If BigWind gets Higher, we can get closer, right? NO!!

Screen Shot 2019-08-18 at 2.36.05 PM

That’t right, BigWind is proposing TALLER turbines in the USA…while they lobby, hard in Ohio, for SHORTER safety setbacks! ZERO logic. Additionally, as farmers complain that soil compaction occurs, what will occur as a result of LARGER and HEAVIER equipment on our roads and fields??????……

RECHARGE

US developers propose record 207-metre wind turbine height

A new Department of Energy report shows that the wind industry is increasingly comfortable with taller turbines that optimise project cost and performance

By Richard Kessler in Fort Worth,15 August 2019

 

Wind project developers in the US through May have proposed turbine heights up to a record 207 metres (680 feet) versus an average 146 meters for 2018 installations, as the industry benefits from technology advances, according to a new Department of Energy (DOE) report.

 

Permit applications filed with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) this year show 44% of proposed turbines will exceed 152.4 meters in height (from ground to blade tip extended directly overhead), up from 39% in 2018 and 14% in 2017. The FAA regulates all aspects of civilian aviation…

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory scientists Mark Bolinger and Ryan Wiser, primary authors of the 2018 Wind Technologies Market Report, noted the FAA data represents total turbine height, not hub height, and therefore includes the combined effect of both tower and rotor size…

In 2018, turbine size continued to increase in response to technology advances as developers grow more comfortable with larger, taller machines that optimize project cost and performance…

 

Both rotor diameters and hub heights increased in 2018, continuing the long-term trend, according to the report…

RECHARGE

Vestas CFO sees scope for upscaled turbines on land and sea

The OEM could boost the nameplate capacity of both its onshore and offshore models further, CFO Fredriksson says

By Bernd Radowitz in Berlin,15 August 2019

 

Vestas could upscale both its currently most powerful onshore and offshore turbine models further to reach a greater nameplate capacity, the Danish OEM’s chief financial officer Marika Fredriksson told Recharge.

The manufacturer will only develop any new product or concept if it sees a clear path to both lower levelised costs of energy (LCOE) and “something in the pocket for us,” the CFO had stressed in a conference call with investors on second quarter earnings..

 

Asked be Recharge in an interview little later, whether she sees greater chances for improvements in onshore or offshore – given the fact that Vestas has already presented a 5.6MW onshore model and a 10MW offshore machine – Fredriksson said: “I would say both.”

 

“In onshore, we see a good potential to further decrease the LCOE. We have a modular approach with EnVentus and still see a great potential to lower costs further,” she said…

 

Vestas in January had unveiled its EnVentus modular platform, launching two 5.6MW models as its so far highest-capacity machines on land.

 

While most rival OEMs meanwhile also have presented turbines in the 5MW class, going much higher in onshore capacity could lead to growing headaches as far as road transport is concerned…

 

MHI Vestas chief executive Philippe Kavafyan at the launch of the V164’s 10MW version had already said the OEM likely won’t stop at that size and will move forward with more “incremental innovation through all parts of the value chain.”

 

Ohio Power Siting Board says YES to BigWind’s ‘Top Secret’ information (again)

The Ohio Power Siting Board approved a request in the Buckeye Wind case from turbine maker Gamesa to extend the protective order which keeps noise and safety information secret.  In 2013 Gamesa was granted a protective order for 18 months,  On June 1, 2015, the OPSB granted an additional 24months of secrecy until June 1, 2017.    But on May 30thGamesa filed for yet another 24 months of protection from public view.  This request was  granted with the OPSB Order stating:

 

{¶ 12} Ohio Adm.Code 4906-7-07(H)(6) requires a party wishing to extend a protective order beyond 24 months to file an appropriate motion in advance of the expiration date, including a detailed discussion of the need for continued protection from disclosure. If Gamesa wishes to extend this confidential treatment, it should file an appropriate motion at least 45 days in advance of the expiration date. If no such motion to extend confidential treatment is filed, the Board may release this information without prior notice to Gamesa.

 

So mark your calendar for June 2019 to see if the Gamesa noise information is made public.  But in the meantime, Google Gamesa and noise complaints.  Maybe there is a reason they do not want us to see their manual….

New wind farms with a capacity of 5 or more megawatts must obtain a siting certificate through the Ohio Power Siting Board. This unique siting process is made possible in Ohio because all seven entities involved with approving the siting application are seated at the same table: the chair of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, the directors of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, the Ohio Development Services Agency, the Ohio Departments of Agriculture, Health, and Natural Resources, and a public member….

 

Source: Wind and other Renewable Energy – OPSB

http://www.anthonycreditexpert.com

BigWind Setbacks: Safety First unless youre a wind developer

Does BigWind really care about YOUR safety? What about the safety of the farmer or kids on snowmobiles?

Last month, Ohio infuriated wind proponents by passing Senate bill 310, a bill that delays the states renewable electricity standard for two years and eliminates the requirement that half of the renewables mandate be met with in-state resources.

Within days of SB310 passing, Ohio Governor John Kasich approved a change to the safety setback distances for wind turbines. Under the new law, setbacks will now be measured at the property line of the nearest adjacent property as opposed to the wall of a nearby home. In practice, this will require minimum distances of at least 1,300 feet from property lines to each turbine base.

Wind developers and Ohios media cried foul over due process claiming the legislature gave no warning of the setback rule change or opportunity for testimony. They insisted the provision was anti-wind driven by coal and oil interests intent on destroying the economics of large-scale wind and called on the governor to veto the change.

Industry Setback Recommendations

For decades, the wind industry has advanced the notion that these massive spinning structures can safely be erected a few hundred feet from where people live and gather.

The industry’s preferred setback has been 1.1x to 1.5x the height of the tower (including the blade) which was derived from the fall-zone of the tower. We saw variations on this over the years beginning in California, that measured as much as 3-4x the total tower height. In general, there was no consideration in the setback distances for noise nor did the 1.1 to 1.5x setback adequately address ice/blade throw….

However, according to Iberdrola’s Emergency Plan written for Groton Wind employees and released this year, “shedding ice may be thrown a significant distance as a result of the rotor spinning or wind blowing the ice fragments.”

GE Wind states that rotating turbine blades may propel ice fragments up to several hundred meters if conditions are right depending on turbine dimensions, rotational speed and many other potential factors….

One operator of a wind installation admitted large turbines will throw a four hundred pound chunk of ice one thousand feet.

In the last 5-6 years, communities have adopted setbacks at or greater than the distance codified under Ohio law. More modern ordinances include two setback protections. The first protects property owners from ice/debris flying off the turbines. This ranges from 1300 feet to 1 mile or more away. The second setback distance is implied based on noise limits that cannot be exceeded either at the property line or the wall of an occupied building. If the noise standards are correctly applied, turbines may be erected 1.25-1.5 (or more) miles from the property line/building.

According to Mr. Palmer, the goal of public safety risk assessment is to ensure that we do not impose risks on unsuspecting members of the public. We agree!

via WindAction | Wind Setbacks: Safety First unless youre a wind developer.