This cannot be either a political or an ideological question.Poor Mountain Wind Analysis 6
View more documents from Appalachian Architect
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Thursday, May 19, 2011
MY BAD & MY WIND
In a frenzy of information management, I made statements of electricity transmission & distribution losses averaging 25 -30% of all electricity being generated. I referenced Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Energy Flow Charts
A close friend questioned my interpretation and noted that the numbers within the graph are Quads (Quadrillion BTUs of Energy), not percentages. My friend provided another document from the Energy Information Agency
The challenge and a little further digging leads me to restate what I'd previously said, i.e. that T&D losses average 6.5-11% in the US, not 25-30%. Previous postings have been corrected for this error.
Why does this matter? First, because if we are going to increasingly rely on wind energy, the amount of energy lost in transmission and distribution matters. The best land-based wind sites are in the West and Midwest. The farther we transmit that energy, the more is lost. The biggest markets for electricity are in the East and it is uneconomical and impractical to transmit electricity halfway across the continent.
Second, the debate over our energy future needs to be based on science and fact, not on misinformation and exaggeration. That's why I need to be forthcoming and correct in these postings. I only wish some of the proponents of the Poor Mountain Industrial Wind Farm would correct some of what they are putting out. For example, how about the claim that this project will produce enough electricity to supply 10,000 homes (it won't); or the claim that it will reduce carbon output by 98,000 tons per year (it won't); that property and environmental values are not negatively impacted (they would be).
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Setback for Large & Utility Scale Wind Turbines
It’s already Tuesday morning. The Roanoke County Planning Commission will meet in a work session to discuss the “large and utility scale” wind turbine ordinance amendment on Tuesday.
My last recollection was that McNeil and Peters were committed to relaxing previously included setback and decibel rating standards. Jarrel and Hooker started to relax their concerns but no definitive language was proposed at that meeting. The last specific pursuit was to reduce the setback back down to 110% of the total vertical height of the wind turbine from 400% of the height.
Discussion of noise impact seemed to be influenced greatly by the commissioners’ “field visit” to Beech Ridge Wind Energy Center, Duo, WV. Mr. Peters brought a decibel meter along on that tour and shared the decibel readings the instrument displayed at a variety of locations throughout the Wind Energy Center. Based upon their recent experience, none of the commissioners on April “felt” that a 60 db limit would be problematic.
Here is a link to the deliberations of the Planning Commission on April 19, 2011:
http://bentmountain.blogspot.com/2011/05/roanoke-county-utility-scale-wind.html
During the Beech Ridge visit; in my role as an interested citizen opposed to industrial scale wind turbine installations on the Appalachian ridges based upon current generation, transmission and distribution design; I was cautious to avoid interfering with the educational experience of the Planning Commissioners, by imposing my perspective upon them before they could develop their own.
It seems to have turned out that the commissioners were far less intimidated by the “monstrous industrial scale wind turbines” than they might have been.
There were many other wonders to absorb. The ridge tops at Beech Ridge were much broader than our ridges back home. Their mountains had been degraded by over harvesting timber and coal mining operations for decades. The ridge tops were strangely comparable to the natural balds at Mount Rogers, White Top and the Grayson Highlands. Yet, there was no lush proliferation of higher elevation species. There were only struggling domesticated grasses and invasive plants from alien ecosystems. We travelled broad roadways for several miles seeing very little active home places.
An area of vast remote landscapes of depleted timber and mining fields over the past century. The streams were wider and faster than our creeks, but not promoted as trout streams. Could it have been because the trout vanished due to ecosystem disruption? Lower water retention equals faster run-off and higher water temperatures. The landscape was much less agriculturally fertile than the Bent Mountain side of Poor Mountain, back home.
As this discussion continues on, I am beginning to question the acceptability, in terms of our Planning Commission’s stewardship responsibilities, of permitting the proliferation of thousands of 1.5 MW, 2.5 MW, 4 MW and larger wind turbines on the ridges of the Appalachian Mountains including the Blue Ridge chain in Virginia. This is the direction were going with “overreach” in terms of unwillingness to reduce our consumption of energy and our eagerness to accept the sacrifice of our precious natural environment. Our mountains are becoming more war-torn and scarred with every passing year due to our own ambivalence.
Over 12,000 turbines would have to populate Virginia’s ridges to currently satisfy a meager 20% of our total electricity use on a solely supplemental basis.
I do NOT support sacrificing our vistas and ecosystems for our energy gluttony.
Height and Setback Issues
After visiting Beech Ridge, studying the impact of the small wind turbine ordinance as applied on the McCallum wind turbine project on 12 o’clock Knob; I ask the commissioners to please utilize all of the resources they have at their disposal to consider the community impact more closely from a 100’ tower limit on a 1+ acre tract, (Unfortunately, this is what our current small scale wind turbine ordinance allows in our county. This is certainly a major imposition on typical subdivision neighbors.) to the landscape dominance thousands of 40 to 50 story tall wind turbines destroying ridge top environments.
Fortunately, there are currently rapid advances being made in the alternative energy industry. Sauer Energy is initiating manufacture of highly efficient, smaller vertical axis turbines in August of this year. These units and others like “Windspires” are much more suitable for urban and suburban environments than the nostalgic relics of the past. These smaller scale site-based generating systems offer extraordinary promise in reducing our dependence upon fossil fuels without imposing white elephants on our neighbors. Our small and residential scale ordinance must require a higher standard in more densely populated areas.
In the amendment for large and industrial scale turbines, visual dominance in the landscape and altered eco-systems due to denuding miles of ridge tops, setbacks from non-participating property lines is clearly the most effective, measurable, enforceable standard available.
Many governing localities around the globe including Beech Ridge, WV have used the World Health Organization standard setback from habitable property of One (1) Mile for a 1.5 MW wind Turbine without regard to specific height.
I have proposed a
property line setback of 3,500 feet per each One (1) MW of name plate capacity
of the turbine. This must be a property line setback, not a setback from an occupied dwelling, as that would surely impact the property value without just compensation. Our Planning Commissioners and Supervisors have a responsibility to become highly informed about such dramatic impositions on our land use.
Noise and Nuisance Issues
During the Beech Ridge trip, Planning commissioners and staff noted more disturbing sounds emanating from the substation than from the wind turbines 1000’ and more away, yet the ordinance addresses no specific design use and design standards relative to noise setback and or buffering for sub-stations.
Defining acceptable standards for obnoxious sound in terms of db ratings alone is not enforceable. The purest form of acoustical science is performed with mathematical calculations in controlled sound chamber environments were variables can be controlled. In the natural world there are just too many variables such as ambient sounds, air density, air speed, direction, humidity, topographical amplification, periodic and resonating sounds. Ordinances based upon db ratings alone can only be enforced by subjective judgment.
Physical distance from potential obnoxious sound generators is widely accepted as being the most effective audio-nuisance deterrent.
My last recollection was that McNeil and Peters were committed to relaxing previously included setback and decibel rating standards. Jarrel and Hooker started to relax their concerns but no definitive language was proposed at that meeting. The last specific pursuit was to reduce the setback back down to 110% of the total vertical height of the wind turbine from 400% of the height.
Discussion of noise impact seemed to be influenced greatly by the commissioners’ “field visit” to Beech Ridge Wind Energy Center, Duo, WV. Mr. Peters brought a decibel meter along on that tour and shared the decibel readings the instrument displayed at a variety of locations throughout the Wind Energy Center. Based upon their recent experience, none of the commissioners on April “felt” that a 60 db limit would be problematic.
Here is a link to the deliberations of the Planning Commission on April 19, 2011:
http://bentmountain.blogspot.com/2011/05/roanoke-county-utility-scale-wind.html
During the Beech Ridge visit; in my role as an interested citizen opposed to industrial scale wind turbine installations on the Appalachian ridges based upon current generation, transmission and distribution design; I was cautious to avoid interfering with the educational experience of the Planning Commissioners, by imposing my perspective upon them before they could develop their own.
It seems to have turned out that the commissioners were far less intimidated by the “monstrous industrial scale wind turbines” than they might have been.
There were many other wonders to absorb. The ridge tops at Beech Ridge were much broader than our ridges back home. Their mountains had been degraded by over harvesting timber and coal mining operations for decades. The ridge tops were strangely comparable to the natural balds at Mount Rogers, White Top and the Grayson Highlands. Yet, there was no lush proliferation of higher elevation species. There were only struggling domesticated grasses and invasive plants from alien ecosystems. We travelled broad roadways for several miles seeing very little active home places.
An area of vast remote landscapes of depleted timber and mining fields over the past century. The streams were wider and faster than our creeks, but not promoted as trout streams. Could it have been because the trout vanished due to ecosystem disruption? Lower water retention equals faster run-off and higher water temperatures. The landscape was much less agriculturally fertile than the Bent Mountain side of Poor Mountain, back home.
 |
| How do we place a value on these mountainscapes? |
As this discussion continues on, I am beginning to question the acceptability, in terms of our Planning Commission’s stewardship responsibilities, of permitting the proliferation of thousands of 1.5 MW, 2.5 MW, 4 MW and larger wind turbines on the ridges of the Appalachian Mountains including the Blue Ridge chain in Virginia. This is the direction were going with “overreach” in terms of unwillingness to reduce our consumption of energy and our eagerness to accept the sacrifice of our precious natural environment. Our mountains are becoming more war-torn and scarred with every passing year due to our own ambivalence.
Over 12,000 turbines would have to populate Virginia’s ridges to currently satisfy a meager 20% of our total electricity use on a solely supplemental basis.
I do NOT support sacrificing our vistas and ecosystems for our energy gluttony.
Height and Setback Issues
 |
| Simulation of Installation on McCallum Property |
Fortunately, there are currently rapid advances being made in the alternative energy industry. Sauer Energy is initiating manufacture of highly efficient, smaller vertical axis turbines in August of this year. These units and others like “Windspires” are much more suitable for urban and suburban environments than the nostalgic relics of the past. These smaller scale site-based generating systems offer extraordinary promise in reducing our dependence upon fossil fuels without imposing white elephants on our neighbors. Our small and residential scale ordinance must require a higher standard in more densely populated areas.
In the amendment for large and industrial scale turbines, visual dominance in the landscape and altered eco-systems due to denuding miles of ridge tops, setbacks from non-participating property lines is clearly the most effective, measurable, enforceable standard available.
 |
| We heard the whooshing Turbines at Beech Ridge at 3000 feet away from them, downwind. |
I have proposed a
property line setback of 3,500 feet per each One (1) MW of name plate capacity
of the turbine. This must be a property line setback, not a setback from an occupied dwelling, as that would surely impact the property value without just compensation. Our Planning Commissioners and Supervisors have a responsibility to become highly informed about such dramatic impositions on our land use.
Noise and Nuisance Issues
During the Beech Ridge trip, Planning commissioners and staff noted more disturbing sounds emanating from the substation than from the wind turbines 1000’ and more away, yet the ordinance addresses no specific design use and design standards relative to noise setback and or buffering for sub-stations.
Defining acceptable standards for obnoxious sound in terms of db ratings alone is not enforceable. The purest form of acoustical science is performed with mathematical calculations in controlled sound chamber environments were variables can be controlled. In the natural world there are just too many variables such as ambient sounds, air density, air speed, direction, humidity, topographical amplification, periodic and resonating sounds. Ordinances based upon db ratings alone can only be enforced by subjective judgment.
Physical distance from potential obnoxious sound generators is widely accepted as being the most effective audio-nuisance deterrent.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Roanoke County "Utility Scale Wind Turbine" Ordinance Amendment Deliberation & Review
ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: MINUTES of APRIL 19, 2011 WORK SESSION
(NOTE: Comments in blue are differentiated as they are county staff comments in an advisory capacity)
Mr. Thompson reviewed changes made by the commissioners to the proposed ordinance, including increasing setbacks and changing wording from “increase” to “modify.”
Mr. Peters spoke in favor of 110% setbacks, stating increasing setback to 400% would discriminate against large energy resources
Mr. McNeil spoke in favor of110% setback and adjusting setback during special use permit process.
Ms. Hooker stated 400% is a good safety net and can be altered either way during special use permit process. She discussed the importance of setting high standards and placing the burden of proof on the petitioner.
Mr. Jarrell stated 110% is an acceptable standard, noting each application will be site specific.
Mr. McNeil stated he understands concern and suggested having setback one-half mile from any existing opposing resident.
Ms.Hooker discussed enforcement difficulty.
Mr. Jarrell stated the issues can be addressed during the special use permit process.
Mr. Thompson discussed allowing a maximum noise level of 40 decibels which was
suggested by the commissioners.
Mr. McNeil suggested allowing 60 decibels which is the same as in the small wind ordinance.
Mr. Peters discussed issues regarding measuring decibel levels including measuring ambient noise. He stated he is in favor of a maximum of 60 decibels.
Mr. McNeil concurred with Mr. Peters.
Mr. McNeil reiterated importance of being consistent in ordinance.
Ms. Hooker stated ambient noise was high and questioned the measuring procedure. Mr. Jarrell suggested addressing transformer noise. He stated allowable noise should be site specific.
Mr. Thompson explained that the terrain plays a part in noise emission levels.
Mr. Jarrell discussed the importance of acquiring measurements from acoustics engineer. He stated noise level measurement will always be difficult.
Ms. Hooker discussed the importance of setting a standard for petitioners.
Mr. McNeil suggested reviewing Rockingham County’s ordinance.
Ms. Hooker discussed the importance of protecting the community. She suggested taking wind readings prior to building turbine.
Mr. Peters noted readings would vary during all seasons.
Ms. Hooker stated noise should be measured from the property line.
Mr. Thompson discussed preconstruction analysis during which ambient noise could be measured and used as the standard each site.
Ms. Hooker suggested acquiring additional guidance from staff and revisiting issue
during a future meeting.
Mr. Peters noted no standards have been set for low frequency noise.
Ms. Hooker stated the commissioners have a consensus on the definitions and the maximum noise level of 60 decibels.
The commissioners discussed turbine shut-down if the turbine is disruptive.
Mr. Thompson discussed renumbering of ordinance items.
Mr. Peters discussed turbine shut-down if ice becomes an issue
Mr. McNeil thanked staff for allowing the commission to view the large turbines at Beech Ridge Mountain, West Virginia.
Mr. McNeil made a motion to have setbacks of 110%, including one-half mile from existing occupied dwellings.
Mr. Thompson called the roll and the motion passed (3-1) with the following vote:
AYES: Jarrell, McNeil, Peters
NAYES: Hooker
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioners had a general consensus to restrict noise to a maximum of 60 decibels.
(NOTE: Comments in blue are differentiated as they are county staff comments in an advisory capacity)
Mr. Thompson reviewed changes made by the commissioners to the proposed ordinance, including increasing setbacks and changing wording from “increase” to “modify.”
Mr. Peters spoke in favor of 110% setbacks, stating increasing setback to 400% would discriminate against large energy resources
Mr. McNeil spoke in favor of110% setback and adjusting setback during special use permit process.
Ms. Hooker stated 400% is a good safety net and can be altered either way during special use permit process. She discussed the importance of setting high standards and placing the burden of proof on the petitioner.
Mr. Jarrell stated 110% is an acceptable standard, noting each application will be site specific.
Mr. McNeil stated he understands concern and suggested having setback one-half mile from any existing opposing resident.
Ms.Hooker discussed enforcement difficulty.
Mr. Jarrell stated the issues can be addressed during the special use permit process.
Mr. Thompson discussed allowing a maximum noise level of 40 decibels which was
suggested by the commissioners.
Mr. McNeil suggested allowing 60 decibels which is the same as in the small wind ordinance.
Mr. Peters discussed issues regarding measuring decibel levels including measuring ambient noise. He stated he is in favor of a maximum of 60 decibels.
Mr. McNeil concurred with Mr. Peters.
Mr. McNeil reiterated importance of being consistent in ordinance.
Ms. Hooker stated ambient noise was high and questioned the measuring procedure. Mr. Jarrell suggested addressing transformer noise. He stated allowable noise should be site specific.
Mr. Thompson explained that the terrain plays a part in noise emission levels.
Mr. Jarrell discussed the importance of acquiring measurements from acoustics engineer. He stated noise level measurement will always be difficult.
Ms. Hooker discussed the importance of setting a standard for petitioners.
Mr. McNeil suggested reviewing Rockingham County’s ordinance.
Ms. Hooker discussed the importance of protecting the community. She suggested taking wind readings prior to building turbine.
Mr. Peters noted readings would vary during all seasons.
Ms. Hooker stated noise should be measured from the property line.
Mr. Thompson discussed preconstruction analysis during which ambient noise could be measured and used as the standard each site.
Ms. Hooker suggested acquiring additional guidance from staff and revisiting issue
during a future meeting.
Mr. Peters noted no standards have been set for low frequency noise.
Ms. Hooker stated the commissioners have a consensus on the definitions and the maximum noise level of 60 decibels.
The commissioners discussed turbine shut-down if the turbine is disruptive.
Mr. Thompson discussed renumbering of ordinance items.
Mr. Peters discussed turbine shut-down if ice becomes an issue
Mr. McNeil thanked staff for allowing the commission to view the large turbines at Beech Ridge Mountain, West Virginia.
Mr. McNeil made a motion to have setbacks of 110%, including one-half mile from existing occupied dwellings.
Mr. Thompson called the roll and the motion passed (3-1) with the following vote:
AYES: Jarrell, McNeil, Peters
NAYES: Hooker
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioners had a general consensus to restrict noise to a maximum of 60 decibels.
From the Roanoke County PC 05-17-2011 agenda documents
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)