind resource map can offer an idea of the nature of winds that might be expected at a

given area; however, the behavior of the wind at a specific site is directly affected by the

64

characteristics of the landscape. In an ideal wind resource study, the site would be flat,

smooth and there would be no buildings, hills, or mountains within hundreds of miles.

Unfortunately, windy areas almost never fit this ideal scenario. As a result,

characteristics such as orography, surface roughness, and shelter effects (obstacles) all

must be taken into consideration when conducting a wind study. These characteristics

are referred to collectively as the topography of a site. In order for WAsP to calculate the

effects of topography on the wind at a given site, it is necessary to systematically describe

the orography, surface roughness, and shelter effects of the surroundings in a digital

form.

6.2.1 Orography

Orography refers to the terrain and elevation of an area. Orographic features, including

hills, valleys, cliffs, escarpments, and ridges, all influence the flow of wind at a site.

Wind turbines are commonly placed on hilltops or mountain ridges to allow as wide a

view of the prevailing wind direction as possible. In addition, hills may experience wind

speeds that are higher than in the surrounding areas. This is because the wind becomes

compressed on the windy side of the hill and once the air reaches the ridge, it can expand

again as it soars down into the low-pressure area on the lee side of the hill. The hill effect

is one of the reasons why we wanted to investigate the higher elevations on the east side

of the JMU campus.

The speed of the wind can also be influenced by the tunnel effect. The tunnel effect

occurs when air becomes compressed on the windy side of mountains or buildings and its

speed increases considerably between the obstacles to the wind. An example of the

tunnel effect occurs when you use an ordinary bicycle pump. When you push down on

the bicycle pump, the air that comes out the nozzle is considerably faster than the rate at

which you push the pump. The reason is that the nozzle is much narrower than the

cylinder in the pump creating a tunnel effect.

65

The most accurate way to describe orography in WAsP is to obtain a digital elevation

model (DEM) of the area. Digital elevation models are compiled by the USGS and are

designed to digitally describe terrain elevations located at regularly spaced horizontal

intervals. We obtained a DEM for the Harrisonburg quadrangle through MapMart.com.

We chose high-detail, 7.5-minute maps with 10-meter resolution in order to achieve the

highest degree of orographic accuracy. Once we had obtained the DEM, we converted it

into a WAsP compatible MAP file. Using Golden Software’s Surfer 7.0, we first

imported the DEM file and then converted it into a DXF file. The final step was to use

WAsP’s DXF-to-MAP converter to produce working map of the orography. Our

orographic map of the Harrisonburg quadrangle is shown in Figure 6.2.1.

Figure 6.2.1. Orographic map of Harrisonburg, Virginia quadrangle.

6.2.2 Surface roughness

High above the ground, the surface of the earth has very little impact on the wind. At

lower altitudes, however, wind speeds are directly affected by the friction of the wind

moving against the earth’s surface. The magnitude of friction is dependent on the

roughness of the surface. Surface roughness is defined by roughness classes or roughness

66

lengths. The classes range from Class 5 surfaces such as large cities and forests, which

slow down the wind considerably, to Class 0 surfaces, such as areas of water that have

little effect on the speed of the wind. In general, the more pronounced the roughness of

the earth’s surface, the more the wind will be slowed down and the higher the

corresponding roughness class.

Table 6.2.1. Surface characteristics and their associated roughness classes and lengths. Class Roughness Length (m) Surface Characteristic

5 1.0 City

5 0.8 Forest

4 0.5 Suburbs

3 0.3 Shelter belts

3 0.2 Many trees and/or bushes

2 0.1 Farmland with closed

appearance

2 0.05 Farmland with open

appearance

1 0.03 Farmland with very few

buildings/trees

1 0.02 Airport areas with buildings

and trees 1 0.01 Airport runway areas 1 0.008 Mown grass 1 0.005 Bare soil 1 0.001 Snow surfaces 1 0.0003 Sand surfaces 0 0.0001 Water areas

The roughness length is the value that is utilized by WAsP in its roughness algorithm.

The roughness length is defined as the height above the ground where the wind speed is

theoretically zero. For instance, in a city, the wind speed theoretically goes to zero at a

height of one meter above ground level.

67

The table below is provided by the Danish Wind Energy Industry and shows the effect of

surface roughness on wind speed as you approach the earth’s surface from above.

Table 6.2.2. Shows the wind speed in m/s with increased height and roughness length. Roughness

Class 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 3 4

Roughness

Length (m) 0.0002 0.0024 0.03 0.055 0.1 0.4 1.6

100 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

90 9.92 9.9 9.87 9.86 9.85 9.81 9.75

80 9.83 9.79 9.72 9.7 9.68 9.6 9.46

70 9.73 9.66 9.56 9.52 9.48 9.35 9.14

60 9.61 9.52 9.37 9.32 9.26 9.07 8.76

50 9.47 9.35 9.15 9.08 9 8.74 8.32

40 9.3 9.14 8.87 8.78 8.67 8.34 7.78

30 9.08 8.87 8.52 8.4 8.26 7.82 7.09

20 8.77 8.49 8.02 7.86 7.67 7.09 6.11

Hei

ght (

m)

10 8.25 7.84 7.16 6.93 6.67 5.83 4.43

Notice that the wind speed declines as you approach ground level. In addition, one can

see that the wind speed declines more rapidly with increased surface roughness.

68

The roughness of the Harrisonburg quadrangle generally fits into one of four

classifications: suburban/village, forested, water, or open agricultural area. A

topographic map of the quadrangle is shown in Figure 6.2.2. . The different colors

indicate areas of varying roughness. Green is defined as forested areas, blue is water,

gray is suburban, and the remaining area is open agricultural land.

Figure 6.2.2. Topographic map of Harrisonburg and surrounding quadrangles.

In order to define roughness in WAsP, we first obtained a digital topographic map in a

bitmap form such as the one shown in Figure 6.2.2. Then using MapEdit, we opened the

orographic map (Figure 6.2) of the Harrisonburg quadrangle that was previously created

by the digital elevation model. Once the orographic map was open, we loaded the

topographic bitmap of the Harrisonburg quadrangle on top as a second layer.

69

The MapEdit window showing the orographic map and topographic bitmap is shown in

Figure 6.2.3.

Figure 6.2.3. MapEdit window shows the height contours and topographic bitmap.

To ensure that our topographic bitmap and orographic map were properly georeferenced,

we had to mark three “fixpoints”. The fixpoints should be placed in three of the four

corners of the quadrangle. After marking and setting the coordinates of the fixpoints,

WAsP will automatically effectuate the bitmap and the orographic map.

The next step was to digitize the different roughness areas by manually creating

roughness change lines. Roughness-change lines represent a change in surface roughness

from one area to another. Roughness information consists of two roughnesses: a right

hand and a left-hand value with reference to the direction of tracing. To begin digitizing

we first selected Enable Digitizing from the Digitize menu. We then left-clicked on a

line that separated two roughness areas. WAsP then prompts you to specify the

roughness length value on either side of the line. Once the roughness values were

specified, we continued to trace around the common roughness area until we reached the

point from which we started. To automatically enclose the roughness area, we right-

70

clicked on our last point and selected Finish with Close. This process was repeated until

all the roughness areas within the quadrangle were digitized. A map of the orography

and surface roughness is shown in Figure 6.2.4.

Figure 6.2.4. MapEdit window showing fully digitized roughness areas and orography.

An alternative method to define roughness in WAsP is through the use of Didger

(produced by Golden Software). Didger is capable of digitizing topographic maps as

well as hand tracings made on the topographic map. Once digitized, Didger allows the

user to input roughness lengths for the defined roughness areas. A Didger file can be

saved and imported directly into WAsP.

6.2.3 Shelter effects

In addition to the orography and the surface roughness of a site, surrounding obstacles

can have a negative impact on the flow of wind. Obstacles such as buildings, trees, large

rocks, etc. can all significantly decrease wind speed and cause turbulence.

71

Notice, in Figure 6.2.5, that the turbulence zone caused by an obstacle can extend well

above and beyond the obstacle itself.

Figure 6.2.5. Illustration showing the possible effects of an obstacle on wind flow.

Also, note that the turbulence is more apparent on the backside of the obstacle than on the

front side. As a result, it is best to place wind turbines in an open area free of obstacles

that may cause turbulent winds. If an obstacle is unavoidable then it is best to place the

turbine upwind.

The decrease in wind speed behind an obstacle is directly related to its porosity. Porosity

is defined as the ratio of the area of the obstacles 'pores' to its total area facing the wind.

In other words, it is a measure of the openness of an obstacle. Porosity values general

range from solids obstacles such as buildings, which have a value of zero, to trees, which

generally have a value of 0.5. Trees are unusual because their porosity may change from

season to season. A tree during the winter with no leaves may have a porosity value of

greater than 0.5 and have a value of less than 0.5 during the summer when it has all its

leaves. The decrease in wind speed is a result of both the height and the length of an

obstacle. The closer you are to the obstacle and the closer to the ground you are, the

greater the effect.

In order for WAsP to calculate the effects of obstacles on the wind at our site, we had to

define seven characteristics of each obstacle: the angle to the first corner in degrees (�1),

the distance to the first corner in meters (R1), the angle to the second corner in degrees

(�2), the distance to the second corner in meters (R2), the height in meters (h), the depth

in meters (d), and the porosity (P). On the JMU campus, we identified a number of

72

obstacles that would affect the flow of wind to the turbine site including the Integrated

Science and Technology (ISAT) building, the Health and Human Services (HHS)

building, Potomac Hall, Chesapeake Hall, the College Center, and the newly completed

Leeolou Alumni Center. The ISAT and HHS buildings were combined into one obstacle,

as were the College Center and the Alumni Center since they are both connected

buildings.

Figure 6.2.6. Example of the parameters used by WAsP to calculate the shelter effects of an obstacle.

In order to determine the seven obstacle characteristics of our four obstacles, a two-step

process was used. First, we obtained blueprints of each of the buildings in question from

the JMU Office of Facilities Management. From the blueprints we were able to

determine the height, depth, and the length of each wall for each building. The second

part of the process was to find the exact global position of the turbine site and the

position of two corners for each building using a Global Positioning System (GPS). The

global position allowed us to calculate the distance (�1 and �2) and the angle of each

corner with respect to the turbine site.

N

W

S

R1

R2 α2

α1

d

R1: Radial distance to first corner

R2: Radial distance to second corner

d: depth of obstacle

α1: Angle from North to first corner

73

The following figure shows obstacle diagram for the JMU east campus as described in

WAsP.

Figure 6.2.7. Obstacle diagram of buildings on east campus of JMU.

6.3 Wind atlas

A wind atlas is one of the essential components in calculating the annual energy output of

a turbine at a given site. The atlas describes the behavior of the wind at a given site by

analyzing an observed wind climate and incorporating local topographic characteristics.

In order to calculate a wind atlas, WAsP must have a meteorological station as one of its

“children” and the met station must have an observed wind climate as one of its

“children.” Optionally, the meteorological station may include an obstacle list, a

roughness description, and a list of user corrections.

6.3.1 Meteorological station

A meteorological station is an essential element in the calculation of a wind atlas. A

meteorological station has no data of its own, except its coordinates within the

topographic map. The coordinates are specified in Universal Transversal Mercator

74

(UTM) units. To find the UTM coordinates we used a GPS to establish the position of

the meteorological station in Keezletown, Virginia in units of latitude and longitude. We

then converted these coordinates to UTM coordinates and entered them into WAsP. The

following figure shows the locations of both the meteorological tower and turbine site.

The meteorological tower is located on the right and the proposed turbine is located to the

left.

Figure 6.3.1. Map of Harrisonburg quadrangle showing locations of both the meteorological tower and

the turbine site.

6.3.2 Observed wind climate

The observed wind climate (OWC) is a time-independent collection of wind data that are

used to calculate the wind atlas. The OWC is created from raw wind data, wind speed

and direction, collected from a meteorological station. The wind data used in our project

was collected from Keezletown, Virginia on Mr. Rob Preston’s farm described in Chapter

4. We chose to use the Keezletown data due to the lack of other data. The closest data

other than the Keezletown data was collected in Staunton, Virginia located approximately

75

25 miles away. The accuracy of WAsP’s predictions decreases with increased distance

between MET and proposed turbine sites so it was desired to locate data that were as

close together as possible.

Unfortunately, the data collected at Mr. Preston’s farm included only the months of

October through March. Generally, the winter months are windier than the summer

months and needed a full year’s worth of data to produce a valid OWC. To do so, we

first analyzed data collected in Staunton, Virginia as well as in Charlottesville, Virginia

to establish an annual trend.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Jan

March May Ju

lySep

tNov Ja

n

March May Ju

lySep

tNov

Charlottesville Staunton Keezletown

Figure 6.3.2. Shows a two-year trend for wind speed in both Charlottesville and Staunton, Virginia and the four months of data collected in Keezletown, Virginia.

Wind speeds usually vary sinusoidally throughout the year, with the peak typically in the

winter or spring and the trough in the summer or fall. By plotting an annual trend of

wind speeds, we were able to establish a peak month and a low month. From the graph

above, we chose April as the peak month and August as the low month.

76

Using this information we sinusoidally extrapolated the Keezletown data for a full year.


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Jan

Feb

March

AprilMay

June

July

AugSep

tOct

NovDec

Win

d S

peed

(m/s

)

Charlottesville Staunton Keezletown 1 Keezletown 2

Figure 6.3.3. Predicted monthly averages for Keezletown and measured averages for Charlottesville and Staunton.

To account for possible error in the extrapolation we created two raw data sets. The

annual trends for the extrapolated data sets are the red and light blue lines in Figure 6.3.3.

The data set associated with the red line attempts to mirror the trend seen in

Charlottesville and Staunton by sinusoidally distributing unknown points between April

and August and then between August and October. The data set associated with the blue

line takes a more conservative approach. The peak in April is reduced and the low in

August is increased. The values in between these months are then adjusted accordingly.

For both data sets, the months of that were already known, October through March, were

not modified during the extrapolation process.

We determined the direction distribution over the full year by creating wind roses of both

the Staunton and Charlottesville data. The wind roses indicated that wind direction at the

two locations does not vary seasonally. As a result, we used the same wind direction

measured during the four months of Keezletown data to produce a wind rose.

77

After creating a full year’s wind data, we used the WAsP’s OWC Wizard to convert the

raw file into a working OWC file. The OWC for the Mr. Preston’s farm is shown below.

Figure 6.3.4. Observed wind climate in Keezletown, Virginia.

The graphic on the left of Figure 6.3.4 shows a wind rose derived from the Keezletown

data. A wind rose indicates the percent of the time that the wind is blowing from a

particular direction. In this case, the predominant winds are from the southwest. A wind

rose is important because it helps you to site a wind turbine with as few upwind obstacles

as possible and as smooth a terrain as possible in that direction.

The graph on the right in Figure 6.3.4 shows the frequency of wind speeds. A wind

speed distribution aids in calculating the wind density and ultimately the energy output of

a turbine. In addition, the wind resource distribution helps to optimally match a turbine

with a resource. In this case, the wind blows at a velocity between 4 and 5 meters per

second 15% of the time and between 5 and 6 meters per second 14.4% of the time.

6.4 Resource grid

78

A resource grid is a rectangular set of points for which summary predicted wind climate

data are calculated. The points are separated into evenly spaced grids allowing you to see

a pattern of wind climate or wind resources for a given area. A wind resource grid is

important when siting numerous turbines across a wide area. Since our study was limited

to a single turbine location, a resource grid was not utilized. A view of the resource grid

for the Harrisonburg quadrangle is shown in Figure 6.4.1.

Figure 6.4.1. Resource grid of wind speed in Harrisonburg quadrangle. Low wind speed areas are shown

in light blue and higher wind speed areas are shown in dark blue.

6.5 Turbine site

Turbine sites are used to calculate a predicted wind climate for a specific location. Like

with a meteorological site, turbine sites contain no data; only its UTM coordinates within

the map and a list of its children. A turbine site calculates a predicted wind climate by

taking the wind atlas and applying it to a specific location, making adjustments for the

topography of the area. The site itself has an x and a y location in the map (UTM

coordinates and two z locations: the elevation of the site and the height above the ground

level for which the prediction is generated - WAsP Help Facility 7.0).

79

In order to calculate a predicted wind climate for a given turbine location, it is necessary

to specify an associated wind atlas and map in which the turbine site is located. WAsP

can also incorporate a power curve, describing turbine generating characteristics, a list of

surrounding obstacles, a local surface roughness description, or a set of user corrections

into its calculation of a predicted wind climate. In the absence of a power curve, WAsP

predicts a wind speed and a power density of the location. When a power curve is

included, WAsP additionally calculates an annual energy output.

When studying the feasibility of a wind farm, it is important to compare the power curves

of several different models of turbines to find the ideal turbine for a given area. For our

project, we were not interested in comparing turbines. Instead, we were interested in

proving that there is a wind resource available on the JMU campus that warrants further

study. As a result, we used only the power curve that applies to the Bergey Excel, rated

at 10-kW for our model. The power curve was obtained from Bergey Windpower in a

tabular format that shows the expected power output (kW) versus the wind speed (m/s).

Figure 6.5.1. Power curve of Bergey ExcelS wind turbine.

The power curve and a list of obstacles near the turbine location were applied to create a

predicted wind climate for the turbine site at JMU. A summary of the predicted wind

climate is shown in Figure 6.5.2.

80

Mean speed: 5.15 ms-1 Power density: 162.1 Wm-2 AEO: 11.480 MWh

Figure 6.5.2. Predicted wind climate window for turbine site.

81

Chapter 7: Impact of wind power on east campus

7.1 Technical issues

There are a number of technical issues that must be addressed in regard to wind turbines.

Such issues range from regulations that apply to the construction of any structure to

issues of how electricity generated will be transmitted. Here, we will present an

overview of the considerations we have encountered and that will be faced in future

attempts to install a turbine.

7.1.1 Regulations: federal, state, and university

In most cases, various regulations apply to the erection of any large structure, most

notably zoning codes and height restrictions. For our 30-meter meteorological tower, we

had to assure compliance with all applicable federal, state, and James Madison University

regulations before proceeding with the process. We must also consider such regulations

if the university proceeds with the addition of a wind turbine. Since small-scale turbine

use is relatively new, there are not many regulations in existence that are specific to wind

turbines, and the main concerns are height and aesthetics.

First, it is necessary to understand the restrictions on the location of a tower, whether

equipped with a turbine or not. According to Mr. Mike Bergey, President and CEO of

Bergey Windpower Co., there are no regulations that apply to small-scale wind turbines

concerning proximity to roads, parking lots, or other such structures. Small-scale wind

turbines are very stable and safe, so these issues are not problems in siting.

There are not many relevant federal regulations involved with the construction of a single

small-scale turbine. However, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations

deserve careful consideration with the erection of any tower. Tall structures may be in

the flight paths of different aeronautical vehicles, and their visibility to the pilot is the key

issue. Aviation safety considerations played a primary part in our decision to equip our

82

tower with a lighting device. According to Part 20 of the Aeronautical Information

Manual, Official Guide to Basic Flight Information and ATC Procedures, AOPA Air

Safety Foundation:

“Any temporary or permanent object, including all appurtenances, that exceeds an overall height of 200 feet (61 m) above ground level (AGL) or exceeds any obstruction standard contained in FAR Part 77, Subpart C, should normally be marked and/or lighted.”

The 30-meter turbine is not subject to these conditions; however, the FAA may

recommend marking and/or lighting that does not exceed 200 feet “because of its

particular location.” Under a strict interpretation of these guidelines, it does not appear

that the FAA requires a marking and/or lighting device for the 30-meter tower.

Although an aeronautical light beacon may not be required for the tower, there were other

conditions that made our decision to equip the tower with lights logical. Mr. Alan

MacNutt, JMU Director of Public Safety, recommended a lighting device based on the

following considerations:

1. The east campus is in the descending approach/descending departure path for the medevac helicopters utilizing the Rockingham Memorial Hospital helipad.

2. The Virginia State Police (VSP) routinely conducts speed enforcement

flights up and down Interstate 81 and, in some cases, may fly below minimums.

3. The U.S. Army and VSP aviation division aircraft occasionally

arrive/depart the JMU campus transporting dignitaries and JMU ROTC cadets, and the tower may be in their arrival/departure path.

4. Private individuals occasionally use the JMU campus as a landing zone.

All of these circumstances support the conclusion that there is moderate air traffic over

the JMU campus. Since the east campus of James Madison University is the highest part

of the campus terrain, a safety standard would dictate that the tower be marked and/or

83

lighted. For these reasons, we concluded that a beacon would be desirable for the tower’s

particular location

The given criteria led us to select the LED2x series of obstruction light from Honeywell

Airport Systems. This model qualifies as FAA type L-810 Low Intensity Steady Burning

Light and can be operated as a steady burn or flashing light (Honeywell, 2000). This

lighting device upholds the standards of the International Civil Aviation Organization and

the Federal Communications Commission as well as those of the FAA. The LED2x

Series is weather/corrosion resistant, lasts up to five times longer than incandescent,

utilizes 90 percent less power than an equivalent incandescent, and comes with a five-

year warranty.

We did not run into any state regulations that apply to the tower, and we have not

discovered any regulations or restrictions that will apply specifically to the addition of a

small-scale wind turbine on campus. Counties and cities often have their own guidelines

for such structures. Height restrictions for Rockingham County would have required

formal approval for construction at another location. However, being on a university

campus, these guidelines did not serve as major obstacles in the permitting for the

construction of the tower, nor should they affect the addition of a turbine.

The primary impediment from the university perspective was the appearance of the

tower. When proceeding with the addition of a turbine, this will likely also be the major

issue. Again, there were no specific restrictions on how close the tower could be placed

to vehicular and pedestrian traffic. There are no further restrictions of this nature that

would hinder the addition of a wind turbine. James Madison University administration is

very concerned with the aesthetics of the campus, and compromise in regard to location

and type of tower was needed to satisfy their stipulations. We were not involved in any

permitting processes, as the university handled all of these additional requirements. All

that our group had to do was obtain permission from the university.

84

7.1.2 Grid connection

One of the main issues associated with system design is connection to the utility power

grid from the turbine tower. This is important with respect to both the performance and

the construction costs associated with the system. Regardless of installation costs, it is

worth mentioning that this turbine will at least partially pay for itself through net

metering. In reference to the actual connection site, the Festival was determined to be

our closest opportunity according to Mr. David Mars of JMU Facilities Management.

Since much of the distance between the tower and the connection is covered by asphalt,

Mr. Mars indicated that the project would be “extremely expensive” and that burying the

cable would cost “many thousands of dollars.” These comments may basically deem

connection at the Festival economically unfeasible. There are currently other methods of

connection under investigation. One alternative plan recommended by Mr. Mars is to use

the power to charge batteries in an off-grid system that could power a digital display

mounted on the tower that would serve to promote wind power. This would most

certainly reduce any installation costs considerably.

Bergey does provide nominal installation costs associated with the wiring of a 10-kW

system. Table 7.1.1 shows these fees.

Table 7.1.1. Bergey’s estimated costs of wiring and installing Excel 10-kW system. Item Cost

Energy Meter $250

Four-Gauge Wire (250ft) $203

Wire Conduit (250ft) $125

Trencher (4hrs) $300

Misc. materials $375

Wiring labor (5hrs) $250

Electrician (4hrs) $400

Total $1,903

85

The losses incurred from wiring that connects the turbine to the inverter are usually

below 5 percent, and are often below 2 percent depending on the length of the wire.

7.1.3 Maintenance

Regular inspection of the wind turbine is not required, but is certainly recommended.

The Bergey machines are claimed to “not require any regular maintenance” (Bergey,

2002). That statement, however, may be biased to help increase sales. On the other

hand, Mr. Mick Sagrillo of Michigan Wind and Sun (1993) reminds customers that they

should complete at least one tower-top inspection each year. Mr. Sagrillo states that two

inspections would be the ideal plan with one occurring at the start of winter and one at

the start of the thunderstorm season. The problems that should be considered during

these preventive maintenance checkups include loose bolts, cracked welds, fluid leaks,

and blades covered with bugs. It is also important not to ignore any strange sounds that

may be produced by a damaged system. Turbine generation output should be monitored

as well for any suspicious drops in production that could indicate a problem.

7.2 Environmental impact

One of the major advantages to wind power technology is that it has essentially no

harmful emissions; however, there are environmental concerns that relate to wind

turbines. Some of these problems relate more to large-scale turbines or are more

apparent in particular regions. We have examined these issues in relation to the tower’s

specific location at JMU and with the given size of the turbine. Further research into

these issues is warranted, although it does not appear that these concerns will be realized

with the placement of a single 10-kW turbine on the east campus.

86

7.2.1 Avian mortality

We do not believe that avian mortality will be a problem with the installation of a single,

30-meter wind turbine on the JMU campus; however, turbine-related bird death/injury is

a critical issue that must not be overlooked. Most of the studies completed on avian

collisions and electrocution relate to large-scale wind plants, which consist of many

turbines located together. It is at these wind farms where death potentially becomes a

serious issue.

All tall structures are targets for bird collisions, but the blade movement on a turbine is

unique. This movement further increases the potential of collision by birds in flight

(NWCC, 1998). The problem first became prominent in the 1980s when it was

discovered that transmission lines and wind turbines were killing federally protected

Golden Eagles and Red-tailed Hawks in California (NWCC, 1997). It did not take long

for environmental activists to take note and protest the Altamont Pass wind project.

Similar occurrences in Spain and northern Europe sparked controversy among

conservationist groups in the U.S. and Europe. Their concerns reflect their care for

individual birds and the negative effects on local populations, particularly of sensitive

species.

Further studies on avian mortality are necessary to determine how important certain

factors may be in turbine-related casualties. Thus far, location and species type appear to

be significant variables involved with avian deaths. Raptors are by far the leading bird

species killed in wind turbine collisions for a variety of reasons. Wind energy

development in California’s Altamont Pass, a high-raptor activity area, has caused a

notable number of bird losses. However, studies in wind sites with low raptor activity in

California reveal few to no avian casualties (AWEA, 2001).

Various studies to date have discovered that wind turbine-related deaths involve both

migratory and resident birds (NWCC, 1998). Migratory birds generally fly at an

elevation well above the blade level in most places, so deaths during migratory flight

87

should be rare (NWCC, 1998). In addition, investigations have shown that birds will

alter their flight pattern to avoid wind turbines when the structure is visible (NWCC,

1998). Again, it is important to emphasize that research to this point has been very

preliminary, since we have only recently shed light on the problem. In addition, wind

plants across the U.S. are still relatively sparse, so it is difficult to develop a

comprehensive study.

The National Wind Coordinating Committee has reviewed various reports estimating

from 10,000 to 40,000 wind turbine-related bird deaths per year (NWCC, 2001). Table

7.2.1 displays estimates of annual avian collision deaths in the U.S. from a variety of

structures.

Table 7.2.1 Avian Collision Mortality in the United States (NWCC, 2002). Source Annual Deaths

Vehicles 60 million – 80 million

Buildings and Windows 98 million – 980 million

Powerlines Tens of thousands – 174 million

Communication Towers 4 million – 50 million

Wind Generation Facilities 10,000 – 40,000

Even with the wide range in these estimates, it is clear that wind generation facilities

make up a relatively small number of collision deaths. It is also believed that all of these

estimates are biased high, since these studies were mostly conducted as a result of a

perceived risk (NWCC, 2001). Current calculations convey that wind turbine collisions

represent approximately 0.01 percent to 0.02 percent of annual avian collision deaths in

the U.S. (NWCC, 2001). These estimates convert into an average of 2.19 avian fatalities

per turbine in the United States, with an average of 1.83 yearly fatalities per turbine when

excluding California (NWCC, 2001).

It is important to understand that these numbers are relatively low, primarily because

these other structures greatly outnumber wind turbine facilities. The wind industry is still

growing and is in a development period. As infrastructure expands throughout the

88

nation, the avian mortality problem has the potential to become more serious. It does not

appear that there have been any notable disturbances of individual populations and, in

comparison with other structures, wind turbines seem to provide a relatively minor cause

of avian mortality (NWCC, 2001).

In Virginia, the fall migration period is the prime time for raptor watching. Thousands of

hawks move southward through the Blue Ridge and Appalachian Mountains between

August and December (Kirkpatrick 1997, p. 193). The beginning of the migration season

finds the Osprey, American Kestrel, Bald Eagle, and Broad-winged Hawk traveling

through Virginia’s mountains, with major flights underway by the second week of

September. October is the peak month for Sharp-shinned and Cooper’s Hawks, as well

as Merlins and Peregrine Falcons in much smaller numbers. Dozens and even hundreds

of sightings of these hawks can be expected on a daily basis from mountain lookout sites

(Kirkpatrick 1997, p. 193). The peak of the fall migration begins to close in November,

with the flights of Red-tailed and Red shouldered Hawks, Northern Goshawks, Rough-

legged Hawks, and Golden Eagles through the mountainous regions.

Sightings of many of these raptors are very rare and limited to a few weeks during the fall

migration period, since Virginia’s mountainous region does not experience as much in

the way of spring migration. Of the species mentioned, the Red-tailed Hawk is

considered the most common hawk in Rockingham County by most birders, as it is a

permanent resident of the area (Rockingham Bird Club 1998, p. 48). The American

Kestrel may be the county’s most common raptor and is easily found throughout the

county in all seasons. In addition, the Barred Owl, Great Horned Owl, and Turkey

Vulture are all raptors that are common in the area. While the Barred Owl resides more

commonly in the mountains near streams, rivers, and other water, the Great Horned Owl

can be found within the Harrisonburg city limits (Rockingham Bird Club 1998, p. 63).

It is also worth mentioning that of all the raptor species in the area, only the Bald Eagle is

on the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service threatened and endangered species list (USFWS

2001). Its status is currently listed as threatened, and in July of 1999 there was actually a

89

proposal for the species to be de-listed (USFWS 2001). The Bald Eagle is still rare in

Rockingham County, so the tower site on the JMU campus would infrequently

experience Bald Eagle flights.

Many of the migrant raptors are seen better from mountain lookout sites, as they fly at

high altitudes. Although James Madison’s east campus is higher than its immediate

surroundings, it is still located in a valley. There are few trees or other perching sites for

these birds around the tower, so they will probably not visit the site very often. In

addition, the tower is only 30 meters high, much smaller than large-scale turbines where

most of bird deaths have been observed. Raptors glide long distances high in the sky, so

we do not believe that the tower would be a factor for them often. The potential for

resident raptors to be affected by the turbine is present, but the lack of trees directly

surrounding the tower location makes it an unlikely site for raptors to nest.

In our estimation, the installation of a turbine on the east campus will not have any major

effects on migratory birds or on local bird populations. It is important to understand that

we would only be erecting a single, 10-kW turbine. With the lattice tower already in

place, the addition of a turbine would not alter the situation significantly. We do not

consider the 2.19 annual fatalities per turbine to be a significant number, since we expect

this figure to be even lower at our particular location due to migration patterns and the

distribution of local species. Most studies undertaken on this issue apply to large-scale

wind farms, so we do not believe the avian impact will be as severe in this case. Unless

further research proves otherwise, the concern for avian mortality should not be an

obstacle for wind power at JMU.

7.2.2 Noise issues

The issue of noise being a negative side effect of small turbines is more a myth than a

viable concern. The only noise produced by a Bergey Excel 10-kW turbine is known as

aerodynamic noise. These are sounds associated with the blades moving through the air

90

(Sagrillo, 1997). This noise increases as the blade velocity increases, so windier days

will result in a greater amount of noise pollution.

In order to properly understand how noisy a turbine is, one must understand the way

sound is measured. Noise is measured on a logarithmic scale with decibels (dB) as the

units. A source of noise is twice as powerful when it is three decibels higher than another

source. Also, most humans cannot detect the difference between two sounds unless there

is a 3-dB disparity between them.

A Bergey sound study shows that the noise generated by a Bergey Excel 10-kW turbine

is 54-55 dB at 300 feet from the hub in 25-mph winds and 53 dB at 500 feet. In

comparison, a car driving on the road generates 60 dB at a distance of 300 feet. A

highway creates 70 dB when measured 100 feet away. The sound level measured in 25-

mph winds is significantly higher than what would typically be experienced on the

CISAT campus, as is shown by the data collected in the area. Considering the location of

the proposed system, the 10-kW turbine will be almost unnoticeable. The commuter

parking lot beside which the tower resides is not only subject to noise from the large

volume of cars passing through campus, but also to noise produced by Interstate 81 that is

only a few hundred feet down the hill. More importantly, the tower is not so close to any

dormitory or academic building that it would be heard from indoors. This is an important

consideration for people trying to sleep at night, since the swishing sound of the blades

could possibly be annoying.

7.2.3 Wind Turbine Testing and Safety

Small wind turbines are now a proven technology, with over 150,000 installed across the

globe (AWEA 2002). As demand for wind turbines has increased over the years,

91

manufacturers have developed better designs, standards, and features for turbines.

Manufacturers have learned from past mistakes and have adjusted their products

accordingly. Turbines are designed very carefully and undergo rigorous testing before

being approved for sale. They are both more efficient and safer than previous designs.

Although there have been past instances of turbine failure, turbines are being built

stronger than ever to ensure maximum safety. Turbines manufactured by Bergey

Windpower have additional structural features that provide for further safety.

The American Wind Energy Association has worked with the American Society of

Mechanical Engineers (ASME), the American Society for Testing of Materials (ASTM),

the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the National Fire Protection

Association (NFPA), the American Gear Manufacturer's Association (AGMA), and the

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) in wind turbine standards

development (AWEA 2002). Standards subcommittees have also worked to make U.S.

standards compatible with IEC standards, so U.S. turbines can be sold in foreign markets.

Large wind turbines possess several safety devices, including vibration sensors,

overspeed protection systems, aerodynamic braking systems, and backup mechanical

braking systems, that assure safe operation of the system.

However, small systems have different inherent risk factors than larger systems, so safety

standards for wind turbines with swept areas less than 40 square meters have been

developed separately (AWEA 2002). Small systems are designed with unique control

methods and features. Imposing uniform standards to all turbines would likely result in

costly requirements that would not necessarily improve safety for smaller turbines

(AWEA 2002).

An accredited test laboratory, such as the NWTC, completes type testing on wind

turbines such as safety and function tests, dynamic behavior tests, duration tests for small

wind turbines, load measurements, blade tests, and other component tests (NWTC 1998).

92

For small wind systems the dynamic behavior test consists of observation of the system at

wind velocities of at least 10, 15, and 20 m/s (NWTC 1998). The purpose of this test is

to confirm that system natural frequencies do not interfere with operational frequencies.

According to IEC 61400-2, a duration test for small wind turbines may substitute for the

safety and function tests and the load measurements. This single test serves for small

turbines because only a few simplified calculations are required for design approval for

such systems. The duration test verifies functionality, structural integrity and material

degradation (deformations, cracks, corrosion), and quality of environmental coatings.

The turbine is subjected to a minimum number of hours of normal operation (250 h at

average wind speeds 10 m/s and 25 h at average wind speeds 15 m/s, where the turbine

should produce at least 5,000 h of energy production (NWTC 1998). In addition, new

shapes, sizes, and internal structure of blades as well as other components must be tested

in accordance with IEC code 61400-23.

The certification organization must then affirm that the turbine has fulfilled all essential

type tests carried out by NREL. Finally, a test report is issued describing the test

standards. For the NWTC, the test report includes (NWTC 1998):

� a description of the test turbine, including serial number, control system revision number and differences between it and the production turbine configuration

� a description of the test site � instrumentation � calibration procedures � test procedure � test conditions � data analysis procedure � uncertainty analysis � results

The testing of turbines is a very deliberate process. The tests are very comprehensive so

that maximum safety is ensured. As wind turbine technology has evolved, these

standards have been adjusted as well. Today the requirements placed on wind turbine

93

systems are thorough and turbines that comply with all of these standards should be

considered very safe.

There are a number of safety hazards associated with wind turbines, though many are

associated more with tall towers. The 30-m tower on JMU’s campus is not considered a

tall tower in comparison with other wind turbines. Tall towers are more prone to damage

from severe storms and lightning strikes, although there is protection built into the system

to prevent this. Turbines are designed to take this abuse from rugged conditions, and we

do not perceive that this will be a problem with a small wind turbine at the selected

location.

Towers have failed in the past, but these occurrences have been rare and far less frequent

than the falling of trees or utility poles (Gipe 1993, p. 270). With the continual

improvement on wind turbine technology, these incidences are becoming increasingly

rare. There are a large number of light towers and other tall structures, as well as a radio

tower already on the James Madison campus. The risk of a wind turbine next to a

parking lot would be comparable to these structures that are placed in moderate vehicular

and pedestrian traffic areas.

There may also be concern over the potential for the turbine to throw a blade from its

rotor. Once again, the components of a wind turbine are all rigorously tested, and this

scenario is highly unlikely. These incidences have happened in the past, but are

extremely rare. Fires have also broken out from wind turbines in the past, but this is

more of a concern for rural western locations during dry seasons. Bergey Windpower has

a proven track record, with approximately 700 Bergey Excel-S turbines installed. Since

its establishment in 1977, BWC has continued to work toward increased efficiency and

safety, altering turbine designs to ensure the best product possible.

Other less obvious safety hazards are sometimes associated with wind turbines. A strobe

effect may be caused when turbine blades chop the sunlight into a blinking light that may

cause dizziness, headaches, disorientation, and trigger seizures and migraines. However,

94

one turbine will not have as great an effect as an entire wind farm will, and no one on the

east campus would be subjected to this effect for any extended period of time. It may be

noticed from time to time, but would not likely have any consequences.

Some people have also had concerns that wind turbines in some locations may have a

negative impact on traffic safety. The turbine would be most visible to drivers on James

Madison’s east campus and, to a lesser extent, on Interstate 81. After students and

parents have seen the structure once, there will be no reason for travelers to slow down or

pause significantly. As people become accustomed to its existence, they will not feel the

need to slow down as they pass by it. In addition, the speed limit in this area on campus

is 25 mph, so drivers will have good control over their vehicles. Interstate 81 travelers

will be moving around 60 mph, but the stretch where the turbine would be visible to

passersby is a straight path. More than likely, drivers already glance at JMU’s features as

they drive by the campus in the absence of the tower. The wind turbine should not cause

any additional traffic disturbances in its location.

Bergey Windpower Co. strives to ensure its small wind systems are of the highest quality

for 30 years of operation. Currently, the oldest Bergey turbines have been in operation

for 19 years. With thousands of grid-connected systems installed since 1980, Bergey has

established itself as a reliable turbine manufacturer (Bergey, 2002). It is important for

turbines to have some form of overspeed protection in case a component malfunctions.

For example, if the generator disconnects from the grid or overheats, its braking function

will fail and the rotor will accelerate rapidly (Krohn, 2000). Some small systems may be

at risk if the electrical connection is lost. Unlike many other small wind turbines, Bergey

turbines operate safely from no load at all up to their maximum design wind speeds (120

mph) (Bergey 2002). Bergey systems have a passive overspeed protection system by

furling.

Bergey turbines are constructed with heavyweight material to help their reliability and

longevity. Bergey notes that evidence dating back to the 1920s shows that light-weight

turbines do not stand the test of time, while heavy-duty Jacobs turbines from the 1930s

95

can still be found functioning today (Bergey, 2002). Bergey also uses high-strength

blades, as they are the most worked part of the turbine. It developed fiberglass blades

that are twice the strength of steel, with a tensile strength greater than 100,000 psi

(Bergey, 2002). In addition, their turbines do not employ a mechanical brake, but shut

down with electrical braking when necessary.

There have been a number of instances where Bergey turbines have withstood severe

storms and even tornadoes, while buildings a few hundred meters away were completely

destroyed. Bergey Windpower notes that its corporate location in the heartland of

“Tornado Alley” (Norman, OK) has helped it develop more rugged products. They have

over 150 turbines in this area, which are all subjected to some of the worst weather

conditions imaginable (Bergey, 2002). Since turbines are designed for such strong

winds, turbine safety should certainly not be an issue with the installation of a Bergey

turbine on the JMU campus.

7.2.4 Emission reduction impact

The most attractive characteristic of wind power is that it creates no pollution. Other

generation techniques involve emission of particulates, greenhouse gases, nitrogen oxides

(NOx) and sulfur oxides (SOx). Nuclear reactors create thermal pollution of water bodies

and nuclear waste that must be stored somewhere safe. If the United States ever decides

to implement the Kyoto Protocol reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, wind farms may

be a vital source of power that could replace coal combustion. As part of the ISAT

curriculum, environment students learn about pollution control technologies and the

impact pollution has on the environment. A wind turbine on campus would serve as a

symbol to those on the interstate that JMU is environmentally conscience. The turbine

would perfectly complement the photovoltaic panels being installed on the hill in front of

the ISAT/CS building. Environment students could study the emission reduction based

on the amount of power produced by the turbine when compared to traditional generation

sources. For a 30-year life cycle of a Bergey Excel, the power produced is expected to

displace 1.2 tons of pollutants and 250 tons of greenhouse gases (Bergey.com).

96

7.2.5 Other considerations

Thus far, we have covered most of the common concerns that arise in regard to wind

turbines. There are a few other considerations that are still worth addressing. People

sometimes worry that a new wind turbine will interfere with their radio and/or television

reception. However, turbines today, including the Bergey Excel-S, use materials other

than metal for blades, including wood, plastic, and fiberglass. Only a few of the 25,000

wind turbines installed in the U.S. and Europe have had any effect on communications,

and reception was weak anyways in these cases (Gipe 1993). In fact, many small-scale

wind turbines double as communications towers. Interference of these signals would not

be a problem for a wind turbine on the James Madison campus.

Most people are still very unfamiliar with wind turbines and their characteristics. People

in any community may fear the change that a wind turbine would bring. Paul Gipe points

out that wind machines are as uncommon today as utility lines were 100 years ago, but

now people have grown to accept transmission lines as part of the everyday landscape

(Gipe 1993). A single small-scale wind turbine on campus would not bring about any

major changes for JMU or the Harrisonburg community. All aspects of a wind turbine,

whether it be noise, appearance, or other concerns, would blend into the JMU atmosphere

in time.

7.3 Public perception

Public perception of wind turbines is one barrier that has successfully slowed or blocked

wind farm development in the past. A fairly significant number of people object to wind

projects in their area, but, eventually, many find their worries were exaggerated. The vast

majority of people who originally object discover that even large-scale wind turbines do

not ruin the surrounding landscape. With a 30-meter tower in place already, we do not

believe that the general public will find the addition of a turbine objectionable on a visual

basis.

97

7.3.1 General public and JMU administration concerns

As previously mentioned, one of the JMU administration’s major concerns in regard to

the placement of the tower was its visual impact. They worried that the tall structure may

be detrimental to the James Madison’s scenic campus. Wind turbines are very visible

structures and will affect a landscape’s appearance in some way. Certainly students and

faculty alike should also be concerned with any structure that may be detrimental to the

campus’s beautiful environment. However, we believe that based on the tower’s

location, other structures in the area, and past studies on visual impact, the tower and

turbine will not have strong negative affects on campus aesthetics.

The setting of wind turbines is one factor that determines whether they generate

complaints about visual impact (NWCC, 1997). Our tower’s location is a compromise

between all parties involved in the siting decision. In addition, JMU helped pay for the

tower so that we could afford a freestanding, lattice tower, which will not be as

objectionable as a tower with guy wires. The campus administration approved the

current location because it felt that it would not present a strong negative impact with

respect to campus aesthetics.

The tower is adjacent to a large parking lot, so the surrounding land has already been

developed. There are smaller parking light towers in the area and other taller structures

in the extended region. JMU has a radio tower on its campus as well as tall lighting

devices for various athletic facilities. The lights on the soccer and lacrosse fields just to

the south of the MET tower stand tall enough that the FAA required a lighting beacon be

placed on top of the towers. People have come to accept these structures as part of the

surroundings. Given a brief adjustment period, a turbine will not stand apart from its

encompassing area, especially since the tower will have been in place for at least two

years. We expect that there will be few vehement complaints in regard to its visual

impact.

98

In addition, due to the tower’s current location, a turbine would not be very visible from

the west campus of JMU. It would be perceptible only to JMU visitors when travelling to

the east campus, where much of the land is already developed or being planned for

development. The ISAT/CS and HHS buildings would still effectively catch the eyes of

most people. The turbine would also be visible to travelers of Interstate 81 and to people

in the north of its location, since the land slopes downward in that direction. However,

all of the JMU campus that these people see from this distance is its development. They

do not enjoy a view of green grass and flowers that JMU students, faculty, and visitors

witness. Therefore, a turbine should not affect these people as it would those closer to

the structure. We believe that a turbine’s visibility would actually generate more interest

and excitement for such observers than it would complaints.

Past studies on wind turbine aesthetics have shown that they do not create the negative

visual impact that some expect. For example, the Scottish Executive conducted a survey

of residents within 20 kilometers of four different large wind farms in Scotland to gain a

better understanding of public acceptance of wind farms. Results show that 29 percent of

the respondents within 5 km of the farm were worried that the landscape would be

spoiled; however, after construction of the wind farm, 6 percent of respondents indicated

that this actually was a problem (Dudleston 2000, pp. 14-15). Of the people that

perceived aesthetics to be a problem, only a small percent realized these worries.

It is also important to understand that this turbine would be placed on the existing MET

tower, so the aesthetics would not change much. We were only interested in erecting a

single, 30-m tower, where most of the perceived problems come from more numerous

and taller towers being placed in rural areas. If students made an attempt to educate the

JMU and Harrisonburg communities on the turbine’s purpose before constructing it, we

would expect to hear even fewer objections. Providing residents with the understanding

that the turbine is producing clean energy and educating students will lead to a more

positive overall perception of the turbine.

99

7.3.2 Photomontages of turbine on JMU campus

One of our goals was to create a photomontage to provide interested parties with a visual

image of what a small-scale wind turbine would look like on the JMU campus.

Originally, we took pictures with a digital camera from a variety locations on and around

campus where the turbine would be visible. We used Adobe Photoshop to place a turbine

image into the picture of the site. Due to the great distances between the picture location

and the tower site, the turbine image appeared very small in the photomontages. After

taking several more pictures, we created two more photomontages and settled on two to

present.

We first took several pictures of the tower site from a variety of locations on the east

campus and on Interstate 81. At each location we recorded the global coordinates and

elevation for scaling purposes. We used the latitude and longitude values and adjusted

for elevation differences of each picture location to determine its distance from the tower

site. We also took three pictures of the back of the HHS building from three different

distances to provide a scaling reference. By using the ruler in Adobe Photoshop, we

measured the height of the corner of the HHS building in the picture. We calculated the

distances from each picture location to the building using the same methods as before.

We plotted these three distances versus the heights of the building on the computer screen

in Microsoft Excel. This allowed us to fit a function yielding what the height on the

computer screen should be for our photomontages.

100

Figure 7.3.1 shows this function for the first set of photomontages.

Figure 7.3.1. Logarithmic trendline and equation for scaling.

The images of the turbines in the photomontages are of small-scale Bergey wind turbines

currently in operation. We created the photomontages so that the rotors of the turbine are

in the direction of the prevailing wind on the east campus. Of course, the alignment of

the rotor will vary due to the direction of the wind on any given day, but the images

provide a good representation of what a 30-m turbine would look like at the MET tower

site.

Logarithmic relationship between distance and height in photomontage

y = -477.27Ln(x) + 717.67R2 = 0.9465

0

500

1000

0 1 2 3

Height in picture (in)

Dis

tanc

e fr

om H

HS

bu

ildin

g (f

t)

101

Figure 7.3.2 shows the first photomontage created, which displays a view of a turbine

from a location along Interstate 81 south (approximately 758 feet away from the turbine).

Figure 7.3.2. Turbine appearance while traveling south on Interstate 81.

The turbine is almost unperceivable from this vantage point when considering the

surrounding trees and light towers. Thus, it should certainly not have a negative impact

from the viewpoint of interstate travelers.

102

The second photomontage location is from a viewpoint on the left side of Carrier Dr.

when entering campus from University Blvd. This location is along the left curve on

Carrier Dr. and is approximately 377 feet away from the turbine site. Figure 7.3.3

displays this vantage point.

Figure 7.3.3. View of the Begey Excel from Carrier Drive just past the JMU College Center.

The turbine does appear to be a sizable structure in this image, but this is a very close

view. If you observe the tower site from the exit of the HHS building, it is barely visible.

A 30-m wind turbine will stand out from some locations on the east campus, but it should

not be a major eyesore, especially after a period of adjustment.

103

Chapter 8: East campus economic analysis

The most important economic consideration when analyzing a renewable energy system

is whether or not it will pay for itself. In other words, will the money saved on electricity

bills offset the money spent on a wind turbine? Large wind farms intended to provide

bulk electricity should pay for themselves in a relatively short period of time, but a small

to medium-sized turbine need not pay for itself immediately. In fact, it may not pay for

itself in 10 years. As long as it pays for itself over the expected lifetime of the machine,

then a small wind turbine is a cost-effective investment.

It is not unusual for a consumer to make a large purchase that does not have any return on

the investment. However, unlike a swimming pool or family set of jet-skis, a wind

turbine can save or even earn money in the form of electricity savings. When a turbine is

installed on a university campus, it also provides many educational benefits as described

earlier.

Before performing any economic analysis of our wind energy system, we determined all

of the costs associated with the wind system over its 30-year lifetime. These include

purchase and installation, maintenance, and repair costs. In addition, a life cycle cost

analysis of a wind system must account for the costs associated with sales tax, shipping,

permits, foundation and anchoring, wire run, turbine erection, tower erection, electrical

hook-up, inspection fees.

104

An estimate of these miscellaneous costs is shown in Table 9.1 along with the traditional

costs.

Table 9.1. Life cycle costs of 10-kW Bergey EXCEL-S.

Life Cycle Costs Cost

EXCEL-S wind turbine and inverter $20,900.00

Shipping and delivery $ 1,000.00

Wire run $ 5,000.00

Electrical contractor/hook-up $ 1,000.00

Turbine erection (incl. crane) $ 950.00

Misc. costs and inspection fees $ 500.00

TOTAL $29,350.00

Sales tax (4.5%) $ 1,320.75

TOTAL WITH TAX $30,670.75

* Maintenance costs are not included in this table as they are calculated on a per kilowatt-hour basis.

Once the total life cycle cost and the annual energy output predicted by WAsP are

known, we can calculate the simple and discounted payback of the wind system. The

electricity rate used in our calculations is the premium price that JMU pays for electricity

5.4¢/kWh). This is a flat rate, so we assumed this to be constant over the lifetime of the

turbine. The annual savings are calculated at the end of each year. Maintenance costs are

estimated to be $0.005 per kilowatt-hour for the Excel-S (Bergey, 2002). We set the

electricity escalation rate, the discount rate, and the maintenance cost inflation rate at 2

percent, 10 percent, and 4 percent respectively (Refer to appendix for a full list of

assumptions). Table 9.2 displays the results of our payback period calculations.

Table 9.2. Simple and discounted payback for the Bergey Excel-S at the JMU turbine site. Payback Periods

Life Cycle Cost $30,670.75

Annual Energy Output (MWh) 11.870

Electricity Rate ($/kWh) $0.054

Annual Savings $563.56

Simple Payback 54.4

Discounted Payback n/a

105

In the simple payback analysis, our wind turbine pays for itself in 54.4 years, which is

beyond the expected lifetime of the machine. There are three primary reasons for the

long payback period: (1) JMU pays a discounted rate for electricity, (2) there is a high

upfront investment cost, and (3) the predicted value we assumed for the annual energy

output is low. The ‘n/a’ listed for the discounted payback recognizes that the wind

system will never pay for itself given the stated assumptions.

Ideally, a small wind turbine would pay for itself in less than 10 years, since it can earn

money from that point forward. At JMU, however, the rate for electricity has to increase,

the investment cost has to go down, or the AEO must increase in order for the turbine to

pay for itself in ten years, let alone over the expected lifetime.

We next calculated the net benefits of the system. In order to do this we subtracted the

total cost of the wind system from the discounted lifetime electricity savings. Table 9.3

shows the net benefits of the system.

Table 9.3. Net benefits of Bergey Excel system at JMU site. Annual Energy Output Total Cost Discounted Lifetime Savings Benefits - Costs

11.870 MWh $30,670.75 $7,639.06 ($23,031.69)

Again, in an ideal situation, the benefits or electricity savings would exceed the total

costs. However, the original investment in our case is so great and the annual energy

output and electricity rates so low that the economic benefits do not outweigh the costs.

Consequently, we conducted a sensitivity analysis on these three factors to evaluate their

effects on the payback period. The first variable considered was the annual energy

output. Using an Excel spreadsheet, we determined what the annual energy output would

have to be to produce a discounted payback period of 10 years or 30 years while holding

all other variables constant. In order for the wind system to pay for itself in 10 or 30

years, the AEO would have to be 85,365 kWh or 51,465 kWh, respectively. For the

Bergey Excel to produce 85,365 kWh, the system would have to operate at near peak

106

capacity, thus requiring a constant wind speed of 14 m/s throughout the year. To produce

51,465 kWh, the system would have to operate at about 60% capacity requiring an

average wind speed of 11 m/s. Speeds of 14 and 11 m/s would be classified as Class 7

winds, which are extremely rare in the United States let alone Virginia.

The second variable examined was the electricity rate. In order for the system to pay

itself back in 10 years or 30 years, the electricity rate would have to be $0.35/kWh or

$0.22/kWh. Although JMU pays a premium rate for its electricity, these rates fall well

outside the normal residential rate, which can range between $0.05/kWh and $0.12/kWh

depending on the region of the country.

The third variable examined was the upfront investment. With all other variables held

constant, the upfront cost would have to be reduced to $4,265 or $7,050 for the system to

pay for itself in 10 or 30 years, respectively. These costs are about 75% to 85% less than

the projected life cycle cost of $30,670. Figure 9.4 a summary of the sensitivity analysis

results.

Table 9.4. Summary table of sensitivity analysis results. Variables 10 year payback 30 year payback

AEO 85,365 kWh 51,465 kWh

Electricity Rate $0.35 $0.218

Initial Investment $4,265 $7,050

Despite the pessimism of these figures, the payback period can significantly be improved

by increasing the annual energy output and decreasing the initial investment

simultaneously. The annual energy output derived from WAsP is a prediction.

Predictions are inherently inaccurate, so further study is needed at the turbine site itself to

validate the annual output prediction. In addition, the high initial investment may be

reduced through the acquisition of grants and/or tax credits. Increasing the electricity rate

would also reduce the payback period; however, significant changes in the price that

JMU pays for electricity are unlikely to occur in the coming years.

107

The following figure shows the effect that the AEO of the wind turbine and the initial

cost of the wind turbine have on the net benefits of the investment over the thirty-year

lifetime.

The Effect of Turbine Cost and Annual Energy Output on the Net Benefits

-$20,000.00

-$15,000.00

-$10,000.00

-$5,000.00

$0.00

$5,000.00

$10,000.00

$15,000.00

$5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000

Turbine Cost

12 MWh (Class 2) 15 MWh (Class 3) 19 MWh (Class 4) 22 MWh (Class 5)

Figure 9.1.1.. Shows the effect that the turbine cost and the annual energy output also given as wind classes have on the net benefits of the investment over a thirty year lifetime.

As discussed in Chapter 6, our WAsP analysis of the JMU east campus shows that the

Bergey Excel would have an AEO of close to 12 MWh per year, equivalent to a Class 2

wind resource. An AEO of 12 MWh per year corresponds to the blue line shown in

Figure 9.1.1. Looking at the blue line in the figure indicates that the turbine would have

to cost less than $10,000 in order to have a net positive benefit over the lifetime of the

machine. As shown in Table 9.1, the total turbine cost is closer to $30,000. As a result,

we would have to reduce our initial investment by almost $20,000 to have a net positive

benefit over the lifetime of the wind turbine assuming a Class 2 wind resource. If we

have a greater wind resource than what was predicted by the WAsP model, then we may

experience a net positive benefit even with a higher initial cost.

108

In addition to performing a sensitivity analysis on the AEO, electricity rate, and the initial

investment cost, we investigated the influence of the discount rate on the net benefits of

the system.

The results are shown in Figure 9.1.2.

Net Benefits vs. Discount Rate

($25,000.00)

($20,000.00)

($15,000.00)

($10,000.00)

($5,000.00)

$0.000 2 4 6 8 10 12

Discount Rate

Net

Ben

efits

($)

Figure 9.1.2. Net benefits of the Bergey Excel while varying the discount rate. * Parentheses indicate a negative number.

As one would expect, the interest rate selected does have an influence on the net benefits

of the wind system. When the interest rate is set to zero, the net loss is reduced to

$7,877. At a university, an aggressive discount rate such as 10% may not be as necessary

as in a residential or business setting. A discount rate closer to 5%, corresponding to the

current interest rate on a government bond, may be more appropriate. However, even

with a reduced discount rate of 5%, the calculated net loss of the wind system is still

$19,105.

109

When analyzing a wind system investment, it is important to consider what the

investment money could be earning in other financial assets. Table 9.4 shows our results

when we compared the electricity savings of investing in a wind machine to investment

in a Certificate of Deposit (CD) with a 10% annual interest rate over the 30-year lifetime.

Table 9.4. Future value of investment in a CD earning 10% annual interest. Capital

Investment Electricity Savings

Value of Alternative

Investment

$36,130.00 $6,846.37 $363,563.80

$38,880.00 $11,981.14 $391,236.10

$41,630.00 $21,394.90 $418,908.40

As the table indicates, the money saved by the turbine does not even compare to the

money earned in the CD. If the purpose of the investment is earning money, then the CD

is the indisputable choice.

110

Chapter 9: Conclusions and Recommendations

9.1 SBALP Conclusions and Recommendations

The SBALP has proven to be very successful. The number of people interested in wind

energy in the state, as shown by this program, has shocked most everybody involved in

the wind energy industry. Over 200 inquiries were made about the program and that

number keeps growing. Out of those 200 inquiries, we have received between 60 and 70

applications for the program. As shown by Chapter 4 we have installed six towers that

are currently taking data. Two more towers will be installed before May 2002.

As a result of the programs success, a proposal to expand the program has been submitted

to WPA. Under this grant, JMU would receive funding to purchase four 30-meter MET

towers. These towers would be placed at the most successful sites as based on the data

received by the 20-meter towers. The thought of purchasing two 50-meter towers has

also been entertained as well. These 50-meter towers are what developers use in large-

scale wind farm projects.

Some of the framework needs a little tweaking. The application should be revised to

include a Tax Map number for zoning issues. The contract needs to be looked at more

thoroughly and should be analyzed by a lawyer or the university to be sure of its validity

and needed scope. How next years group is going to handle batteries should be addressed

and we recommend that they make it obvious to the landowner from the start that they are

responsible for the batteries.

Now that the framework for the program has been laid, a more stringent application

process should be administered. A wind resource assessment that addresses issues of

view sheds, transmission lines, public acceptance, etc. of the entire state would benefit in

this. Also because the framework has been taken care of many of the issues faced by this

111

year’s group will not need to be addressed by next years group. A stronger outreach

should be made as well. Site research on areas with a known strong wind energy

resource should be made and landowners approached on an individual basis. Relying on

one press release is not enough and more needs to be done to reach out to the public.

Next year’s thesis group has the opportunity to take this program to the next level and we

expect that they will do this.

9.2 East campus conclusions and recommendations

We believe that potential for a small-scale turbine on James Madison’s east campus

exists. However, it is still too early to accurately predict the economic feasibility of a

turbine on the JMU campus. It is difficult to assess the wind resource on the east campus

given the limited data set that we have acquired thus far. In the next few years, students

should continue to analyze local data along with data received from the meteorological

tower on campus. Two years of data are necessary to make a more reliable estimate of

the wind resource that is present at the tower site. Once better data are received, students,

faculty, and the JMU administration will be better able to determine whether wind energy

is right for JMU.

From the limited data set that we have obtained so far, it is impossible to justify the

purchase and installation of a turbine on an economic basis alone. In other words, it

appears that JMU will probably not save enough in electricity costs to offset investment

costs and other costs associated with the system. The reduced electricity rate that JMU

receives makes it even less likely that the turbine will pay back. However, even when we

tested the system with a higher electricity price, the turbine did not pay for itself holding

other variables constant. For these reasons, we believe that the university should

consider the purchase of a turbine in the same way it does lab equipment. Such

investments that are crucial to the ISAT learning experience may never pay for

themselves in monetary units, but serve the university by helping it achieve its

educational goals.

112

We believe that a wind turbine would have a very positive impact on JMU. A turbine on

the James Madison campus would serve as a visible symbol for the university and would

aid in the recruitment of students and faculty, build a strong reputation for JMU and its

College of Integrated Science and Technology, and promote renewable energy on both

local and state levels. More importantly, the turbine would yield educational benefits for

students enrolled in a multitude of courses. The turbine would also provide students with

a unique hands-on learning experience.

Our research shows that the perceived problems with wind turbines should not pose

major obstacles to the erection of a wind turbine on campus. There are several issues

other than economic feasibility that students should study more comprehensively in the

future. It is important that we have a better understanding of the local public perception

associated with a wind turbine. One means of achieving this goal would be to conduct

surveys distributed to JMU students, faculty, administration, and Harrisonburg residents

designed to address their perception of all issues that may be perceived as problems. In

particular, these surveys should help determine what percentage of respondents objects to

a turbine’s visual impact.

Another issue that should be researched further is the potential problem of avian

mortality at the tower’s particular location. We do not believe that this will be a

significant problem with the installation of a single 30-m turbine, but research to this

point has been preliminary. We were unsuccessful in gaining specific information

through the environmental groups that we contacted, so a slightly different approach

might be taken in the future. Students should complete a Phase I evaluation by informing

the county, environmental groups, and other parties that may be interested in the process.

These groups should be willing to provide input on any bird species that may be

influenced by a turbine or whether further studies should be done. If James Madison

continues to show that it is serious in its attempt to install a turbine on its campus, groups

with concerns about the process will emerge.

113

References

American Wind Energy Association. <www.awea.org>, 2002. 23 Apr. 2002. Berinstein, Paula. Alternative Energy: Facts, Statistics, and Issues. Westport, CT: Oryx

Press, 2001 Bergey WindPower. Small Wind Turbines for Homes, Businesses, and Off-Grid.

<www.bergey.com>, 2002. 23 Apr. 2002. Cassedy, Edward S. and Peter Z. Grossman. Introduction to Energy. New York:

Cambridge University Press, 1990. Danish Wind Industry Association. Windpower.org. <www.windpower.org>. 12 Mar.

2002. Dudleston, Anna. Public Attitudes Towards Wind Farms in Scotland: Results of a

Residents Survey. Scottish Executive Central Research Unit, 2000.

Enron Wind Corporation. <www.enronwind.com>, 2 Mar. 2002. Forrester, Frank H. 1001 Questions Answered About The Weather. New York: General

Publishing Company, 1981. Franklin Institute Online. <www.franklininstitute.org>, 14 Mar. 2002. Gipe, Paul. Wind Power for Home and Business. Post Mills: Chelsea Green Publishing

Co., 1993. Honeywell Airport Systems. Honeywell Obstruction Lighting.

<http://www.airportsystems.honeywell.com/>, 2000. 3 Apr. 2002. James Madison University. James Madison University 1998-1999 Undergraduate

Catalog. Harrisonburg: JMU Office of Publications, Vol. 22, No.1, June 1998. Kirkpatrick, Kerrie, and Myriam Moore. “Hawk-Watching in Virginia.” A Birder’s Guide

to Virginia. Comp. David W. Johnston. American Birding Association, 1997. 193-196.

Lyons, Walter A. The Handy Weather Answer Book. Detroit: Accord Publishing, 1997. This book helped explain the history of wind measurement. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. <www.nrel.gov>, 2002. 1 May 2002. National Wind Coordinating Committee. <www.nationalwind.org>, 2001. 23 Apr. 2002.

114

Ris¿e National Laboratory. The WAsP 7.0 Help Facility. Roskilde, Denmark: January 15, 2000.

Rockingham Bird Club. Birds of Rockingham County Virginia. Ed. Clair Mellinger.

Rockingham Bird Club, Nov. 1998. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Species Information: Threatened and Endangered Animals

and Plants. USFWS. <http://endangered.fws.gov/wildlife.html>.Jul. 2001. 31 Mar. 2002.

Vintage Windmills Online Magazine. <www.vintagewindmills.com>, 14 Mar. 2002.

Wind Energy in Virginia: JMU and Beyond - CiteSeerX

Documents

Transcript of Wind Energy in Virginia: JMU and Beyond - CiteSeerX