MEDICINE BOW WIND PROJECT
HJ.O lcaearcn paper was prepared in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Colorado Denver, Colorado
Judith K. Zimmerman April 30, 1980
Cover design by Chris Abelson
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ......................................................... 1
Purpose of Study .................................................... 6
Historical Perspective on Wind Energy ................................ 8
Overview of Small Wind Machine Application ........................... 15
Physical Description of Medicine Bow Wind Project .................... 20
System Verification Unit and Test Project...........................35
"Wind Farm" Concept................................................A3
Impacts/Benefits of Medicine Bow Wind Project ...................... 48
Environmental Considerations ..................................... 48
Land Use ........................................................48
Environmental Hazards ............................................ 51
Surface Drainage and Aquifers .................................... 51
Scientific/Historical/Cultural Resources ......................... 56
Additional Impactr of the Wind Turbine Generators ................ 57
Construction Impacts ............................................. 58
Public Reaction to Environmental Factors ....................... 62
"Wind Farm" Impacts..............................................62
Social Considerations ............................................ 62
Economic Considerations .......................................... 69
Outlook and Conclusions .............................................. 76
Bibliography ......................................................... 87
It is becoming increasingly clear that the energy problem is real not just a matter of economics or political interference. The real problem is one of diminishing finite energy resources. The major resources that people in the U.S. have depended upon to achieve their lifestyles (petroleum, natural gas, and coal) are all exhaustable resources and they are being depleted at a rate that requires some serious and immediate action both through conservation of the remaining finite resources and through greater effort in the research and development of those resources that are renewable (solar, wind, tides, etc.).
Estimates of the amount and length of time the different nonrenewable resources will continue to meet existing/increasing energy demands vary widely among expert sources. Some reasons for these variations are the data and sources used for the "hypothetical" resources still available (the quantity still undiscovered or the extent not fully known.) Estimates tend to range from several decades (petroleum and natural gas) to 2-3 centuries (coal) some estimates go much higher than this but they are based to a great extent on the assumption of very large undiscovered reserves.
Many estimates do not take into account exponential growth and the doubling effect and are, instead, based on the quantity of fossil fuels that will be available for a certain number of years at the present rate of consumption of each type of fossil fuel.
If you take into account that the population is growing (In 1973 the world population was growing at a rate of 1.9% a year. The world population at that time was 4 billion people and at a 1.9% growth rate the world population would double in 36 years.), the concept of doubling can have a
staggering effect on energy reserves. The growth rate in the U.S. is not as high, however, there is also an approximate 1% yearly increase in coal and oil consumption with the present world population. The following chart (Figure 1) gives a simple example of the effect of doubling. If the consumption of oil was doubled yearly starting with a first year consumption of only 1 barrel, the doubling effect would increase the oil consumption significantly in a very short period of time.
Barrels of Oil 1 2
Note in the above chart that with each doubling, consumption is greater than the total consumption to that point. In year 3 of the chart the consumption was 4 barrels of oil a larger quantity than the sum of both years 1 and 2 (3 barrels). In year 10 the consumption was 512 barrels of oil a larger quantity than the total of the previous 9 years (511 barrels). When you apply the doubling effect to a 1.9?o population growth rate (doubling every 36 years) and compare that to the yearly consumption of fossil fuels, the effect on the fossil fuel reserves becomes clear. "When we read a few years ago that the demand for electrical power in the United States is expected to double in the next 10 to 12 years, we should recognize that this means that the quantity of electrical energy that will be used in these 10 to 12 years will be equal to the total of all the electrical energy that
has been used in the entire history of the electrical industry in this 2
country!" Mike McCormack stated that "We have already burned more than half of all the known petroleum and almost half of the natural gas we have ever discovered or ever will discover on this continent or off its shores". If half of the U.S. reserves of petroleum and natural gas have already been consumed, then our reserves will be totally used up by the next doubling period. We will have to depend on reserves elsewhere. If you refer back to Figure 1, it will become clearer that even newly discovered large reserves will not have the long-term significant impact on the energy crisis that some estimates and articles declare. The Alaskan resource was a newly discovered significant reserve and yet "Alaskan deposits are equivalent to less than two years use at present U.S. consumption rates". 1 This is at present rates of consumption and does not even consider increasing consumption. The amount of reserves estimated over a quantity of time must take into consideration an increasing population and an increasing consumption rate. Coal, our largest fossil fuel reserve, has been estimated through many sources to be an adequate reserve for at least 2-3 centuries. These estimates, however, are based on present rate of consumption. The amount of time that coal will be available as an energy source could significantly decrease as population increases and other fossil fuel reserves run out at that time, coal will have to be used where other fossil fuels had been used previously.
The general concensus of estimates for oil and natural gas (unless huge new reserves are located which are much larger than the discoveries in Alaska) is that natural gas will last from 1-2 decades maximum and oil will last only a little longer than natural gas. Coal reserves will last from 2-3 centuries at present rate of consumption. Coal now only
supplies approximately 1/5 of the energy needs in the U.S. As oil and gas run out, coal will have to supply a much greater percentage of the demand and reserves will then not last the estimated number of years. Nuclear has been viewed as the "cure-all" answer to depleating energy resources, however, at present, nuclear provides approximately l?o of the U.S. total energy needs (10?o of the electrical energy) both solar and hydroelectric
provide more than l?o right now. Additionally, uranium is also a non-renew-
able resource that is in short supply and is extremely costly. Another hopeful source, nuclear fusion, is not past experimental stages and, if the process can be worked out, it will not be ready to go on-line for a long time. Research on oil shale has begun, however, there has been no conclusion as to whether it is worthwhile as an energy source it may require as much energy to extract it as will be gained from the oil shale. With the dwindling "traditional" energy resources and continued experimentation and development required on new energy possibilities, it should be acknowledged that there will never again be a time when one or two energy sources will fulfill all the energy requirements of a growing population that is also consuming more. We must now begin to look at using all of our resources with a greater "conservation consciousness."
Mike McCormack, in a speech to a 1976 Wyoming Energy Conservation Conference said, "To me, 'energy conservation' means the use of fuels, fuel sources, and energy sources, in the least wasteful, most efficient and cost-effective means reasonably available. It does not mean deprivation with regard to needed energy or fuel. It does not mean creating
higher unemployment. It does mean an intelligent and gradual modification of our methods of using energy, and it means modification of the ratio of energy consumption to employment levels in this country. It
does not mean a reduced standard of living, at least with an objective, mature perspective on what the concept of standard of living is. It means retaining what is really of value in our society, but giving up the concept of measuring standard of living by the number of chrome-plated internal combustion gadgets we have in our garage. It may mean not heating unused rooms to the same temperature as ones that are used during the day. It does mean an intelligent approach to heating and insulating homes.
With the increased need for other energy sources, it is time to adopt a "conservation consciousness" and to take a serious look at the "alternative" forms of energy (solar, hydroelectric, wind, geothermal, etc.).
These are not new forms of energy, but rather, the oldest energy resources which already have a proven potential. What remains to be done is more intensive research and development which would make these "old" energies applicable to the larger-scale energy requirements of the population.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
Purpose of the Study
My purpose in researching the Medicine Bow Wind Project was to identify the feasibility and potential of large-scale wind energy as a renewable means of energy generation and define what the impacts/benefits would be.
As it would be difficult to do an overview of wind energy in general, I choose to narrow the scope of my study by focusing on one project. The Medicine Bow project is the first attempt to operate a large-scale wind
project. At present, only the testing and development portion of the
project has been approved the approval and construction of the "wind farm" will depend on results of the initial test units. My research paper will be a description and analysis of the project rather than a comparison of this project with other projects. It is not my intent to examine the Medicine Bow project from a technical point of view (engineering principles, types of equipment, etc.), but rather to give an overview of the project and some of the energy and community planning implications (environmental, social, and economic) as they have been presented in reports and interviews specific to Medicine Bow.
My goals for this study were:
1. To obtain a basic understanding of wind and how it can be controlled as a useful energy source; 2 3 4
2. To define the energy potential of a "wind farm" as a resource with broader-scale application than just individual use;
3. To describe the impacts and benefits of the wind project; and
4. To discuss some of the implications of a "wind farm" as they relate to areas of planning (land use, energy contribution, etc.).
In order to describe the wind project, I included an overview of historical and present individual applications of wind energy to provide
comparisons between large-scale and
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF
Historical Perspective on Wind Energy
Wind is not a new source of energy it has been utilized for over 2000 years. Wind is indirect solar energy, a form of kinetic energy produced by the uneven heating of the earth. Approximately 2% of the solar radiation that passes through the earth's atmosphere is converted to wind
energy. "The total wind energy available over the land area of the United
States, currently calculated to be 1.15 X 10 kilowatt hours, is conservatively estimated to have an electricity-generation potential of one trillion kilowatt hours annually by the year 2000. This is equivalent to 13.6 percent of the nation's projected annual demand for the year 2000."^
This is also equivalent to 48 percent of the 1979 U.S. electric sales.
The first application of wind power was for transportation sailing ships. Wind was used for this purpose until a century ago when sailing ships were replaced by ships powered by coal and oil and, more recently, nuclear power.
The first evidence of wind power application on land (windmills) was in the 7th century A.D. Initially, Persians harnessed the wind to pump water for irrigation and later they began using windmills for grinding the grains they produced. From Persia, the concepts of windmills spread throughout that whole region and into China. In approximately the 11th century A.D., windmills began to appear in Europe. The Dutch used windmills to reclaim land that had been covered by the sea. Other European areas used wind to power grain mills, sawmills, factories, and as air brakes for lowering heavy loads.
In America, windmills were first utilized for the same purposes as in European areas pumping water, grinding grain, and other mechanical
needs. "By 1850, use of windmills in America to pump water and turn sawmills represented 1.4 billion horsepower-hours-of-work, an amount equivalent to 11.83 million tons of coal."^ With the advent of radios, the Jacobs and the Wincharger machines were changed from machines that pumped water to machines for electrical generation. By the 1920's, the windmill was used for electrical generation throughout the rural areas of America.
It is estimated that during the time of peak application of wind power for all uses (pumping, electricity, etc.) over 6 million small windmills were in operation throughout the U.S. in the 1930's, the Rural Electrical Administration (REA) was created which meant that centralized power could be brought to many rural areas. This centralizing process took about 20 years, during which time the use of windmills continued. By 1950, however, the use of windmills had become fairly obsolete except in areas removed from REA and for pumping water for livestock.
Although the small individual windmill became fairly obsolete throughout America and in much of Europe, experimental work progressed on large wind generators in Denmark, England, France, Germany, Russia, and in the United States. These experiments were on machines capable of producing from 100 200 kilowatts of electricity. The amount of wind speed required for the machines to function properly became less as the sophistication of the machines increased. In spite of experiments proving that these larger machines could work, they were not developed on a mass basis because fossil fuels were then being used for inexpensive energy generation and there was no need/incentive for wind energy application.
In 1934, Palmer Putnam designed a 1.25MW wind turbine (the design was built by General Electric). He convinced the Central Vermont Public Service Corporation to buy this power to supplement its existing
hydroelectric power for peak loads. This was the first cooperative effort with a public utility company. The large wind turbine was erected at Grandpa's Knob in Vermont. The blades were constructed of stainless steel and each weighed 8 tons, the angle could be changed to capture the available wind, and the blades could be turned into the wind (feathered) during severe winds to prevent stress on the machine. The machine was designed to operate in winds up to 70mph before the blades would feather. The machine started producing electricity and feeding it into the public service grid in October, 1941 (just before the war) and it was producing at the capacity it was designed for. The machine continued to produce electricity for 3% years without incident and then one of the 8 ton blades broke off. This was probably due to the fact that construction had to be hurried because of the possibility of war and the blades were not as strong as they should have been. The machine breakdown caused the project to be discontinued and the first large-scale wind turbine project did not progress after the war. This project did prove that large wind machines could work. After proving that large wind machines were feasible Putnam conceived of the idea of a multiple number of large machines at one location which would produce a quantity of power that could be fed in existing utility grids. Nothing became of his idea, however Putnam's concept is the same concept that we call a "wind farm" today.
From the 1940's to the 1970's very little was done with wind energy. The Federal Power Commission did some research but the inexpensiveness of energy generation from fossil fuels thwarted most efforts in wind energy development. In 1972 (when an awareness of the fossil fuel situation was becoming more clear) a panel was formed by the National Science Founda tion (NSF) and NASA to access wind potential in the U.S. "The panel
promptly and surprisingly reported that there might be enough wind energy in various parts of the country to provide 19?o of the electrical needs
by the year 2000." With the advent of the energy crisis, wind power was, again, viewed as a viable supplement to existing energy generation. Since 1972, research and development in wind energy has been funded and there are many on-going experiments to assess the possibilities of using wind energy.
The NASA-Lewis Center is experimenting with a 100-kilowatt machine at their research center in Sandusky, Ohio. This machine reaches its full producing power at wind speeds of 18 mph. In these first years of intensive research and development, the cost of wind generated electricity is still higher than the cost of electrical generation from fossil fuel plants. Much of this cost is due to the fact that storage is very expensive and that large windmachines (over 100KW) are still in experimental stages and are not being mass produced. Large corporations (Boeing,
General Electric, Grumman, Alcoa, Westinghouse, etc.) are focusing more on wind turbine construction which may help bring down the costs.
DOE has recently put a 2MW wind turbine generator into operation at Boone, North Carolina. At the time of construction, this generator was the largest ever built and will provide needed data on producing power with very large wind machines. DOE will also (in the near future) construct a larger wind demonstration project of three 2.5MW generators at a site that has not yet been chosen but will probably be located on the Washington-Oregon border. The power from this project will be fed into the Bonneville hydroelectric system.
Southern California Edison Company has just purchased a 200' wind turbine (without public assistance money) which is designed to provide
enough supplemental power to supply the needs of approximately 100 homes a savings of approximately 1,000 barrels of crude oil. The machine will begin operation this summer. Additionally, 17 vertical axis machines (smaller) have been purchased by both Southern California Edison and the Oregon utility companies for purposes of experimentation.
Experiments are being conducted at the Lamont Geological Observatory, Columbia University, to determine the wind potential for providing drinking water in some areas of the world. "Certain areas of the world which lack adequate drinking water receive warm, high humidity winds from the sea. Windpowered generators could pump cold water from off-shore depths
through cooling surfaces in the path of the wind. Condensing water could 9
A private enterprise, Windfarm's Limited, has contracted with Hawaiian Electric Company to provide 80MW of energy with wind power. The interesting point about this private company is that they are willing to own the machines and just sell the power to the utility company thus the utility company avoids the cost of ownership, operation and maintenance. This type of an effort will require time before a private company will realize a pay-back, but, with the rising prices of fossil fuels, may become a lucrative private enterprise. The government hopes to end its financial involvement in wind energy development by. 1998 and, if this happens, private companies will have to be prepared to handle the costs of wind energy development without additional subsidies. At present, there is some concern on the part of DOE that small businesses involving themselves in wind turbine development and operation may be getting in over their heads with the technology and expense required in the development of such large machines. DOE's concern is that if the machines don't
work, they will be a highly visible example of failure and may discourage future interest/development. Small business entrepreneurs feel that this attitude is only a way of discouraging small business opportunities in favor of larger, more well-established companies.
The above are only a few examples of the size, scale, and various involvement of private and public interests in the development of wind energy. They are not the only projects that are happening. It is interesting to note that the interest in wind energy as a supplemental form of power ir gaining increasingly within public service companies.
In addition to projects that are/will be in operation, there are some visionary ideas for wind energy development on a huge scale (extensive "wind farms"). Dr. William Heronemus has become a well-known voice for these concepts. Dr. Heronemus is formulating designs for a large wind farm that would be located off of the coast of New England. The wind structures would be clustered on huge towers or floating barges and he estimates the power that could be produced at approximately 160 billion kilowatt-hours per year. Another idea is to build clusters of wind machines in suitable locations throughout the Great Plains from Texas to North Dakota. This design would be capable of producing approximately 190,000MW of installed electrical capacity (this is approximately 1/3 of the total electrical generating capacity in the U.S. in 1978). As large wind machines are still being perfected and smaller-scale wind farms have not yet been tested, the full-scale development that Dr. Heronemus is suggesting seems to be an idea that is much farther in the future. The considerations for such development would have to involve such areas as land use, environment, social acceptance, etc.
The last example that I will mention as to the state of wind energy
development is the projected "wind farm" at Medicine Bow, Wyoming. Initially, this test project (a cooperative effort between the Bureau of Reclamation and DOE) will utilize a 4MW wind turbine generator (the largest ever built in the world). Studies will be done on machine performance and also on impacts (environmental, social, economic) and public reaction.
If data on the initial test turbine generators is favorable, the hope is to build a larger "wind farm" (approximately 40 units capable of producing 100MW together) at that location. This project is the subject of my research paper and it will be discussed in detail in later sections.
OVERVIEW OF SMALL WIND MACHINE APPLICATION
(small wind turbine generators)
Overview of Small Wind Machine Application
In a time of increasing energy costs and shortages of fossil fuels, some individuals are looking for renewable alternatives for domestic application which can be controlled by them not a centralized source.
The resource that the majority of these individuals are turning to is direct solar application. Wind, an indirect solar application, is another renewable resource that is being considered on an individual application basis.
At this time, wind is not cost-effective on an individual basis ($2000 $3000/KW^) except in remote locations where public service lines would have to be installed. The normal home would require 1000-4000kwh/ month (depending on if the residence was electrically heated) and costs presently would be approximately 13-200 per kilowatt-hour as compared to public utility costs of approximately 4-60 per kilowatt hour. However, with increasing energy costs and mass production of small wind machines (under 100KW) the price could lower. There is uncertainty, however, that the price of individual wind application could ever be as cost-effective as the cost of producing centralized wind power ("wind farms"). A major reason for this is the expense involved in providing a storage system for the electricity generated. Storage systems are approximately half the cost of an individual wind system. One alternative to this problem would be the utilization of the existing electric grids (as "wind farms" would do) as the storage electricity that is not needed immediately in the residence could be fed into the electric grid.
The components of a wind turbine generator (whether large or small) are basically the same:
1. A wind-driven rotor which extracts a certain percentage of energy
from the moving air mass;
2. A tower which allows the collector to take advantage of greater wind velocities that exist at higher elevations;
3. Some form of mechanism to protect the wind generator plant from excessive wind speeds;
A. The power-producing component (generator), and battery storage and power conversion systems; and
3. Alternative methods of wind energy storage.^
The average cut-in speed for a small wind machine is 8mph. Efficiencies
of these machines can get to 33-60?^.
There are many designs in wind machines. The oldest machines have a horizontal axis as do all of the large-scale machines that have been built to date. The horizontal axis machines are design-ready now for the large machine application. Vertical axis machines are not as proven, however, they work well for irrigation, are simpler, and are easier to produce. Presently the vertical axis machines have been built to 500KW and will probably prove very effective for larger amounts of power generation as they continue to be revised and designed.
As stated previously, one of the biggest problems with individual wind power generation is storage (this is also an obstacle with large-scale central application and is the reason "wind farms" are not cost-effective when they are not in conjunction with another system such as hydroelectric). As wind is intermittent and is not always blowing during the hours that there is the greatest need for power, a continuous power supply is not possible without a storage system. The acid battery storage system is the most common for individual wind application. These batteries, however, can wear out quickly, must have a regulator to prevent overcharging, lose some of their capacity in the cold, and are quite bulky.
Nickel-cadmium batteries do not have the disadvantages of acid batteries but they are very expensive. Both systems require the use of an inverter to convert D.C. to A.C. if electrical needs within the home require it. Another possibility for individual storage may be to tie into the existing electrical grid with the application of a synchronous inverter. "The synchronous inverter automatically senses the power available from the wind machine and the amount of power needed in the home. If the home needs more power than is available from the wind machines, the inverter will automatically "mix" additional utility power from the power line and feed it into the home. If more wind energy is being produced than is needed in the home, the excess is fed back into the utility line."^ With this system 2 meters art installed one to measure the amount of electrical energy that is being supplied to the home from the utility company and one to measure the amount of electrical energy that is fed back into the lines from the wind energy generation. Some advantages to using this system instead of battery storage are:
1. It eliminates the expense of battery storage and, therefore, cuts down the cost of the wind system;
2. It eliminates the necessity of buying a wind machine that is large enough to meet the peak electric requirements the peak requirements can be filled with electricity from the public service; and 3
3. Individuals receive a payment from utility companies for the extra wind energy that is fed back into the utility lines. The amount of the payment is not usually at retail rate (although Pacific Power & Light pays retail rate) because utility expenses such as equipment and maintenance are calculated into retail rates as well as the cost of energy.
At this time, not all utilities will allow wind energy to be fed into the grid. Policies vary from area to area. Where it is allowed, the owner of the individual wind system has some legal responsibilities to the public service company and must sign a contract acknowledging these responsibilities
These legal responsibilities usually center around the individual having the proper equipment for feeding energy into the electric grid which will insure the safety of utility employees who are working on the electric lines.
Environmental and social effects of an individual small wind machine are practically non-existant in rural areas. There are some possible hazards to birds (flying into a blade) and there could be some interference with t.v. reception. This is negated through the placement of the wind machines. In populated areas where there are zoning and building codes, there may be restrictions which prevent the construction of a wind machine such as height, structures next to property lines, etc. Legal/political issues could be raised on such factors as aesthetics, noice, blocking views, interference with television reception, and malfunctioning machines which could possibly throw a blade. There is also the question of wind access in populated areas. Can a person build a structure that would block the wind to an existing wind machine? These are all issues that will have to be dealt with as more individual wind machines are built.
To determine whether a small wind machine is a good application for an individual situation several factors must be evaluated:
1. Evaluate potential legal and environmental problems;
2. Evaluate your energy requirements;
3. Evaluate the wind resource at your proposed location;
4. Evaluate the application;
5. Select system and components;
6. Evaluate the cost of the system;
7. Evaluatij^alternatives in buying, installing, and owning a wind system.
Information on how to go about the evaluation of the above factors is available through the Rocky Flats Wind Systems Program in Denver, Colorado. The Rocky Flats Wind System Test Center (government contracted to Rockwell International) is a program to test small machines as to performance and reliability. The location of the center at Rocky Flats was selected because winds gust to high speeds at that location and it is ideal for testing small machines under "worst" condition situations. All small wind machines that are commercially available are being tested at that site and information is published about these machines.
In addition to home electrical application, small wind machines are being used for larger applications such as community colleges and dairy farms, for irrigation, for apple storage cooling, and experiments are ongoing on direct mechanical conversion of wind energy to heat.
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF MEDICINE BOW WIND PROJECT
(urge wind turbine generators)
Physical Description of Medicine Bow Hind Project
The Medicine Bow Wind Project is a cooperative effort between the Water and Power Resources Service (Bureau of Reclamation), the NASA Lewis Center, and the Department of Energy. Much of the information in this report will be approximations of the wind energy potential and effects of the large wind turbine generators. The reasons for these approximations are as follows:
1. The largest machines that have been put into operation to date are 2.0MW. Research and experimentation on generators larger than this are now in process.
2. Much of the initial data collection and calculations for the Medicine Bow project were based on the new Boeing Mod-2. A 2.5MW generator on which designs were being finalized. As this was the largest ready-to-go wind machine during the initial planning phases of the project, the assumption^.was that machines of that size would be used.
3. The actual bid to construct the wind turbine generators was won by Hamilton Standard who had completed designs for a 4MW generator. The bid was awarded just recently in February, 1980. 4
4. The majority of this report will be based on the 2.3MW generators as all of the reports and assessments to date have been based on that size wind machine. New calculations on the larger machine are not yet available. Much of the data, however, will remain the same as there will be a maximum limit (100MW) to the amount of power generated in the proposed "wind farm" no matter what machines are utilized only the number of structures might change.
Several other points should be noted at the beginning of this description.
To date, the Bureau of Reclamation has only received funds from the legislature ($200,000 in 1977 as start-up money for an initial 3-year study with additional monies yearly) for the initial research and data collection, various wind characteristics and environmental assessments, and the purchase and operation of one 4MW wind turbine generator to be used for further study as to the feasibility of a larger-scale wind installation. Additional
test machines will be constructed in the near future (within 3 years). Depending on further testing and the results of the actual operation of the test machines, there is potential for the Medicine Bow site to become the location of a larger-scale "wind farm" (approximately 40 units). This, however, is a future projection which will require legislative approval and additional assessments. The second point to be noted is that the assessments to this point (in compliance with NEPA) have been based on a maximum of 3 test machines as that is the current status of the project (experimental test project). Therefore, if a "wind farm" were actually to be approved and constructed, more intensive studies would occur.
It has been only recently that the concept of large-scale wind application has been seriously considered. Wind has previously been viewed as mainly having application only in areas where public utilities did not already exist where small wind machines could be cost competitive.
Large wind installations were not economically feasible because of the great expense in wind turbine generators (large turbines were only being built for experimental purposes) and in storage. As fossil fuel energy generation was quite inexpensive, the wind machines could not compete. The cost of fossil fuels, however, has been changing rapidly and both public and private sectors are beginning to take an interest in and promote the concepts of other forms of energy.
In 1977, Mr. Stanley Hightower and Mr. Abner Watts from the Bureau of Reclamation in Denver submitted a proposal that would study the feasibility of combining wind energy and hydroelectric energy into one cooperative system thereby eliminating the need for additional storage for wind energy. The proposal was to study the wind energy potential at a site close to the town of Medicine Bow, Wyoming and build test wind turbine
generators where the power produced would be fed directly into the existing transmittion lines of the Colorado River Storage Project (also a project of the Bureau of Reclamation). If the tests were successful and the en-vironmental/social/economic assessments favorable, the site could then be used for the first "wind farm" installation. The goals of the project were to:
1. Test the concept of integrating wind and hydroelectric generation facilities and production.
2. Determine the environmental impact of wind generation within the study area.
3. Evaluate the feasibility and justification for constructing a large-scale wind farm.
4. Measure the acceptance and reaction of the public to the plan.'*-'3 5
The Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) is a series of dams, the
two largest being the Glen Canyon and the Flaming Gorge, which serves loads in a seven state area (See figure 2).^ The generating ability of the CPRS is based on the river volumes. The obligation of the CPRS is to provide water for compact water requirements, irrigation, some municipal use and recreation as well as power generation.
Mr. Hightower and Mr. Watts viewed wind and hydroelectric power as a compliment for several reasons:
1. The water volume is greater in the summer for hydroelectric power generation due to spring run-off when wind is less. In the winter, when the water volume is lower, wind is at its peak. Therefore, one of the energies is generating at its peak while the other is at a low point.
2. The maximum wind speed at Medicine Bow occurs from 10:00 A.M. -4:00 P.M. when the peak power demands are highest. This timing of wind speeds supplements hydroelectric when the needs are the greatest.
3. Hydroelectric generation units are more capable of starting up
quickly, making adjustments in power output, and operating effici-
ently for shorter periods of time than are fossil fuel generation
WIND/HYDROELECTRIC ENERGY INTEGRATION CONCEPT
O POWERPLANT POWEHLINc
systems. These advantages are compatible with wind power as they allow for the variation in wind power output depending on whether the wind is blowing.
4. The hydroelectric system is ideal for eliminating additional storage for wind power. When the wind is blowing, the power generated can be fed directly into the transmission lines and to balance that, water that would have been released for power generation remains stored behind the dam. This water, then, becomes the storage and can be released later when it is needed.
As the primary purpose of the CPRS is to provide water (especially irrigation) there has been some concern that the flow patterns of the rivers will be disrupted through holding back water during times of wind power generation. The hydroelectric plants, however, are capable of water regulation between plants so the river flows never go below established mimimums Within this project, hydroelectric is by far the greatest power generation source (1324MW). The proposed "wind farm" would produce 100MW and is only meant to be an experimental and supplemental source. Mr. Hightower feels that the real value of the "wind farm" power would be in energy generation for the peak power demands.^ It would reguire a large guantity of wind turbines (forty 2.5MW turbines = 100MW) to generate the power being produced by fossil fuel installations (new ones are usually 500MW/unit) and because of the intermittent nature of the wind, the amount of power generated would vary. Energy demand is viewed in three basic categories the base load, intermediary power and peak power. (See Figure 3). The base load is the steady level of consumption which is required at all times and is presently best met by fossil fuel plants which function most efficiently when they are run at full capacity. Intermediary power, daily non-peak levels rising above the base load, can be handled by existing older and smaller fossil fuel plants that can function at their full capacity. Energy generation for peak power demand is the real problem and that is where hydroelectric has proven most useful and wind power and
the water reserves created by wind power could act as a viable supplement. The hydroelectric system is able to adjust power output (up/down) more quickly and function more efficiently on short-term demand than fossil fuel plants. Therefore, utilization of resources such as hydroelectric and wind could help decrease the requirements for additional fossil fuel plants that would otherwise have to be built to handle the increased peak load requirements.
Figure 3 PEAK LOAD
Major wind characteristic considerations are the average annual wind direction, the velocity, the temperature and density, and the daily and seasonal variations in each. Wind direction is important for the orientation of the wind turbines on a site. Temperatures that are extremely low on a consistent basis could produce serious problems with icing blades (which could then throw ice chunks). Calm winds and then
extreme gusts are not good considerations because turbines are designed to function in steady average winds (approximately 12-15 mph winds are necessary for start-up and approximately 50-60 mph winds are the maximum limit before a turbine will shut-down depending on the design). Potential tornado areas are not good considerations. Daily and seasonal variations are important in considering continual operation of the machines as well as the time of day the power output will be the steadiest (the most desirable time is when electrical use is heaviest peak use).
Ideal wind speed measurements would be at heights equal to the hub
of the large wind turbines (varies with models from approximately 150-
250 ft.) because wind speeds are higher at that level due to "a frictional
boundary layer which results in lower wind speeds near the surface than
at height where free flow can occur.However, many areas are not
equipped with large towers for those kinds of measurements. Mr. Hightower
stated that calculations could be based on measurements at 30 ft. and
that wind measurement of approximately 15mph at that height presented a
good site possibility. Along with the wind speed considerations, wind distribution must be calculated. "Since the available wind power varies as the cube of the wind speed, this requires a knowledge of climatological distribution of the wind speeds, rather than just the average wind
speed to calculate available power." Therefore, if the wind speeds double from 9mph to 18mph, the increase in power would be 8 times greater than at 9mph. A good potential site, then, would be an area that had consistent higher average wind speeds but not exceeding the wind speed maximum that the machine was designed for (15-16mph at 30 ft. is a good average). In calculating the amount of power output of a machine in a particular location there are limitations to what can be extracted by
WIND POWER, ANNUAL AVERAGE AVAILABLE
the wind turbines. "The ideal rotor output is limited to what is called
the Betz limit which is 16/27 times the available power." This is under ideal conditions and atmospheric and site factors as well as turbine design factors could decrease that more.
In order to define the site for the proposed wind project, based on wind characteristics, the Bureau collected data from 758 weather stations throughout the U.S., analyzed the data and put it into a map form
showing those areas that had equal available power. (See Figure 4).
From that information, more specific data was collected from all weather stations in 17 western states. The best sites were selected and Medicine Bow, Wyoming was third on the list. Guadalupe Pass, Texas and Livingston, Montana had greater wind potential, however, several other factors prompted the selection of the Medicine Bow site.
1. Medicine Bow was closer to an existing hydroelectric grid and an electrical substation already existed near the site.
2. There was a larger amount of available federal land in the area.
3. Both Gaudalupe Pass and Livingston are located in narrow valleys and did not offer as much available land to pursue a "wind farm" concept.23
With the selection of the site, the Bureau of Reclamation contracted with the Department of Atmospheric Science at the University of Wyoming to do more particular wind studies in order to determine the best wind turbine placement on the site. The large Medicine Bow site (600 sq. mi.) was divided into 5 potential placement sites for specific consideration. (See Figure 5).^ The Department of Atmospheric Science maintains 14 wind anemometer stations in and around the site. Information is gathered on wind direction, wind speed, temperature and time of day. The Dept, also flew an instrumented plane to "study jets of air that stream through the pass north and south of Elk Mountain, and atmospheric waves which
compress and increase wind velocity in some areas." They also utilized an instrumented kite which measures wind speed profiles. The data compiled by the Dept, of Atmospheric Science was used to determine the place-
ment of a larger meteorological tower. Site A was selected for this placement.
The construction and maintenance of the meteorological tower was contracted to Western Scientific Services of Fort Collins. The tower was initially built to 198 ft. and later, within the guidelines of the Federal Aviation Authority, it was increased to 360 ft. The tower measures wind speeds at various levels, temperatures at the top and bottom and barometric pressure. A local Medicine Bow resident records the data from the tower on a regular basis.
Through the monitoring and data collection of wind characteristics, Sites A and C were chosen as potential sites for further research and possible wind turbine development. The area has a semiarid climate which is "characterized by high evaporation, cold winters and cool summers, and low precipitation. Dry air from the Pacific Northwest influences
the general weather pattern of the area." Temperatures range from an average of 15 63F. in the summer. Both sites show an annual average wind speed of over 14.5mph as well as 70% of the available wind energy occuring during peak demand hours. Ninety percent of the power producing winds come from the west-southwest. The highest wind speeds seldom exceed 60mph. There are also no great significant differences in wind speeds between the highest and lowest points of the blades which would cause mechanical difficulties. The temperatures are such that icing will not be a difficult problem the icing that may occur can be handled with heating elements.
Wind characteristics monitoring will continue throughout the duration of the project.
From the 5 potential sites around the Medicine Bow area, Sites A and C were selected as having good potential for wind energy experimentation and development. (Refer back to Figure 5.) In addition to favorable wind characteristics assessments, there were several other reguire-ments for a good site:
1. Adeguate available land for potential development beyond the test units (both public and private land).
2. Minimal environmental impacts from development on the site.
3. Minimal distance to existing hydroelectric grid.
4. County or state road systems close to the site for minimal additional new road construction.
3. Proximity to major road networks or railroads for shipping of eguipment and construction materials.
Of the two sites, Site A was selected as the best site for the construction and operation of the test wind turbine generators. Although the wind characteristics were similar for both sites, Site A was closer to Medicine Bow (3% miles southwest). This meant that Site A had better access to highways and railroads. Additionally, the transmission line reguirements from the site to the substation were less than a third of the distance reguirements from Site C. Site C is approximately 11 miles northeast of Medicine Bow.
Site A is in Carbon County and is approximately 32,000 acres.
The elevation is approximately 6800 ft. Site A is located in a plains area, without dramatic elevation changes, which is surrounded on three
sides by mountains (west, south, and east). The site itself is fairly flat without prominent changes in land features except for a few gently rising areas. These areas are small plateaus sloping gently into dry lake areas.
Site A is located in the Medicine Bow drainage area. Run-off goes into the Medicine Bow River where it then flows into the North Platte River system.
Geological formations are from "the Cretaceous, Jurassis, Triassic, and Permian Periods. Rock types consist of a complete variety of sedimentary rocks: sandstone, shale, and limestone. Quaternary deposits
consist of wind-blown sand, alluvium, and terrace deposits." The Medicine Bow Formation, Mesaverde Formation, and Lewis Shale form the bedrock in the site area (mainly sandstone and shale).
Soil is of moderate depth on top of sandstone and clay shales. Surface soils (approximately 6" depth) are from sandy loams to silt loams and do not contain a great deal of organic matter. The upper subsoil is composed of a range from clay loam to clay. Lower subsoil has a high content of calcium carbonate which can, in places, harden and cement. There are also sandstone rock outcroppings in the area.
Vegetation characteristics of the site are open grassland and low shrubs. "Dominant components of this vegetative type are bluebunch wheatgrass and big sagebrush. Other grass species observed onsite include thickspike and intermediate wheatgrass, needle-and-thread grass, sandburg bluegrass, and Indian ricegrass. Shrubs found on the site, other than big sagebrush include black sagebrush, rabbitbrush, and four-wing saltbrush. Prickly pear cactus is abundant, and pincushion cactus also occurs throughout the site. Winterfat and shadscale occur on the
flatlands." The limited rainfall in the area, makes the site more favorable for grazing than for farming. Successful farming would require irrigation this is shown by the "low-water, hardy" type plants that exist naturally on the land.
A variety of animals exist on and around the site. They are mainly prarie animals, however, there are some riparian species around streams and small lakes within the vicinity of the site. Animals particular to the site itself (either as permanent residents or as part of a migratory pattern) are: Leopard frog, Eastern short-horned lizard, Pronghorn Antelope, Mule deer, Coyote, Badger, Long-tailed weasel, White-tailed jackrabbit, Desert cottontail, Least chipmunk, Richardson's ground squirrel, Thirteen-lined ground squirrel, Golden eagle, Ferruginous hawk, Red-tailed hawk, Prarie falcon, American Kestrel, Great horned owl, Burrowing owl, Sage grouse, California gull, Avocet, Willet, Killdeer, Wilson's phalarope, Mountain plover, Red-winged blackbird, Yellow-headed blackbird, Robin, Eastern kingbird, Sage thrasher, Mounning dove, Lark bunting, Horned lark, Vesper sparrow, Says phoebe, Mountain bluebird, American goldfinch, McCowan's longspur, Cliff swallow, Common nighthawk, Common flicker and Magpie.
Site C is in Albany County and is approximately 35,000 acres. The elevation is approximately 6800 ft. The general features of the area are similar to Site A with the following exceptions.
Site C is located on the divide which drains into the Little Medicine Bow River and Rock Creek. These also connect with the North Platte System.
The Niobrara and Frontier Formations, the Mowry and Thermopolis
Shales, and the Cloverly Formation form the bedrock (shale, conglomerate limestone and sandstone). Bentonite also exists in the Mowry and Thermo polis Shales. A fault area passes across a portion of the site, however it has been studied and it is highly improbable that guakes will be a problem there.
Site C soils are similar to Site A except that Site C does not have any rock outcroppings rock close to the surface is covered by eolian and alluvial sand.
Vegetation characteristics of the site are open grasslands with
areas of dense short grasses. "Stands of low shrubs, primarily big
sagebrush, intermingle with the grasses. Dominant grass species of this
type include western wheatgrass, blue grama, and needle-and-thread grass
Other components observed in the area are generally the same as those 29
found on site A."
Animal species (either residents or on a migratory pattern) at Site C include: Leopard frog, Pronghorn angelope, Badger, White-tailed jackrabbit, Desert cottontail, Richardson's ground squirrel, Thirteen-lined ground squirrel, Golden Eagle, Ferruginous hawk, Swainson's hawk, Marsh hawk, Mallard, Pintail, Cinnamon teal, Blue-winged teal, Shoveler, Western grebe, Sage grouse, Avocet, Killdeer, Mountain plover, Redwinged blackbird, Mourning dove, Lark bunting, Horned lark, Vesper sparrow, Say's phoebe, Western meadowlark, Loggerhead shrike, and Crow.
Both sites consist of a combination of public and private lands.
All lands required for actual project purposes will be acquired as permanent easements according to the rights-of-way policies of toe Department of the Interior. Additional lands in the site areas will continue to be used for grazing purposes.
System Verification Unit and Test Project
The System Verification Unit (SVU) is the wind turbine generator which has been funded and which will be constructed on Site A in the summer of 1981. This section will be a description of the SVU and the proposed schedule of events for the test project. The test project is an approximate 6 year project at which time it is hoped that the data will show that a larqer-scale "wind-farm" will be feasible.
The purpose of the initial System Verification Unit is to:
1. Analyze performance;
2. Determine operation and maintenance requirements;
3. Verify manufacturer's design criteria;
4. Access public reaction and acceptance; and
5. Monitor and analyze environmental effects.
At the beginning of the project, the Bureau had defined from a 1-3MW machine for an initial test unit. The assumption was that the test unit would be a 2.3MW machine which was the largest one "ready-to-go" at the beginning of the project. The wind turbine generator was put out for bids and in February, 1980, the $6 million contract was awarded to Hamilton Standard Company of Windsor Locks, Connecticut, for the construction of a 4MW wind turbine generator. This wind turbine will be the largest wind machine ever produced. (See Figure 6).^
The 4MW SVU will be mounted on a 262 ft. tapered, hollow steel tower and will have a twin bladed rotor with a diameter of 255 ft.
The high point of the blade will be approximately 390 ft. above ground level and the low point will be approximately 135 ft. above ground level. The blade, at its highest point, would be over 2/3 the size of the Washington Monument (555') and over \ the size of the World Trade
System Verification Unit Hamilton Standard WTS-4
77.6 METERS (255 FEET)
. TOWER HEIGHT:
80 METERS (262 FEET)
DOWNWIND FREE YAW
DIGITAL ELECTRONIC CONTROL SYSTEM TWO-STAGE COMMERCIAL GEARBOX
. SYNCHRONOUS AC-60 Hz GENERATOR HOLLOW STEEL TOWER
STANDARD UTILITY SWITCH GEAR
FOUR MEGAWATTS RATING
THE WTS-4 CHARACTERISTICS MEET THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION'S SVU REQUIREMENTS
Center (13501). The blades will be constructed out of filament wound fiberglass. The wind machine will be designed to begin operating at approximately 14mph and to cut out at approximately 50mph. At the maximum wind speed the blades will automatically feather (turn directly into the wind and lock into a horizontal position) and not operate.
This is to reduce stress on the blades and the machine. The rotation of the blades will be designed for an automatic 17% revolutions/minute. This means that once the cut-in wind speed is reached and the blades begin to rotate, there will be maximum power output as long as the wind speeds are within the designed range. In small wind machines the blades are allowed to rotate freely and the power will increase as the cube of the windspeed. In large machines, the best potential wind site is located and the machine is designed for maximum output particular to the average winds of that site the rotation is controlled and the output remains steady. While operating between acceptable wind speeds, the machine will automatically turn (directional orientation) to the best vantage
point for capturing available wind. At 4MW, the SVU should be capable
of producing electricity for approximately "1200 homes." The schedule for operation of the SVU is:
1. Design and site preparation to summer, 1981;
2. Construction of SVU in summer, 1981;
3. Begin operation of SVU in September, 1981;
4. Two month follow-up for checkout time; and
3. Two years of test generation.
Site preparation (See Figure 7)^ for the construction and operation of the wind turbine generators (hopefully 4 additional wind generators will be erected within several years of the first SVU) includes
XISTING TRANSMISSION LINS
WIND TURBINE SITE #7
WIND-HYDROELECTRIC ENERGY PROJECT
WIND TURBINE SITE *3
WIND TURBINE SITE *4
the turbine sites layout, the construction of a control building, the placement of underground powerlines from each turbine to the terminal structure which will be located near the control building, the upgrading of 4.5 miles of country roads to the site as well as the construction of 2.5 miles of road on-site which connect the 5 wind machines, and the construction of 4.6 miles of transmission lines from the site to the existing electrical substation. (See Figure 8 for schedule of work to be done.)"^
The road from Medicine Bow to the site area is a dirt county road. It will need to be resurfaced with gravel to handle heavy truck traffic and increased traffic from visitors (the project will be open to the public throughout its duration). Also culverts and cattle guards will be upgraded to handle the heavier truck weights. The site itself has no existing roads and roads will be constructed and graveled to connect the 5 wind turbine sites. The site roads will be used for construction and maintenance purposes only. On-site roads will be approximately 60 ft. wide and will require 18 acres of land.
Underground power lines will be placed from the wind turbines to the terminal structure on-site. This will require approximately 2.8 miles of cable and 1.5 acres of land. The laying of the cable will leave a land scar approximately 3 ft. wide which will be minimized, where possible, by laying them in the site's road right-of-way. Overhead 34.5 -kV transmission lines will have to be constructed from the on-site terminal structure to the electrical substation (which is less than a mile west of Medicine Bow) to connect with the hydroelectric system. The new transmission lines will parallel existing powerlines except for approximately the last .9 of a mile before the substation.
Schedule & Man-fUMae* Resultentente
IS YEAR 2HPYEAR 3m EAR
USBR F M A M J J A S 0 N D J F M A M J J A S 0 N D Â£ M A
LAND ACQUISITIONS 1 e 2 E
UPGRADE COUNTY ROAD 2 3
CONSTRUCT SITE ROADS a a
CONSTRUCT CONTROL COMPLEX a
CONSTRUCT TRANS. FACILITIES a a
FIELD SUPPORT l 1 i 2 2 i 2 2 2 2 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
SITE PREPARATION 12 12
UNDERGROUND CABLE <1
WTG* ERECTION 21 21 21 21 21 21 16 16
WTG* CHECK-OUT a a a 5 5 5 5 5 5
FIELD MAN-POWER REQUIREMENT 1 B II 12 23 18 23 23 23 23 30 30 23 23 7 7 7 7 7
*wind msmi smwog.
The rights-of-way for the transmission lines will be 50 ft. and will require 20.3 acres paralleling existing lines and 7.4 acres through open land. The transmission poles will be single wood poles without arms where the conductors are placed in a vertical pattern on the pole itself. This is to discourage bird perching.
The foundations for the wind turbines will be staggered and separated by distances of approximately 4500 ft. This is so there will not be any interference with winds to each wind machine site. The orientation of the wind machines will be to the west-southwest. At each wind machine site will be a concrete foundation of approximately 61' X 61' X 6'. This foundation will be surrounded by an erection staging area of approximately 200' X 200'. This area will be graveled. Each site will require approximately .9 of an acre or 4.5 acres of land for all five wind turbine sites. (See Figure 9).^
The control building area will cover 1.5 acres and be directly accessible from the county road. Within the area will be a prefab building (24' X 60') which will provide operation, maintenance and visitor space. Around the building will be a maintenance and storage yard which will be graveled and enclosed with a fence. This is for security and is the only area on the site which will be fenced. A 50 car graveled visitor parking lot will be provided between the control area and the access to the county road. Visitors will not be permitted to drive on the site roads.
All construction necessary for the test wind turbine site would result in .approximately 56 acres of land for purposes other than what it had originally been grazing land. Of that acreage, approximately 30 acres will only experience short-term impacts. This is the land
TYPICAL SITE PREPARATION LAYOUT
TO COUNTY mP 1300' -SUB I
disturbed for transmission lines and underground cables and it can be revegetated. All of the remaining land at Site A can be continued to be utilized as grazing area.
If analysis and monitoring throughout the duration of the test project verifies wind turbine performance, negligible environmental effects, compatibility with the hydroelectric system, and public interest and acceptance, proposals will be made for the installation of a large-scale "wind-farm" near Medicine Bow.
"Wind Farm" Concept
Figure 10: An artists conception of the Medicine Bow "Wind Farm"
Based on favorable data from the test project and legislative approval and funding, the ultimate goal of the project is to install and operate a 100MW "wind farm" at the Medicine Bow site by 1990. (See Figure 11. )'56 This will require approximately forty 2.5MW wind turbines (or twenty-five 4MW machines if the larger size proves more effective and economical). The forty-unit field will be arranged in six clusters with a staggered pattern of turbine placement within each cluster.
The turbines in each cluster will be 15 blade lengths apart -- this is to avoid any turbulence that might be created by each machine and to prevent increased noise. The orientation of the machines on the site will be at 250 as the greatest wind potential on the sites comes from that direction (west-southwest). Each cluster will be grouped on the higher elevation points within the site so that there will be less and a 1% elevation change between all of the turbines (approximately 6740' -6940').
Figure 11: Wind Development Schedule
Current Schedule Early Authorization
The size of the first "wind farm" (100MW) is based on calculations as to how much power can be introduced into the CRSP transmission system without requiring any major modification to the system. One hundred megawatts could be integrated into the existing CRSP system with minimum impacts on water deliveries and environment. According to Mr. Watts, the site is large enough to handle the quantity of wind machines that would produce up to a maximum of 400MW.^ If the "wind farm" could be expanded in the future would depend on the amount of modification required for the CRSP and the environmental assessment of such increased expansion.
The 100MW "wind farm" would have a power generation output of ap-
proximately 351 million kwh/year. (See Figure 12). This could ser-
vice the electric requirements of 50,000 60,000 homes. The end efficiency of the electricity generation is calculated to be 35-405o.
As each unit is completed, it will begin producing power.
The site layout and facilities requirements will be the same as those described for the test units. The erection staging area around the wind turbine foundations will be larger (400' X 450') and the underground cable, transmission lines, and on-site road requirements will be greater. The machines will be constructed to operate with remote controls from the Bureau field office in Casper, Wyoming or to operate with manual controls from on the site.
While both Sites A and C are favorable sites for wind generation and Site A was selected as the best site for the test generation units, the Bureau is presently leaning toward Site C as the location for the "wind farm". Although this site is more removed from the railroad and highway networks and would require longer tramsmission line distances
to the electrical substation, the site contains more uniformly high elevation land which would allow more area for the placement of the turbines.
The following tabulation shows the daily onpeak and offpeak hours corresponding to the daily peak periods for winter and summer seasons:
Period Winter Summer
Onpeak 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. 11 a.m. to 10 p.m.
Offpeak 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. 10 p.m. to 11 a.m.
Based on the above daily periods, table 2 shows the seasonal and total wind field generation by months for Site C.
Table 2. Seasonal and total wind generation output at Site C for 100 megawatts
Wind turbine generation (million kilowatt-hours)
Month Monthly total Onpeak total Offpeak total
October 23.48 19.60 3.88
November 34.87 25.77 9.10
December 40.41 26.62 13.79
January 39.80 29.54 10.26
February 32.75 23.65 9.10
March 35.31 25.80 9.51
Subtotal 205.52 150.98 55.64
April 33.42 17.62 15.80
May 33.90 19.69 14.21
June 19.28 12.98 6.30
July 18.46 12.97 5.49
August 18.22 13.59 4.63
September 21.13 12.70 8.43
Subtotal 144.41 89.55 54.86
Total 351.03 240.53 110.50
As shown, the total average annual wind turbine field generation will be about 351 million kilowatt-hours per year. The significance of this analysis is that most of this wind energy output will occur during the winter and onpeak periods. These two wind energy characteristics are ideal for integration with hydropower.
IMPACTS /BENEFITS OF
MEDICINE BOW WIND PROJECTS
Impacts/Benefits of Medicine Bow Wind Project
The following impacts/benefits will mainly be discussed in terms of the studies that have been conducted on the project to date. These studies have been assessments up to a maximum of 5 wind machines for the test project further assessments will have to be conducted if the large-scale "wind farm" is approved in the future. Within this section, the impacts/benefits are meant to cover both sites A and C unless a particular site is specifically designated.
There has been participation in the assessments of this project from the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and planning agencies in both Carbon and Albany Counties.
A. Environmental Considerations
1. Land Use
Historically, this land has been used for grazing (mainly cattle
and some sheep) because there is not enough rainfall for productive
farming. The amount of land required to support one cow-calf unit for
one month has been defined for site A as 69 acres and for site C as 40
6-8 acres. With the land requirements of approximately 56 acres for the test project at site A, the rest of the available land at the site would support all but one cow-calf unit of its original capacity. All of this land will continue to be used for grazing.
If I estimate that the construction of a "wind farm" would require approximately 200 225 acres of land (150 165 for the wind turbine sites at 4 acres per site plus 50 75 acres for on-site roads, cables, transmission lines and a control area) the land taken out of grazing at site A would be equivalent to the loss of approximately 25-33
cow-calf units. The impact on original .land use would be less at Site A than at Site C.
There has been some question as to whether or not the microclimate in the downstream wake of the large wind units could be effected. There is a possibility that there would be some variation in moisture patterns and ground-level accumulation (increased snowfall/snowmelt) due to turbulence created by the machines. If there is more moisture, there could be a change in the plant species over time which might, in turn, effect animal habitats. Since a large wind project has never been tried before, there is no definite answer as to whether and/or how much the microclimate would be effected. This aspect will be closely monitored throughout the test years of the project so that some determination of the effect of a "wind farm" on the microclimate can be made.
The soil in the area ranges from sandy loams to silty loams. These soils have a low water-holding capacity, are not highly erodable, and do not have shrink/swell characteristics. Both types of soil are not as furtile as other soils (although silt loams are more furtile than sandy loams) which is another reason why the land is more suitable for grazing than farming. The characteristics of these soils make them stable for construction purposes. The high calcium carbonate content in some areas of the subsoil is not harmful to foundations (cement also has a high calcium carbonate content).
There is presently moderate to slight erosion on the site areas.
This is caused by grazing and wind and is a slow process because there is little rainfall. All areas on the site that do not require removal
of all vegetation for the duration of the project (the areas that are the control areas, roads, and the erection staging areas around the turbines) will be revegetated to minimize erosion that might be caused by the construction of the project.
During construction, topsoil will have to be removed from the wind turbine foundation areas and the control building foundation area.
This topsoil will be spread evenly within the road rights-of-way and low dry lake areas on the site. There will also be soil compaction on roads and the parking lot as well as some caused by heavy vehicles around the site during the construction phase.
The impacts on the soil will be strictly limited to the specific project areas and will not effect any other parts of the site. Revegetation will occur in the areas where the topsoil is spread as well as in areas (not roadways or the erection staging area) where soil was compressed due to construction equipment.
There should be little impact on the geology/topography within the site due to the fact that the turbines will be located on the high areas within the site where there will be less than l?o elevation difference between all turbine placements. Therefore, no major excavation will be required. Excavation requirements will be limited to the wind turbine foundations, roads, and cable and transmission line placements.
The underground cable will be dug, placed and covered in one action.
The sand and gravel used for the roads and parking lot will be obtained from existing quarries in the Medicine Bow area and, therefore, the possibility of having to open a new quarry site or having storage areas for gravel hauled in from long distance will be eliminated.
As the area is rolling plains with gentle plateaus, there are no prominent geological features which will be destroyed in order to locate the turbines on the site.
On Site A, within the Medicine Bow Formation (bedrock) dinosaur fossils may be discovered. If this occurs, construction will be halted until the area has been examined and determinations made on how to preserve them.
Several sections on Site A contain subbituminous to bituminous coal beds. The placement of structures on the site will be such that they will not interfere with these beds in case the coal resource is needed in the future.
5. Environmental Hazards
On Site C there is a fault running northeasterly across one section. According to Bureau personnel, this has been studied and determined to be not a serious problem. Studies indicate that the possibility of any guaking is slight and, if it should occur, it will not measure higher than 2 on the Richter scale. The large wind turbine generators are constructed to withstand guakes of a force of 7 on the Richter scale. Slight tremors will not cause the wind machines to fall, throw blades, etc.
There is no other environmental hazard potential in the area. It is not a floodplain, a tornado area, nor an extremely high wind area (gusts rarely exceed 60mph). Elevation changes are gentle and slides (rock or mud) will not occur on the site.
6. Surface Drainage and Aguifers
As construction will be on the higher elevations of the site, there should be little interference with surface drainage. Where project
structures do interfere with natural drainage, the drainage flow will be redirected. If there is any impact at all on surface drainage it would be in the construction phase. This impact will be minimized through strict construction requirements listed under "Construction" in this section.
The wind project will cause no impact on existing aquifiers and water tables. All activity will be surface activity except for the approximate six'foundations for each turbine. There will be no wells drilled on the site nor will there be any leaching fields.
There is potential over the long-term to effect vegetation if the turbines do, in fact, have an influence on the microclimate as described under "Weather" in this section. This impact will not be able to be determined until monitoring is conducted over the period of the test project.
At the site area, there will be both long and short-term impacts on vegetation. Long-term impacts will be present where vegetation must be completely cleared for project structure requirements (wind turbine erection staging area, control area, and roads). Short-term impacts will be present in areas where, during construction, vegetation is removed or trampled but where, after construction is completed, recontouring and revegetation will occur (transmission and cable rights-of-way, areas around the erection staging area where there were heavy vehicles, and road rights-of-way). After the construction phase, all vehicles will be limited to the on-site roads and only personnel will be able to use those roads. This will allow all revegetated areas to grow back to their natural state. With the test project at Site A (56 acres), there
will be long-term vegetation impacts on approximately 27 acres and shortterm impacts on approximately 29 acres over half of the project will only experience short-term vegetation impacts. The additional acreage on the site (approximately 31,940 acres) will not have any vegetation impact.
A literature search is now in process to determine if any of the plant species on the site are on the endangered plant list.
After identifying the wildlife that existed in the site areas, the Bureau, with the aid of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and the Fish and Wildlife Service, determined what wildlife would experience some impact from the construction and operation of the test project. Antelope: All of Site A is antelope habitat and, therefore, the 56 acres of land for the test project will be removed as antelope habitat as with vegetation, 27 acres will not be available for the duration of the project and 29 acres will be available for antelope habitat after revegetation occurs. In addition to the permanent removal of 27 acres of land there are two other factors which will effect antelope: 1) construction activity, and 2) tourism to the site after the project has been constructed. Antelope, however, require the plains lands most in the winter when the mountain conditions are most severe and during the winter months there will be no construction activity and tourism will be at its lowest point.
Initially the antelope will be displaced from the area by the activity, however, wildlife personnel feel that they will return to the area. Antelope commonly function around man-made structures when they become used to them. One local Medicine Bow resident told me that he
had seen antelope grazing around the meterological tower on the site, which is almost as large as the wind turbines will be.
Another factor may be that with increased use of the county road there will be an increased number of antelope killed by vehicles. This is not predictable and will have to be monitored.
Site C is not in a designated antelope range and will probably not have any effect on the antelope population in the surrounding area. For antelope that might utilize Site C the impacts would be the came as described above.
Mule Deer: Site A is part of a very large area that is designated as both year-long and winter range for mule deer. The site itself does not have the dense shrub cover that mule deer are usually found in and the population on the site itself is not high. Mule deer should not be effected as much as antelope by construction or tourism because they are most active in the very early morning and late evening.
Site C is not a mule deer range because of complete lack of adequate cover and there should be no impact on mule deer at this site. Black-Footed Ferrets: Studies were conducted by the Western Environmental Research Associates out of Jackson, Wyoming to determine if any Black-footed ferrets existed on the sites. These ferrets live in prarie dog concentrations and there are many prarie dog towns in the area. During the study, no ferrets were observed, however, the skull of one was located. As per the study recommendation, no construction will occur within a % mile vicinity of any major prairie dog concentration.
As long as construction is kept at that distance, there will be no impact on Black-footed Ferrets if any exist in the area.
Sage Grouse: Development at Site A will have a large impact on sage
grouse. The site is not only classified as a habitat area for sage
grouse, but it has also been "classified as a breeding-strutting ground,
crucial nesting area, and overwintering area." As the project will initially disturb 56 acres of this habitat area, there will be initial displacement and some possible reduction in the grouse population of that area. After construction is completed on the test project, the grouse are expected to return to the area.
Tourism should not have a great impact on the sage grouse they use the area mainly for breeding and a winter habitat and this is the time of the year ;hcn tourism will be lowest.
Site C is not a breeding or over-wintering area, but it is classified as a summer and year-long habitat area. Within the site area itself however, there is not as much cover available for habitats as in surround ing areas.
As site C is a summer habitat, the grouse population on the site will experience impacts from peak summer tourism.
Birds of Prey (Raptors): Site A is considered a moderate sensitivity area for raptors which means it is an area of good foraging and some nesting. As this area is not a key nesting and habitat area there will be little impact in that way, however, the construction activities may reduce the number of small animals they they prey on (prarie dogs, rabbits, sage grouse, mice, etc.).
The main concern with raptors is the possibility of electrocution on the transmission lines or turbine blade bird kill if the raptors try to use the turbines for a perch. The transmission poles do not have arms to discourage any perching and lessen the probability of impact. The height and the noise from the wind turbines may also
discourage perching, however this will have to be monitored throughout the test project. The risk of bird kills from birds flying into the blades is considered minimal as birds tend to avoid large structures if they can see them there may be some impact on foggy days.
Site C is designated as a low sensitivity area (neither a nesting nor a high foraging area). Impact in this area on raptors will be minimal because of a low raptor population.
Raptor population in both areas may decrease as a result of increased tourism and activity.
Waterfowl: Although Site A is not a habitat area for waterfowl there may be two potential impacts from the test project; 1) there may be some bird kill by the turbine blades for waterfowl migrating to East Allen Lake (a recreational lake several miles from the site), and 2) with additional tourism coming to the project there may be an increase in the visitors to the lake. Birds that are native to the area will become used to the large wind structures, however, migratory birds may fly into them in bad weather when they cannot see them. There is no way to estimate what this impact might be until there are some wind turbines in operation. Lights which will be on the turbines may help minimize the impact.
Site C will have less impact on waterfowl as there is not a large native bird population on the site and it is not a major migratory path.
9. Scientific/Historical/Cultural Resources
Resources on the site have been investigated by the Wyoming State Archeologist and a consulting paleontologist from Laramie, Wyoming.
There is no indication of significant fossils at either Site A or C.
Site A does include the Medicine Bow Formation which has been known to
have dinosaur fossils. If such fossils are discovered, construction will cease until the resource is evaluated.
No archeological resources have been discovered at Site A. Site C has 2 potential significant archeological sites a quarry and a seasonal camp. As both of these sites would be within the proposed transmission line placement (if Site C were selected for the "wind farm"), they are being assessed as to their significance. If they are found to be a significant resource then measures would be taken to prevent their damage or, if that was unavoidable, the site would be studied and excavated before other construction began.
No historical resources were identified at either Site A or C.
If any significant resources are discovered during the course of the construction of the wind project, construction will cease until the resource is evaluated and the impacts defined.
10. Additional Impacts of the Wind Turbine Generators
In addition to the potential impact of bird kill from wind turbine blades, other factors have been assessed as to their impact:
1. Interference with local television signals and the Federal Aviation Administration radio signal pathways initial tests and data collection indicate that with the planned placement of the test units there will be no interference. Also, metal blades cause the interference with signals and the blades on the test units are partially fiberglass.
2. Height hazard to aircraft approval is being sought from the FAA for a lighting and coloring system for the wind turbine generators. The wind turbine structure and blades will be painted with alternate bands of orange and white. Four red obstruction lights will be placed on the tower 30' above ground level, a red beacon light will be at hub height, and four white lights will be placed at the center of the blade to illuminate the entire blade at night.
3. Noise the turbines will create a swishing and thumping sound, but tests on other large machines which are in operation indicate that the noise could not be heard et 2 miles. The noise level
will not increase because there is more than one machine due to the placement of the machines on the site. There are no residences within two miles of the site.
4. Visual the size of the machines allows them to be seen for quite a distance. Past studies of public acceptance to large wind machines have indicated that the public is generally not offended by them. Although no poles have been conducted at Medicine Bow, the reaction at public meetings has been favorable. The residents that I talked to in Medicine Bow were excited about the project and didn't mind large wind machines on an otherwise open landscape.
5. Icing in consistent, cold temperatures ice chunks can form on the turbine blades and these chunks can be thrown for quite a distance. When the condition is not severe (the Medicine Bow area does not have severe conditions) icing detectors can be installed and the machines can be shut down before the icing becomes a hazard. There is also the possibility of installing heating elements.
6. Structural failure there is the possibility of a wind turbine throwing a blade. This is controlled by design, maintenance and continual monitoring. The operation of the machines can
be controlled automatically through the field office in Casper, Wyoming or by manual controls on the site.
11. Construction Impacts
Construction activity on the test project will take place over a two year period. There will be no construction in the winter months and work activity will generally run from May to October of each year. During construction there will be increased noise, odor, and an increase in dust particles in the air both from construction on the site and the heavier truck traffic on the county dirt roads. These impacts are short term. After the county road has been graveled there will be less dust pollution from increased traffic than there was from local traffic before the project was begun.
In order to minimize impacts due to the construction of the test units, following are Bureau requirements of all contractors:
1. Construction activity at the turbine site will be limited to
an area not to exceed 4.5 surface acres;
2. Grading and graveling activity will be kept to a minimum to limit adverse effects to the natural topography and vegetation.
3. All sands, gravels, aggregates, etc., used in the site development will be obtained wherever possible from existing commercial sources;
4. Topsoil from grading and waste from foundation excavation will be stockpiled and spread evenly over the ground within the turbine site area to blend with the natural topography after construction;
5. To promo'.e natural revegetation, all spread or exposed subsoils will be covered with topsoil;
6. Care will be taken to minimize adverse effects to resident wildlife during construction;
7. Fencing will be limited to the WTG foundation and immediately surrounding buildings, etc. as required for security. No perimeter fence will be required for the turbine site area;
8. Existing county and approved site access roads will be utilized.
No new roads or rights-of-way will be constructed without approval;
9. A dust abatement program will be implemented to minimize fugitive dust resulting from concrete hauling or heavy traffic associated with construction. This will require periodic "wetting down" of haul roads;
10. During operation of equipment, the contractor shall utilize such practicable methods and devices as are reasonable to control, prevent, and otherwise minimize atmospheric emissions or discharges of air contaminants;
11. Construction activities shall be performed by methods that will prevent accidental spillage of solid matter, contaminants, debris, and objectionable pollutants and wastes. Such pollutants and wastes include, but are not restricted to, refuse, garbage, cement, oil and other petroleum products, and aggregate processing tailings. Sanitary wastes shall be disposed of on land
by burial at approved sites or other approved methods;
12. After construction, all solid waste matter and other refuse will be removed from the WTG site and disposed in a licensed area. No burning, dumping, or landfill activity will be permitted onsite; and
13. Compliance with laws and regulations. The contractor shall comply with applicable Federal and State laws, orders, and regulations concerning the control and abatement of water and
air pollution. The contractor shall also comply with the sanitation requirements of Subpart D, Occupational Health and Environmental Controls, of the Departme^ of Labor, "Safety and Health Regulations for Construction."
There is an air quality monitoring station five miles northwest of Medicine Bow. At this time there is a minor level of suspended particulates due to the coal and freight trains in the area. Coal dust pollution from surrounding coal mining developments does not travel as far as Medicine Bow.
Except for the short-term impacts of dust during the construction phase of the project, the project will have no detrimental effects on the air quality as its source of energy is wind, not fossil fuels.
There will be an increased level of noise during the construction phase however, this will be a short-term impact. As the project is five miles from Medicine Bow there should be little impact on the residents
except for a larger quantity of heavy trucks moving through the area.
After construction, the wind machines will create a sound that will not be heard past two miles from the site. There are no residences in that area and the impact will be minimal.
No odors will be emitted from this project except, possibly, during the construction phase. This will be a short-term impact.
As this project converts wind energy directly to electrical energy and does not require a burning process, there will be no heat emitted
into the air.
At East Allen Lake (close to Site A) there are recreational facilities that may have to be increased or updated if tourism to the wind project site increases significantly. These recreational facilities are owned by the BLM.
Hunting may be effected on a short-term basis during the construction phase of the project. Neither site is particularly good for hunting, however, after operation of the test project has begun, hunting will not be restricted on the site except at security areas. Warning signs will be posted for hunters telling them of the potential hazards of the wind machines.
Additional recreation facilities may be reguired in the Medicine Bow area (trailer hook-ups, picnic facilities, etc.) if tourism increases to any great extent.
All environmental factors will be monitored on a continual basis throughout the duration of the test project (approximately 6 years).
This data will be used in assessing the feasibility of a large-scale "wind farm."
There will be no leaching fields on-site. Sewer facilities will consist of an underground container which, at intervals, will be pumped out and the waste will be taken to an acceptable location off of the site.
No wells will be drilled on-site for water. Water will be brought
in and stored in tanks in the control area.
17. Public Reaction to Environmental Factors
To date, there have been no individuals or organizations who have expressed concern over the proposed wind project. The general reaction to the project has been favorable.
18. "Wind Farm" Impacts
In rny estimation, the greatest impact of extending the wind energy project from the test size to the larger "wind farm" size would be the
larger quantity of land required. This larger land requirement would have a significant effect on both vegetation and wildlife. The land requirement would have to be weighed against the necessity and value of the power being produced as well as against the economic/social/environmental impacts of other means of energy generation.
Another impact would be construction activity. This would be 6 months/ *
year for approximately 5 years. Aesthetics would also need to be measured will people who accept the concept of several large wind machines also be willing to accept the concept of a "wind farm" on the otherwise open landscape?
If the largest impacts do turn out to be vegetation and wildlife, then it seems that Site C would be the better location choice for the "wind farm" as the impacts would be less at that site.
The continual monitoring of environmental factors during the test period will aid greatly in defining the value and environmental cost of a larger scale project.
B. Social Considerations
Within an approximate 30 mile radius of Medicine Bow is a considerable amount of energy resource mining. There is a large coal field at
Hanna (20 miles) and uranium mining at Shirley Basin (30 miles). Con Edison is proposing mining at a coal field which is located very close to Site A of the wind project. If this coal field were mined, 1000 new employees would be required. There has also been some discussion of uranium mining near Rock River (approximately 13 miles from Medicine Bow).
The Mecicine Bow area was, initially, an Indian hunting ground.
In the early 1800's white men entered the area for fur trapping. In the 1860's the Union Pacific Railroad was established in that area and Medicine Bow sprang up as a trading and shipping area. There was also ranching in the area. In the 1950's, uranium was discovered at Shirley Basin which was the beginning of major mining in the Medicine Bow area. Later, in the 1970's when the energy crisis was beginning and the value of coal was, once again, being considered, the mines at Hanna were opened. The mining activity in the area has increased all areas of employment except for ranching which is decreasing. Due to the mining (the major economic base), areas such as construction, service-related employment, government employment, and transportation and communication employment have increased to meet the needs of the influx of people. Before the construction of Interstate-80, tourism also contributed to the economy of the town (Medicine Bow became an historic site based on the book The Virginian) Highway 30 (going through Medicine Bow) was a major connecting route to western Wyoming. The new interstate by-passed Medicine Bow and, consequently, tourism declined.
The population of Medicine Bow at the 1970 census was 455 residents.
The estimated population in 1977 was 1030 residents an increase of approximately 125%. This increase is due to the greater mining activity
in the area. Although the mines are 20-30 miles distant, the need for housing and services has forced many mine employees to live in Medicine Bow. Projections for the Medicine Bow area for 1985 are 1580 residents, but these projections were made before Con Edison proposed the new mining field near Medicine Bow. If this proposal is approved, an additional 1000 employees will be looking for housing. With families, this could mean an increase of approximately 3000 people. This may also create an increase of people in service-related areas of employment. Not all of these employees will be able to find housing in the Medicine Bow area and will probably have to commute a longer distance to work (some may be forced to live as far away as Laramie which is approximately 50 miles from Medicine Bow).
Housing is in very short supply in Medicine Bow and, when it is available, the purchasing price or rent is very high. Because of this shortage, much of the new housing has been trailer courts and the rent on trailer space is also very high. There are now proposals for new housing developments, which, if approved will provide 60 additional trailer units and 75 additional houses. Although this will help the situation, it will not take care of the whole housing problem.
The per capita income in the area has increased due to mining and
related services employment. Income before 1970 was lower in Carbon
County than in other areas of Wyoming. Income in 1975 was approximately
10SS higher than other areas of Wyoming. Per capita income in 1975 was 44
$6348, but that figure was calculated for the whole county and income is probably higher in the mining areas.
In addition to housing impacts, the influx of people has created impacts on other community facilities. There are no major shopping
facilities in Medicine Bow and no large grocery stores. There are small businesses such as a small grocery, several restaurants, several hotels, etc. There are also no existing health facilities except for an ambulance service. Residents must go to Laramie for major shopping and health services. The schools have adequate space for the population, however, there may be a strain on the school system if the Con Edison mine is approved. Protection services consist of one town marshall, a deputy from the Carbon County Seriff's Office, and two fire trucks manned by a volunteer fire department. Both the water and sewage systems are municipally owned and both are being improved and expanded. The town also maintains a sanitary landfill. Recreation is provided by the town in the form of parks and playgrounds. The city streets are all dirt (except for highway 30 which passes through) and an additional influx of people may require that the streets be graveled or paved.
With the existing situation in Medicine Bow, the wind project should have little or no negative social impact on the town. Community meetings have been held throughout the formulation and development phases of the project. There were initial public concerns on:
1. Changes in land ownership and use;
2. Noise levels from wind turbine operation;
3. Impact from employment and operating personnel;
4. Visitor (tourist) impacts;
5. Impacts to local public health facilities.
The first two points have already been addressed in this paper (land will be paid for as a permanent easement and grazing can continue, and noise will not be heard in Medicine Bow) and the last three will be addressed later in this section. With the possible impacts known, the Medicine
Bow residents' reaction to the project has been favorable and supportive.
One resident stated that wind is a "clean, modern energy the town can be
proud of" and it would bring "scientific distinction" to the town as well
as the historical distinction that it has.
The major population increase for this project will be during the construction years with the major construction occuring from May October. During the test unit construction, there should be a maximum of 30 employees working on the project in any month. If the "wind farm" is constructed, the major construction activity will occur in the third year of the construction phase and there is a possibility of approximately 210 employees at that time. Impacts from construction personnel will not be in longterm housing as they only work portions of the year, but these employees will be likely to stay in Medicine Bow if hotels and restaurants can accomodate them otherwise, they will have to commute. Since the construction phase will only last approximately 3 years, construction will occur approximately 6 months of the year, and workers will change according to the jobs that need to be done, it is very unlikely that employees will move their families to the area. If there are adequate room and board accomodations in Medicine Bow, the impact on the town could be positive from an economic perspective (refer to Economic Section for actual figures). After the construction phase is completed, the wind project will be operated by 2 full-time personnel which, with families, will add approximately 6 people to the population over the long-term. After the operational test phase is completed, the project will require only 1 employee to operate the project which will cut down the full-time residents from 6 to 3.
The project itself will offer little employment opportunity to local residents (during any phase) as the nature of the construction
is quite specialized. However, it may promote local employment in retail areas (hotels, restaurants, etc.) to accomodate construction workers and, later, tourists.
Local residents should feel little impact from the construction site itself as it is removed from the town. The project does not require any relocation of people or buildings. There are no residences within the distance that noise from the turbines could be heard. There may be some dust impact from employees using the dirt road which extends from Medicine Bow to the project, however, this will be alleviated as soon as the road is graveled (this will be early in the construction phase).
Some possible negative impacts to the town would be in the areas of health and protection services. Any construction accidents would require the assistance of the ambulance service. Also, with increased traffic (both employees and tourists) there may be a higher incidence of vandalism or prarie fires. This impact cannot be calculated until activity begins at the project site.
The major impact of the project on the town may be in the area of tourism. This could be a positive or negative impact. The Bureau of Reclamation has estimated the approximate number of tourists that a wind project could draw to an area (as it is the first project of this type, it does have the capacity to draw tourists) and these estimates are shown in Figure 13.
Data was collected on the traffic counts on major roads in the area, the amount of miles that would need to be detoured to visit the project from any major road, and from this data, assumptions were made on the number of potential tourists to the area. The assumptions are as follows:
1. One percent of vehicle traffic on 1-80 would detour their
travels and visit the wind turbines as compared to 20% of the vehicles on Highway 30/287.
2. The average party size per vehicle would be 3.3 persons.
3. Ten percent of the population within the 100-mile radius would visit the wind turbine site at least once during the 2-year testing period.
4. Sixty percent of this visitation would occur during the tourist season from May through September. The remaining 40?i5 would visit the site during the remaining months.
3. Sixty percent of the local area visitation would occur on weekends, the remaining 40?o on weekdays. This applies to both tourist and non-tourist seasons.^
Tourist Season Non-tourist Season
Location (May through September) (Other months)
Weekend day Weekday Weekend day Weekday
Interstate 80 112 112 - -
Highway 30/287 100 100 - -
Local Area (100 mile radius) 268 70 124 34
Total 480 282 124 34
Rounded 500 300 150 50
According to Bureau estimates (Figure 13), and assuming 8 weekend days per month, the number of tourists/visitors to the site in a year would be approximately 70,000 persons. This would mean an economic benefit to the town both through increased business and increased tax revenues. The potential economic benefit of this number of tourists is discussed in the Economic Section. Whether tourism is a positive or negative impact will depend on Medicine Bow's ability to accomodate the increased tourist numbers. It could necessitate rennovation or expansion of businesses. As Medicine Bow has lost much of its tourism through the
construction of 1-80, this project could be a positive step toward rebuilding that tourist trade.
Safety features are built into the project to protect area residents from any potential harm the project might create. Towers are constructed so there will be little risk of tower collapse in high winds. The distance from the project to any residences will create a safety zone if a blade is thrown an event highly unlikely due to construction and the ability to shut the machine down (manually or by remote control) immediately upon malfunction. Blades will also feather and not rotate in extremely high winds. Any gradual problem (shifting in the foundation, etc.) will be detected through a program of regular inspection and maintenance. Towers will be lit for the protection of low-flying aircraft.
A final social benefit would be the opportunity for the school system in Medicine Bow to utilize the wind project for field trips and school projects.
C. Economic Considerations
The purpose of the system verification unit (5VU) test project is to determine the feasibility of grouping large wind machines to produce a significant quantity of power. Many aspects of this project have to be verified through continual testing as a project such as this has never been tried before. Verification is needed on whether the large machines will actually perform according to the calculations of performance, whether the energy value outweighs any impacts, whether public reaction will accept the concept, etc. In order to begin such a large project, data must suggest that the development of a larger-scale wind energy project would get to the point of being competitive economically with other forms of energy. However, the test project must first verify the ability of
the large wind machine concept to work before economics becomes the major consideration. With this in mind, the economic projections for the project were based on the assumption that the wind machines would perform according to calculations and that a larger "wind farm" would be approved based on the result of the SVU testing.
Included in the Bureau of Reclamation projections were the project
costs of the construction of the wind turbine facilities ("wind farm"),
the initial investigation costs, the SVU test project, archeological
and historical costs, annual operation and maintenance costs, and interest 49
costs. Interest on all costs, except the initial investigation and the SVU project, were figured over 30 years (expected life of the wind turbines). Costs of the initial investigation and the SVU are considered "one-time" costs (part of initial wind development that will not have to be repeated with each project), and this is money that is not recoverable over the life of the project from the sale of power. These "onetime" costs were not included in the cost-benefit analysis.
Land and rights
Wind Turbine Generators
Transmission lines, Transformers, Switchyards, and Substations
Archeological and Historical Total Construction Cost
The total project cost (including all areas mentioned above) will be $209,968,000. Interest during construction will amount to $18,849,000 for a total estimated project cost of $228,817,000.^ Of this amount, all but $15,648,000 ("one-time" costs) will be reimbursable. The construction aspects of the project come to a total cost of $196,270,000 and breakdown as shown in Figure 14.^
Annual operation and maintenance cost is estimated at $606,000.
As each wind turbine generator unit is completed it will begin producing power and feeding in to the hydroelectric grid (Refer to Figure 11).
Calculations on the power benefits were based on a "willingness to pay" concept (the highest rate in a particular area). Information
from the Western Area Power Administration indicates that the power cost
level will range from 60 80 mills by 1990. The Bureau determined that the level in this area would be approximately 70 mills. This cost is for peak power off-peak power is figured at half of that rate or 35 mills. Seventy percent of the power generated at the Medicine Bow project will be during peak hours. One cost deducted from the power benefits is to the CRSP system for the capacity (distribution and stor-
age). This cost is calculated at $16.08 per kilowatt per year.^
Based on power and project data (as discussed above) the Bureau
of Reclamation summarized the benefit(revenues)-cost of the entire pro-
ject in Figure 15. A revenue-cost ratio of 1.1 to 1 demonstrates an
economic feasibility for the project. If the power were marketed in
1985 (as units were constructed and began producing) at 52 mills and
later increased (..990) to 65 mills, the project would be able to meet
its 30 year payback. If mass production of the wind turbines decreases the cost, the revenue-cost ratio could be better.
Benefit (Revenues) Cost Summary*
Power Benefits (Revenues)
Energy produced annually: 351,030,000KWh
Onpeak energy (241,530,000KWh)
Offpeak energy (110,500,000KWh)
Onpeak power value: 70 mills/KWh 70 mills/KWh x 240,530,000 KWh = o $ 16,837
Offpeak power value: 35 mills/KWh 35 mills/KWh x 110,500,000 KWh = 3,868
Less: CRSP capacity costs: $16.08 KW/yr x 100,000 KW = - 1,608
Total annual benefit (revenues) $ 19,097
Project Costs Total project costs 209,968
Less preauthorization investigation (including system verification unit) -13,698
Interest during construction at 7 1/8 percent 16,787
Total investment 213,057
Annual equivalent of investment, 30 years 7 1/8 percent 17,386
Annual 0&M 606
Total annual cost 17,992
Benefit (Revenue)-Cost Ratio Annual benefits 19,097
Annual costs Benefit-cost ratio at 7 1/8 percent interest 17,992
30 years 1.1 to 1
*1 added the word "revenues" as this is strictly a summary of revenues to costs and does not include other costs or benefits such as environmental and social.
The present average cost of electricity for the United States is 4.320 kwh.5^ Hike Ignawski, a Laramie, Wyoming utility representative said that in some areas where the electricity was produced by oil-fired plants (New England), costs have been known to reach as high as 100 per kwh. He said that increased rates over time were best estimated by the inflation rate and that utility companies were presently assuming that electrical costs would rise by about 10?o a year.^ This means that in ten years (1990) the cost of electricity will have approximately doubled from what is is today and that average costs will be 8-90/kwh. (This
is slightly higher than the 60-80mill projection by the Western Area Power Administration). With the combination of increasing electrical rates and the continuing consumption of fossil fuels, wind energy (a renewable resource) begins to look very promising as a supplemental form of energy. If wind electrical energy can be sold in 1990 for 60-70 mills (6-70) it will be very competitive. It will continue to become more attractive economically over time as it will not have the fossil fuel costs which raise electrical rates so dramatically.
In addition to the favorable benefit(revenue)-cost to the project
itself, the community of Medicine Bow may also receive some economic
benefit from the project through tourism. Based on the projected number
of tourists who might visit the site (refer to Social Considerations
section), calculations have been made as to the approximate amount of
money these tourists would spend while they were in Medicine Bow (See 58
Figure 16). Using these projections, it is possible that an additional $57,500 would be spent in Medicine Bow during the tourist season and $6,480 during the nontourist season. This would add to the economic base (which has experienced declining tourism) of the town and possibly
provide employment opportunity for local residents in service areas (restaurants, hotels, etc.). It is very hard to determine how accurate the tourist projection numbers are and whether the wind project can actually draw that number of people. Whether economic benefit will be realized by the town through tourism will be more accurately determined over the next two years as the test wind turbines are built and operating. If tourism does increase significantly, businesses may be expanded/improved to accomodate the increase in numbers.
Estimated Expenditures in Medicine Bow by Visitors to WTC's
Tourist Season Nontourist Season
(Hay through September) (Other months)
Visitors from Weekend day Weekday Weekend day Weekday
1-80 loss or 12 persons $17.80 for lodging and meals $214 $214 $- $-
25?o of remaining tourists or 25 persons d $2.00 50 50
Gas 10 % of 34 vehicles @ $10 34 34
Local area visitors 25% of visitors d $2.00 per person 134 35 62 17
Total $432 $333 $62 $17
Rounded $450 $350 $60 $20
Another short-term economic benefit to the community would be the construction personnel on the project. Most construction activity will be from May to October and many of the construction workers will need accomodations for room and board. During the construction phases of the test units the numbers of workers will probably not exceed 30 and existing Medicine Bow facilities should be sufficient. Based on Figure 8, calculating that all workers will stay in Medicine Bow and will spend an average of $30/day, the maximum amount that would be spent the first year would be $64,260 and the second year this would increase to $187,680 for a two year total of $231,940. This benefit would increase and be extended over more years if the "wind farm" was built. Since the benefit is short-term there would probably be no expansion to business (unless there was also tourism) to accomodate workers if the existing facilities were not adequate. Workers would probably have to go to surrounding towns.
Outlook and Conslusions
The demand on electrical generation is increasing yearly. More
people have been turning to all electric homes due to the scare of gas
deregulation in 1978. This is not an answer for the energy situation as the majority of electrical energy is produced from fossil fuels.
There is more use of coal now, however, "Electricity production continues to remain a significant burden on our oil supplies. In 1978, over 9 percent of the total U.S. oil usage was for electricity production, amounting to 636 million barrels or the equivalent of over on-fifth of our oil imports.Areas such as New England and California have not switched from oil-fired to coal-fired plants because of the costs involved.
Estimates on the amount of available wind energy in the U.S. varies widely. The Solar Energy Research Institute has calculated that a conservative estimate of electricity-generation potential by the year 2000 (on land area only) would be one trillion kilowatt-hours annually.6^
This estimate falls in the middle-range of estimates. The amount of available energy would increase if winds off of costal areas of the U.S. were considered. These estimates, however, take into account all of the potential wind locations in the U.S. and do not consider the impacts of placing wind generators in all of the areas. The estimated "cumulative savings between 1980 and 2000 that could result from the
use of wind power would be the equivalent of 270 million to 4 billion
barrels of oil in nuclear, coal, oil and natural gas."
The savings of a 100MW "wind farm" has been calculated to be equivalent to approximately 800,000 barrels of oil per year. According to
estimates from the Natural Resources Research Institute, one barrel of oil is approximately equal to h ton of coal.6"5 Therefore, a savings of
800.000 barrels of oil per year would be equivalent to a savings of
3.200.000 tons of coal per year. Consumption of fuels for electrical generation has changed somewhat from 1978 to 1979. In 1979 the use of oil decreased (323.5 million barrels) from 1978 (635.8 million barrels). Coal, on the other hand, increased in 1979 (520.1 million tons) as compared to 1978 (481.6 million tons).^4 The coal equivalent savings per year of one 100MW "wind farm" is approximately equal to the quantity
of coal required to power the Dave Johnson Plant near Casper, Wyoming (4 units with a generating capacity of 750,000kw) for one year
(2,790,000 tons per year).
As previously stated in this paper, estimates as to the capacity of a 100MW "wind farm" to serve residences is between 50,000-60,000 homes. These estimates were made several years ago before electric use increased dramatically (beginning in 1978). Average annual electrical consumption for U.S. residences in 1979 was 8,820kwh.^ The "wind farm" will have an approximate output of 351 million kwh/year which, at the average annual consumption, is equivalent to the demand for 41,609
residences. Average cost for electricity in the U.S. is 4.320 per kwh;^
in the Laramie area it is 2.6020 per kwh. As wind development is still in experimental stages and the cost of equipment is high, it will probably not be able to compete with the lower Wyoming costs. However, with the 10% increase per year estimates of the utility company, and if the estimates of wind energy costs of 60-70 (refer to Economic section) are accurate, then wind energy costs should be very competetive. Over a 10 year period, the cost of wind energy may well be lower than
the cost of fossil fuel generated power.
A problem with quantity wind energy development is that it may be land intensive. I do not have figures on the exact amount of land required for the 100MW "wind farm", only the acreage it will be spread over (approximately 35,000 acres at Site C). My own estimate of the actual land requirements is approximately 200-225 acres. The average amount
of land required by fossil fuel plants is 400 acres for four 500MW units
or approximately 100 acres per 500MW. This does not, however, include the areas used to mine the fossil fuels which could significantly increase the land requirements for fossil fuel plants. Without considering the mining areas, the area required for generation of 500MW with fossil fuel plants is 100 acres and with wind energy (if my estimates are in the ballpark) would be approximately 1000-1200 acres. Most of the land required for wind energy development, however, can be used for a second purpose (livestock grazing, recreation, etc.). This double use helps alleviate the land intensive portion of wind energy development.
Legal considerations are another aspect of wind energy development.
In the past, wind energy use has been small windmills in rurai areas and has not interfered with the rights of other people. With a renewed interest in wind energy, issues will have to be addressed. Wind application in rural areas will probably never be much of a problem, however, application where there are concentrations of people will require decisions that protect the rights of both the wind generator owner and the persons living near the wind generator. Legal decisions will have to be made in the areas of zoning (height restrictions, aesthetics, areas that do not permit that type of structure, etc.), wind access (can another structure be built that blocks wind to an existing wind generator),
environmental considerations (as address earlier in this paper), building codes (will there need to be a wind generator building code), and liability (who is responsible for a malfunctioning machine the owner or the manufacturer? What eguipment will be necessary to insure the safety of both employees working on utility lines and area residents?)
The majority of these problems will apply to small wind application rather than large-wind development. Large-scale development will most likely occur in less populated areas or, if close to a populated area, the same industrial zoning codes will apply to this "utility" as to other utility plants. This type of zoning will eliminate many of the problems (visual, height, etc.) that would occur with small wind application in residential areas. Environmental concerns, at this time, have to be addressed for large-scale development because NEPA regulations apply to this type of project as it is considered a utility. Therefore, environmental considerations have to be satisfied before a project can be constructed (a negative determination of significant environmental impact has been approved for the test units at the Medicine Bow Project another NEPA process will be reguired if the "wind farm" is approved for construction). Wind access is not a problem for large-scale development because of the guantity of land purchased as permanent easements around the wind turbine structures. Restrictions can be placed on that land as to what it may/may not be used for. Liability for the safety of employees and visitors to a large-scale development will have to be determined.
Through my research on the Medicine Bow Wind Project, it is my estimation that large-scale wind development is feasible and will be cost-effective. Wind energy, by itself, is not a replacement for fossil
fuel energy because of the large land requirements for the same generating capacity. It is, however, an effective and important supplement for peak power loads when it is in conjunction with a hydroelectric system (by itself, the storage costs would be so high as to no longer make it economical). Through environmental studies for the test units at Medicine Bow, it seems that the major impacts of a "wind farm" would be in the area of:
1. Vegetation more wind sites would cause greater disruption
to vegetation, however, except for the structure area itself, revegetation could occur. For a large portion of the land, the impact would be short-term.
2. Wildlife more range area would be unavailable for wildlife.
Although the revegetated area could, once again, support wildlife, the quantity of structures may or may not have an effect on their return.
3. Land Use the quantity of land required in relation to the
amount of power generated may be a land intensive application. In the case of Medicine 8ow, the original use, grazing, can continue and the double application on the land makes the project a beneficial use of land.
4. Visual there is no way to determine public reaction to a
field of large wind turbine generators until they are in place and operating. Some indication of public acceptance/rejection will come through the operation of the test units. A positive reaction to five units, however, may not be the same as the reaction to many units over an extended area.
5. Microclimate a serious impact that could occur on vegeta-
tion and wildlife if it is discovered that the wind turbines effect the microclimate. This possibility can be assessed through the operation of the test units.
6. Tourism tourism will be the major social impact of the pro-
ject. This may have a positive or negative impact on the town depending on how prepared the town is to handle it. The construction of the first "wind farm" will most likely draw more tourists than the test project. Tourism may also have a negative effect on wildlife.
As this is the first large-scale project, the extent of the impact on
the above factors is not known. The purpose of the test project is
to monitor all aspects of the project so there will be a clear indication of effects before a "wind farm" is constructed.
The benefits of such a project are that it creates minimal social impact, minimal environmental impact (in comparison to other forms of energy development), is not a polluting resource (a "clean" energy), will be cost-competitive, and is renewable. In a time of greater environmental concern, these are important aspects of energy development. Additionally, the technology is in place and does not require more years of intensive research and development for it to be operational. With careful selection of site areas, wind energy can make a significant contribution to the energy picture.
Small wind application is less positive at the present time. The major benefit is that for those who want to be independent of centralized utilities or for those who are removed from power lines, wind energy is available. The costs, at present, are discouraging. There are some federal tax credits available for small wind application (30?o of the first $2000 and 20?o of the next $8000 once the machine is in place and operating), ^ however that is not a substantial amount when compared to the cost of a wind machine that would be large enough to not require any tie-in with public service and still not significantly limit a person's ability to use electricity. Prince Jones at the Rocky Flats Wind System Test Center said that the U.S. Legislature is working on a proposal of income tax rebates up to 55?o on small machines, provided that that model has been tested at the Rocky Flats Wind Site.' This would make a significant difference if it is approved. Presently, however, the problem seems to be that the costs will remain high until their is greater production of them and there won't be greater production
until there is more demand. An additional problem with small wind application is that, apart from very rural areas, there will be legal problems as described earlier.
Between large and small scale application, I feel it is large-scale application that will be promoted and most heavily funded. It is more economical on a large-scale basis and more people would rather have a central source of power than deal with it on an individual basis. Wind energy on a large-scale basis appears to be a very positive step in developing renewable resources. It will be through the continual monitoring and data collection at the test project that accurate determinations will be made on the potential for the development of wind energy.
''Albert A. Bartlett, "Forgotten Fundamentals of the Energy Crisis," Mineral & Energy Resources, Part I, 1979, p.3.
Albert A. Bartlett, "Forgotten Fundamentals of the Energy Crisis," Mineral & Energy Resources, Part I, 1979, p.2.
\eague of Women Voters, Proceedings: Governor's Energy Conservation Conference, Casper, Wyoming, 29 November 1 December 1976, p. 38.
Richard McLeod, Energy and Doubling Time, Science and Mathematics Teaching Center, Michigan State University, p. 9.
\eague of Women Voters, Proceedings: Governor's Energy Conservation Conference, Casper, Wyoming, 29 November 1 December 1976, p. 33.
\ynde Coit, Wind Energy: Legal Issues and Institutional Barriers, (Golden, Colorado: Solar Energy Research Institute, June, 1979), p. 3.
^John M. and Kathryn Mervine Fowler, Factsheet: Wind Power, (Oak Ridge, Tennessee: DOE-Technical Information Center), p. 1.
D. S. Halacy, Jr., Earth, Wind, Water and Sun: Our Energy Alternatives, (New York: Harper & Row, 1977), p. 112.
Thomas H. May and Wayne R. Kube, A Review of Alternative Energy Sources, (Grand Forks, North Dakota: The Engineering Experiment Station, University of North Dakota, May, 1974), p. 26.
^Personal Interview with Prince Jones, 4 March 1980.
"^Albert J. Davis and Robert P. Schubert, Alternative Natural Energy Sources in Building Design, (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.), 1974, p. 105.
Personal Interview with Prince Jones, 4 March, 1980
^Wind Energy for the Home, (Bristol, Indiana: Published in conjunction with the American Wind Energy Association), p. 4.
DOE Rocky Flats Wind Systems Program, Is the Wind a Practical Source of Energy for You?, (Golden, Colorado! February, 1979), p. 2.
^U.S. Dept, of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Wind-Hydro-electric Integration Study, (Denver, Colorado: Vol. 64, No. 3), p. 1.
^U.S. Dept, of the Interior, Water and Power Resources Service,
Report on Special Investigations of the Wind-Hydroelectric Energy Integration Study: Medicine Bow, Wyoming (draft),(Denver, Colorado: January, 1980), Exhibit 1.
"^Personal Interview with Stanley Hightower, 28 February, 1980.
"^Stanley J. Hightower, P.E. and Abner W. Watts, P.E., A Proposed Conceptual Plan For the Integration of Wind Turbine Generators with a Hydroelectric System,(Denver, Colorado:U.S. Dept, of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, March, 1977), p. 12.
Personal Interview with Stanley Hightower, 28 February 1980.
Stanley J. Hightower, P.E. and Abner W. Watts, P.E., A Proposed Conceptual Plan for the Integration of Wind Turbine Generators with a Hydroelectric System,(Denver, Colorado:U.S. Dept, of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, March, 1977), p. 6.
21lbid., p. 15.
22Ibid., Figure 4, p. 7.
Personal Interview with Don Smith, 20 February 1980.
U.S. Dept, of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Wind Energy: Wyoming (Environmental Assessment Report), (Denver, Colorado: June, 1979), p. 1-1.
"Wind Study Helps Wind Power Become Reality," Foresiqht, Winter,
U.S. Dept, of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Wind Energy: Wyominq (Environmental Assessment Report), (Denver, Colorado: June, 1979), p. III-l.
27lbid., p. 1112.
28Ibid., p. III5.
29Ibid., p. I11-23.
38U.S. Dept, of the Interior, Water and Power Resources Service, Report on Special Investigation of the Wind-Hydroelectric Energy Integration Study: Medicine Bow, Wyominq (draft), (Denver, Coloardo:
January, 1980), p. 6.
^Hamilton Standard, System Verification Unit (diagram),
(Windsor Locks, Connecticut: Division of United Technologies).
U.S. Department of the Interior, Water and Power Resources Service, "Water and Power Resources Awards Contract for World's Largest Wind Generator," (News Release), 4 Feb. 1980.
33U.S. Dept, of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Wind Energy: Wyominq (Environmental Assessment Report), (Denver, Colorado, June,
1979), Appendix 1, p. 2.
34Ibid., Exhibit 11-14.
^Ibid., Exhibit II-5.
^U.S. Dept, of the Interior, Water and Power Resources Service,
Report on Special Investigations of the Wind-Hydroelectric Energy Integration Study; Medicine Dow, Wyoming (draft), Denver, Colorado:January, 1980, Figure 7.
^Personal Interview with Abner Watts, 28Feb. 1980.
U.S. Dept, of the Interior, Water and Power Resources Service,
Report on Special Investigations of the Wind-Hydroelectric Energy Integration Study: Medicine Bow, Wyoming (draft),(Denver, Colorado: January, 1980), p. 14.
Joan Nice, "Wind Prospectors Strike it Rich In Medicine Bow,"
High Country News, 27 July 1979, p. 1.
U.S. Dept, of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Wind Energy: Wyoming (Environmental Assessment Report), (Denver, Colorado: June,
1979), pp. 1114 and III-23.
^Ibid., p. IV-6.
U.S. Dept, of the Interior, Water and Power Resources Service,
Report on Special Investigations of the Wind-Hydroelectric Energy Integration Study: Medicine Bow, Wyoming (draft), (Denver, Colorado:
January, 1980), pp. 23-24.
U.S. Dept, of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Wind Energy: Wyoming (Environmental Assessment Report), (Denver, Colorado: June,
1979), p. II115.
44Ibid., p. 111-18 .
U.S. Dept, of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Wind-Hydro-Electric Integration Study, (Denver, Colorado: No. 3, October, 1979), p. 4.
Personal Interview with David Roberts, 29 March 1980.
U.S. Dept, of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Wind Energy: Wyoming (Environmental Assessment Report), (Denver, Colorado: June,
1979), Appendix 2.
U.S. Dept, of the Interior, Water and Power Resources Service, Report on Special Investigations of the Wind-Hydroelectric Energy Integration Study: Medicine Bow, Wyoming (draft), Denver, Colorado: January, 1980), p. 18"!
51... Ibid., p. 12.
52t, Ibid., p. 17.
53t, Ibid., p. 18.
54t. Ibid., p. 19.
55T, Ibid., p. 20.
56m Mary L . Clair
Vol. 193, 15 March 1980, p. 73. 57
Personal Interview with Mike Ignowski, 21 and 29 March 1980.
U.5. Dept, of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Wind Energy: Wyoming (Environmental Assessment Report). (Denver, Colorado: June, 1979), Appendix 2.
Personal Interview with Mike Ignowski, 21 and 29 March 1980.
^David Bodansky, "Electricity Generation Choices for the Near Term." Science, Vol. 207, 15 Feb. 1980, p. 721.
^Lynde Coit, Wind Energy: Legal Issues and Institutional Barriers, (Golden, Colorado: Solar Energy Research Institute, June, 1979), p. 5.
^Telephone Interview with personnel at the Natural Resources Research Institute, 16 April 1980.
Mary L. Clair, "1980 Annual Statistical Report," Electrical World, Vol. 193, 15 March, p. 64.
^Dave Johnson Steam Electric Plant, published and distributed by Pacific Power and Light Company.
^Slary L. Clair, "1980 Annual Statistical Report," Electrical World, Vol. 193, 15 March 1980, p. 73.
Personal Interview with Mike Ignowski, 21 and 29 March 1980. Ibid.
^Dept. of the Treasurey, Internal Revenue Service, Energy Credits For Individuals, (Washington D.C.: GP0, Publication 903, 1979), p. 2.
Auer, August. Personal Interview. Dept, of Atmospheric Science, Univeristy of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, 18 Feb. 1980.
Bartlett, Albert A. "Forgotten Fundamentals of the Energy Crisis Part I." Mineral & Energy Resources, Vol. 21, 1979.
Bartlett, Albert A. "Forgotten Fundamentals of the Energy Crisis Part II." Mineral & Energy Resources, Vol. 22, 1979#
Bartlett, Albert A. "Forgotten Fundamentals of the Energy Crisis Part III." Mineral & Energy Resources, Vol. 23, 1979.
Bodansky, David. "Electricity Generation Choices for the Near Term." Science, Vol. 207, 15 Feb. 1980.
Butt, David. Personal Interview. Medicine Bow High School, Medicine Bow, Wyoming, 29 March 1980.
Clair, Mary L. "1980 Annual Statistical Report." Electrical World,
Vol. 193, 15 March 1980.
Coit, Lynde. Wind Energy: Legal Issues and Institutional Barriers. Golden, Colorado: Solar Energy Research Institute, June, 1979.
Colorado: Options for the Future. By the Colorado Environmental Commission. March, 1972.
Dave Johnson Steam Electric Project. Published and Distributed by the Pacific Power and Light Company.
Davis, Albert J. and Robert P. Shubert. Alternative Natural Energy
Sources in Building Design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold., 1974
Dept, of the Treasury. Internal Revenue Service. Energy Credits for Individuals. Washington D.C.: GP0, Publication 903, 1979.
DOE Rocky Flats Wind Systems Program. Is Wind a Practical Source of Energy for You? Golden, Colorado, 1979.
DOE Rocky Flats Wind Systems Program (comilers). Selected References On Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems. Golden, Colorado, February, 1979.
Edison Electric Institute. Statistical Yearbook of the Electric
Utility Industry. Washington D.C.: Publication No. 79-3, 1978.
Edison Electric Institute. 31 Answers to 32 Questions About the Electric Utility. New York: Publication No. 79-3, 1976/77.
Eowler, John M. and Kathryn Nervine. Eactsheet: Wind Power. Oak Ridge, Tennessee: DOE-Technical Information Center, undated.
Franck, Ron. "Windmill Construction Set." The Laramie Boomerang, 17 Feb. 1980.
Halacy, D.S., Jr. Earth, Wind Water and Sun: Our Energy Alternatives.
New York: Harper & Row, 1977,
Hamlin, Linda. Personal Interview. Rep. Tim Wirth's Office, Denver, Colorado, 5 March 1980.
Hightower, Stanley. Personal Interview. Engineering and Research Center, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado, 28 Feb. 1980.
Hightower, Stanley J., P.E. and Abner W. Watts, P.E. A Proposed Conceptual Plan for the Integration of Wind Turbine Generators with a Hydro-Electric System. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Dept, of the Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation, March, 1977.
Ignowski, Mike. Personal Interview. Pacific Power and Light Company, Laramie, Wyoming, 21 and 29 March 1980.
Jain, Bob. "$6 Million Wind Generator to be Built on Wyoming Plains."
The Denver Post, 13 Feb. 1980.
Jones, Prince. Personal Interview. Rocky Flats Wind System Test Center, Denver, Colorado, 4 March 1980.
League of Women Voters of Wyoming. Proceedings: Governor's Energy
Conservation Conference. Casper, Wyoming, 29 Nov. 1 Dec. 1976.
Marwitz, John. Provided Resources. Dept, of Atmospheric Science, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, 17 March 1980.
May, Thomas H. and Wayne R. Kube. A Review of Alternative Energy Sources. Grand Forks, North Dakota: The Engineering Experiment Station, University of North Dakota, May, 1974.
McLeod, Richard, Energy and Doubling Time. Science and Matchemtics Teaching Center, Michigan State University, undated.
Meador, Roy. Future Energy Alternatives. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., 1978.
Nelson, Lawrence. Provided Resources. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado, 27 March 1980.
Nelson, Lawrence L. "Wind and Water: Partners in Power." Reclamation,
Vol. 64, No. 3.
Nice, Joan. "High Prices, Doubts Plaque Wind Power Revival." High Country News, 15 June 1979.
Nice, Joan. "Wind Prospectors Strike it Rich in Medicine Bow." High Country News, 27 July 1979.
Pacific Power and Light Company. Schedule 5 Experimental Residential Partial Requirements Service. Portland, Oregon, undated.
Personnel of Natural Resources Research Institute. Telephone Interview. University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, 16 April 1980.
Personnel of Soil Science Dept. Telephone Interview. University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, 8 April 1980.
Roberts, David. Personal Interview. Medicine Bow Post, Medicine Bow, Wyoming, 29 March 1980.
Roberts, David. "Wind May Power Bow." The Medicine Bow Post, 28 Oct. 1977.
Roberts, David. "Wind Study Plans Told." The Medicine Bow Post, 21 Oct. 1977.
Rocky Plats Plant Energy Systems Group. Commerically Available Small Wind Systems and Equipment. Golden, Colorado, 1979.
Scher, Zeke. "Puttinq Wyominq Wind to Work." Empire Magazine, 15 July 1979.
Smith, Don. Personal Interview. Dept, of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, 20 Feb. 1980.
Smith, R. Jeffrey. "Wind Power Excites Utility Interest." Science,
Vol. 207, 15 Feb. 1980.
Smith, Russel. Telephone Interview. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado, 27 March 1980.
Stobaugh, Robert and Daniel Vergin (ed.). Energy Future: Report of the Energy Project at the Harvard Business School. New York: Random House, 1979.
The Leonardo Scholars. Resources and Decisions. North Scituate, Massachusetts: Duxbury Press, 1975.
U.S. Dept, of Energy. Synopsis of Energy Facts and Projections. From the Annual Report to Congress, 1978.
U. S. Dept, of thelnterior, Bureau of Reclamation. Wind Energy: Wyominq (Ervironmental Assessment Report). Denver, Colorado, June, 1979.
U.W. Dept, of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Wind-Hydroelectric Integration Study. Denver, Colorado, No. 2, November, 1978.
U.S. Dept, of the Interior. Bureau of Reclamation. Wind-Hydroelectric Integration Study. Denver, Colorado, No. 3, October, 1979.
U.S. Dept, of the Interior. Water and Power Resources Service. Report
on Special Investigations of the Wind-Hydroelectric Energy Integration Study: Medicine Bow, Wyoming (draft)"Denver, Colorado, January, 1980.
U.S. Dept, of the Interior. Water and Power Resources Service. "Water and Power Resources Awards Contract for World's Largest Generator."
(News Release), 4 Feb. 1980.
Watts, Abner. Personal Interview. Lower Missouri Region, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado, 28 Feb. 1980.
Wind Energy for the Home. Bristol, Indiana: Published in Conjunction with the American Wind Energy Association, undated.
"Wind Study Helps Wind Power Become Reality." Foresignt, Winter, 1980.