Wind farm study finally recognizes that all is not well with wind power

From the UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO

Recognizing health concerns in wind energy development a key recommendation in new study

As wind energy development blossoms in Canada and around the world, opposition at the community level is challenging the viability of the industry. A new study with research from the University of Waterloo, published in Nature Energy, identifies four major factors leading to disputes over wind farms, and offers recommendations on avoiding disagreements.

The research project focuses on the province of Ontario. It lists socially mediated health concerns, distribution of financial benefits, lack of meaningful engagement and failure to treat landscape concerns seriously, as the core stumbling blocks to a community’s acceptance of wind energy development.

“There has been debate over whether reported negative health outcomes in nearby residents are valid” says Tanya Christidis, a PhD researcher at Waterloo’s School of Planning, who contributed to the study by looking specifically at the health impacts section in the publication. “Regardless of whether or not people are sick from wind turbine noise or from social factors they deserve to be acknowledged if renewables are going to become a key part of our future energy mix.”

The study makes recommendations for all four identified major areas of dispute.

For community members who feel the distribution of financial benefits is unfair, it recommends the province, which is constitutionally responsible for managing all energy resources within its territory, mandate more community-level decision-making and ownership. It also recommends increased transparency and compensation distribution for everyone in a community.

The study suggests that Ontario’s approval process does not encourage enough meaningful engagement. Acknowledging that this is difficult to mandate, its recommendation is that improvements in this area should still be pursued.

Finally, the study recommends greater consideration for the impact on landscapes, and in particular changes to the cultural landscapes of areas with wind energy development.

Over the past decade global wind energy capacity has increased eight-fold. Ontario, with a population of close to 13 million people and land area of 1.1 million km2 is approximately equivalent in population, size and contracted wind energy capacity (5,700 vs 6, 200 MW) 2 to Sweden and Norway combined.

Research for the report was assembled by researchers, from Waterloo. York University, Western University, Queen’s University, University of Ottawa as well as Trent University. The study is unique as it also includes a community representative and a wind industry advocate engaged in the Ontario wind energy industry.

About the University of Waterloo

University of Waterloo is Canada’s top innovation university. With more than 36,000 students we are home to the world’s largest co-operative education system of its kind. Our unmatched entrepreneurial culture, combined with an intensive focus on research, powers one of the top innovation hubs in the world. Find out more at uwaterloo.ca

###

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

243 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
RACookPE1978
Editor
January 28, 2016 3:55 pm

Following are copied from the http://www.eng-tips.com forum on wind turbine efficiencies, frequency and energy conversions, and wind turbine ” inside the nacelle” efficiencies.
http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=402436

cswilson (Electrical)
27 Jan 16 19:26
In general, there are two strategies for generating synchronized AC electrical power from wind turbine generators.
The first, and older, strategy, is to make mechanical and electrical adjustments to the generating mechanism so that it is always generating the proper magnitude, frequency and phase. The mechanical adjustments are things like changing blade pitch. The electrical adjustments usually would vary the slip frequency of an induction generator so the output frequency is always proper.
This strategy avoids the capital expense of the rectifier and inverter, and the operating losses as well. However, the maintaining of line synchronization often means that significantly less power is generated than would otherwise be possible — for example, much of the extra power from a gust would have to be spilled by the blades to keep from losing synchronicity. Also, the effective generating range, both at the high and low ends of wind speeds, can be reduced, because it is not practical to generate synchronous power at these extremes.
The other, more recent, strategy is to optimize the generating mechanism for maximum power generation under given conditions, allowing varying magnitude, frequency, and phase. These waveforms are rectified into DC electronically, and then inverted back into AC, with the inverter managing the full synchronization to the lines.
The key question is whether the additional energy that this strategy permits out of the generator itself is enough to overcome the losses in the rectifier and inverter, and to justify the capital expense of the power electronics.
One of the other factors pushing designers toward the second strategy is the fact that a permanent-magnet AC generator is significantly smaller and lighter than an induction generator of the same power capacity. This provides significant structural savings when it is so high up. But with these PM generators, it is not feasible at all to try to generate directly to the lines, because you do not have the fast “slip” adjustments of an induction generator.
So, like most things, it comes down to engineering trade-offs.
Curt Wilson
Omron Delta Tau

Practically all modern megawatt –class wind turbines utilize some kind of frequency converter between the grid and the generator. Directly grid-connected wind generators using so-called stall-control (that cswilson was referring to) are very rare in new designs mainly due to being less efficient when considering the whole operating range.
Two of the most common concepts nowadays are the one where 100% of generator power goes through the frequency converter (generator is typically a squirrel-cage induction machine or a permanent magnet synchronous machine) and the one where only 30…40% goes through the converter and the rest goes directly to the grid (generator is doubly-fed induction generator –type). While the first one needs bigger and more expensive converter, its main benefits are better overall efficiency and brushless operation (less maintenance). Both of these generator types operate at 96…98% efficiency at the rated point, and the efficiency of the converter in MW range is around 96…97%.
Some turbine designs use so-called direct-drive concept, where turbine is directly rotating the generator. In this case, no gear-box is needed, and the only suitable generator type is synchronous machine either with electrical or permanent magnet excitation (induction machines cannot be designed to operate at such low speeds). Direct-drive systems don’t have gear-box losses, but such generators lack in efficiency when compared to high-speed ones (with gear-box), so there is not that big difference in overall efficiency. Additionally, direct-drive machines are huge in physical size. Main benefit of course is, that they don’t have gear-box related issues.
More common system is the one with the gear-box, where the generator speed is increased to 400…1500RPM (typically). As the efficiency of the gear-box is around 97…98%, total drive-train efficiency is typically around 90…92% when considering the gear-box, generator and frequency converter. Of course some power is lost on transformer(turbines often produce low voltage/medium voltage that needs to be stepped up) and turbines’s own consumption too.
I wouldn’t say that efficiency is not important since the wind is free. The higher the efficiency, the more money turbine generates. Furthermore, poor system efficiency means that blades, gear-box, generator etc must be designed to handle bigger input power (torque) which makes them heavier more expensive. One old rule of thumb says that one extra kilogram up in the nacelle means 3kg extra in total due to heavier foundations and tower structure.

Resourceguy
January 29, 2016 12:23 pm

From the title, you mean they discovered the ratepayers for a change?

January 31, 2016 4:24 am

Finally! Another study, from Europe, shows that Northern Europe’s winter may be milder due to offshore wind farms. The stirring principle is simple: warm water will come to the surface and the heat will supply the atmosphere with warmth. The air will become warmer and the winters will be milder: http://oceansgovernclimate.com/man-made-ocean-warming-yes-but-its-not-co2/. On the other hands, seems that the Americans remain constant to the “bigger” principle: enormous blades could lead to more offshore energy in US: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160128133245.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Fmatter_energy%2Fwind_energy+%28Wind+Energy+News+–+ScienceDaily%29. And, I may add, to more damage to the Earth….

Richard Mann
February 1, 2016 11:52 pm

Recent report from Ontario’s Engineers: “Ontario’s Electricity Dilemma – Achieving Low Emissions at Reasonable Electricity Rates.” Ontario Society of Professional Engineers (OSPE), April 2015.
http://www.ospe.on.ca/resource/resmgr/DOC_advocacy/2015_Presentation_Elec_Dilem.pdf
Page 15 of 23.
“Why Will Emissions Double as We Add Wind and Solar Plants ?”
– Wind and Solar require flexible backup generation.
– Nuclear is too inflexible to backup renewables without expensive engineering changes to the reactors.
– Flexible electric storage is too expensive at the moment.
– Consequently natural gas provides the backup for wind and solar in North America.
– When you add wind and solar you are actually forced to reduce nuclear genera,on to make room for more natural gas generation to provide flexible backup.
– Ontario currently produces electricity at less than 40 grams of CO2 emissions/kWh.
– Wind and solar with natural gas backup produces electricity at about 200 grams of CO 2 emissions/kWh. Therefore adding wind and solar to Ontario’s grid drives CO2 emissions higher. From 2016 to 2032 as Ontario phases out nuclear capacity to make room for wind and solar, CO2 emissions will double (2013 LTEP data).
– In Ontario, with limited economic hydro and expensive storage, it is mathematically impossible to achieve low CO2 emissions at reasonable electricity prices without nuclear generation.

markl
Reply to  Richard Mann
February 2, 2016 8:48 am

Richard Mann commented: “…Recent report from Ontario’s Engineers: Page 15 of 23….”
This should have MSM coverage so the people will understand the facts about the unintended consequences of the AGW scare mongering. The Environmentalists need to be scrutinized, throttled back, removed from government/politics, and controlled.