The Case Against Utility Scale Wind Power in

Vermont and the Northeastern US

Dr. Ben Luce

Email: benluce137[AT]gmail.com
Author’s Background
• Physicist, formerly with Los Alamos National Laboratory, Theoretical Division.
– Served as LANL Renewable Energy Program Director.
• Professor at Northern Vermont 2008-present.
• I am pro-renewable energy in general, and in fact a clean energy advocate
with a solid track record in promoting renewable energy:
– New Mexico Renewable Energy Policy Work:
• President, New Mexico Solar Energy Association.
– Renewable Energy Education Programs, Projects, Fairs, etc.
• Director, New Mexico Coalition for Clean Affordable Energy
– Legislation Developed and Implemented:
» State Tax Incentives for Wind
» NM Renewable Energy Standard
» NM Solar Tax Credit
» Enhanced Solar Rights
» State Tax Incentives for Concentrating Solar
» Expanded Net-metering
» Feed-in Incentives for PV (RECS buyback program) 1
Outline
1) Quantitative comparison of wind and solar power
resources in the Northeast and Eastern US.
2) Summary of wind development impact issues.
3) Summary of solar development impact issues.

Conclusion: Wind development in the Northeast has

extremely adverse impacts, and, critically, onshore wind
resources in the Northeast and Eastern US are miniscule
relative to energy demand. On the other hand, solar is
essentially completely the opposite in all respects. There
is hence no technical justification that wind development
is “essential” in this region, which implies we should be
focusing essentially exclusively on solar in this region, and
working hard to get that right.
2
 Postscript
• Since I first started making presentations with essentially the same content as this
one beginning 2010, the Vermont Public has in fact largely turned against ridgeline
wind power development in the region, and the focus has since been largely on
solar power.
• I made predictions in 2010 that the cost of PV would essentially reach grid parity
in Vermont by 2015, and this came to pass on schedule, enabling solar to take off
in the promising way that it has.
• Another prediction I made then, that utility scale wind development in Vermont
would adversely tie up both economic headroom and grid capacity that would be
better filled with solar, has also come to pass, leading to an unfortunate and
ongoing curtailment in solar development in some areas on Vermont’s limited
rural grid.
• And finally, I assert that the fact that there was any ridgeline wind power
development in Vermont was unfortunate and avoidable from the start: All of the
wind resource and most of the impact data I present in this publication was readily
and publicly available since at least the early 2000s. The dramatic fall in PV cost
since 2010 was also well projected by the “learning curve” data on PV at that time.
And so there was never any technical justification to develop wind generation in
Vermont even. The fact that several major projects were built, resulting in
hundreds of millions of dollars of cost to ratepayers, significant and ongoing
environmental damage, and severe social division and harm to the reputation of
renewable energy in Vermont, reveals gross shortcomings in Vermont’s
governmental, environmental, and regulatory systems, and a disturbing lack of
respect for Vermont’s fragile environment and aesthetic appeal.
3
Quantitative comparison of wind and solar power
resources in the Northeast and Eastern US
• Data cited herein is from NREL, the
“National Renewable Energy Laboratory”:
– Comprehensive data – best available
– Technically strong
– Semi-objective: NREL is definitely pro-renewable energy
• Perspective: Look at things from a fully regional and
national perspective:
– Addressing climate change is a huge undertaking.
– Policies and development should be directed at helping to
achieve really significant emission reductions on a regional
and national level.
– Asking only what it takes to power Vermont is
meaningless: Vermont’s electrical demand is miniscule in
the scheme of things.
4
 Wind Energy Physics 101
Wind power potential is proportional to the cube of the wind speed:
1
• Power/Area = Kinetic energy density ( r v2) x wind speed (v)
2
1
• Power/Area = r v3
2
• Therefore: 2x the speed means 8x the power
• Conclusion: Good wind sites need very high average wind speeds,
relatively speaking. (Good solar are much more common).
Comprehensive Collection of NREL Resource
Estimates:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51946.pdf

6
Moderate
Wind Large Wind
Resource Resource

7
Relative Ranking of Estimaed “Developable” Wind
Resources by State, from NREL
Capacity - in peak gigawatts
Ranking State
1901
1 Texas
2 Kansas 952
3 Montana 944
4 Nebraska 918
5 South Dakota 818
6 North Dakota 770
Western
7 Iowa 570 US
8 Wyoming 552
9 Oklahoma 517
10 New Mexico 492
.
15 New York 26
25 Maine 11
29 Pennsylvania 3
27 Vermont 3 Eastern
30 New Hampshire 2
31 West Virginia 2
US
33 Virginia 2
34 Maryland 1
35 Massachusetts 1
8
Iowa vs. Vermont
The wind power resource in the upper left quarter of Iowa puts the wind resource in
the entire Eastern United States, not to mention Vermont, completely to shame. The
Iowa resource is two-dimensional. Vermont’s resource is essentially one-dimensional.

9
Even worse, these NREL wind development potentials,
especially for the Notheast, are likely significantly
overestimated.

• Only gross screens were applied.

• Wind development involves myriad local siting
factors that NREL did not and could not account for:
– Micro-local environmental concerns
– Transmission line cost and grid access potential
– Topographical barriers to road/platform
construction
– Local aesthetic concerns
– Etc.
10
 Northeast Solar Resources: Rooftop + Urban + Rural

• As estimated by NREL:
– Maine 2 + 2 + 659 GW
– Massachusetts 10 + 11 + 52 GW
– New Hampshire: 2 + 2 + 36 GW
– New Jersey 14 + 25 + 251 GW
– New York 25+ 33 + 926 GW
– Pennsylvania 20+ 36 + 357 GW
– Rhode Island 2+ 1 + 9 GW
– Vermont 1+ 1 + 35 GW
• Total: 2512 GW
• Even at a 10% capacity factor, this is equivalent to
more than 250 GW of conventional capacity – far
more than needed.
 Summary of wind development
impact issues
• Topographical Impacts (blasting, bulldozing, etc)
– Associated Hydrological Impacts
• Habitat Fragmentation & Loss
• Potential Impacts to birds and bats
• Noise Impacts to people, wildlife
• Aesthetic Impacts:
– Ecotourism, etc
– Environmental valuing of the region
• Impacts to the Social Fabric of local communities
• Implications for the effectiveness of and public
support for renewable energy investments 12
 Topographical Impacts (blasting, bulldozing, etc)
• Very large roads and platforms are
needed: (Note: Flying them in by
helicopters doesn’t work. Wouldn’t
work for all the cement needed
either.)
• The Turbines are very large:
– ~500 feet high
– ~ 300 feet in diameter
• Weight: Some items weight many tens
of tons
• Very large trucks and cranes are
needed.
– Industrial strength, relatively straight,
and shallow grade roads are essential.
• Extensive bulldozing and blasting is
usually required.

13
Large Platform Areas

14
Mars Hill, Maine

SUMMER 2011
Green Mountain Power’s “Community
Wind Project”, Lowell Vermont

16
 Lowell
Green Mountain Mountains
Power’s “Community Wind
Vermont
Project”, Lowell Vermont

17
 Green Mountain Power’s “Community Wind Project”, Lowell
Vermont: Note protester visible at right. Seven local people were
arrested following the taking of this photo.

18
Sheffield Wind Project, Sheffield Vermont

SUMMER 2011
Brodie Mountain Massachusetts

20
Laurel Mountain Wind Project (WV)

21
Tenney Mountain, NH

22
A study commissioned by Vermont's Department of Tourism found that the three words
visitors most associated with Vermont were Unspoiled, Beautiful, Mountains....

23
Northeast Raptor Migration Routes
• Mountain ridges generate updrafts used by migrating raptors.
(From: Bildstein 2006).
• All of the high ridges of Vermont are migratory pathways.
• Eagle populations are just now gradually rebounding in
Vermont.
 Potential Impacts to Birds
• Wind proponents commonly cite other sources
of bird mortality as being much greater than
with existing wind development.
• They also often claim that global populations of
birds would not be significantly reduced.
– These arguments do not reflect the impact of what a
really serious build-out of wind generation would
have.
– These arguments are fundamentally misleading from
an Environmental Science perspective:
• Relative mortality rates are not a valid basis for neglecting
the potential ecosystem impacts from wind generation to
local bird populations, especially raptors, from potentially
tens of thousands of turbines in the Northeast. 25
 Bats
• Bats show an innate curiosity for
turbines and can be and are
killed by merely flying close to
turbines by decompression
effects.
• Some projects in Vermont (i.e.
Lowell) use turbines specifically
designed for lower wind areas
(lower wind speeds), increasing
the probability they will be
turning when bats are present.
• Curtailment of wind generation
to protect bats will only render The Northern Long-Eared Bat was just
wind more costly and less useful, designated as “threatened” by U.S. Fish
and will be difficult at best to and Wildlife Service, although the agency
enforce. did not provide significant new
protection from wind projects.
• Several species of bats are
critically endangered in Vermont
due to white nose syndrome.
26
Bats

“…by 2020 an estimated

33,000 to 111,000 bats will
be killed annually by wind
turbines in the Mid-Atlantic
Highlands alone ( 7).
Obviously, mortality from
these two factors [White
Nose Syndrome and Wind
Turbines] is substantial and
will likely have long-term
cumulative impacts on both
aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystems ( 5, 7). B”
 General Aspects of Noise Impacts
• Noise issues include both audible and non-audible (infrasonic) noise.
• Potential noise impacts cannot be gauged by visiting a local wind project once or twice. Noise
impacts are intermittent, and depend on:
– The orientation of the listener to the turbine,
– wind speed and direction,
– moisture levels, etc.
– See: “The Problems With ''Noise Numbers'' for Wind Farm Noise Assessment”, Bob
Thorne, Bulletin of Science Technology & Society 2011 31: 262.
– And so don’t conclude from touring a wind project that it won’t have noise issues for
area residents.
• Noise impacts can only be fully appreciated by those living in proximity for extended periods
of time.
• There are many residences located in acoustical proximity to many potential wind sites in
the Northeast.
• Ridgeline wind is especially potentially problematic, given:
– The line of sight connection that such siting often creates,
– the quiet nature of Vermont’s countryside,
– and the incredible range and sensitivity of human hearing.

28
”The noise generated by wind turbines is rather unusual, containing high levels (over 90 dB
SPL) of very low frequency sound (infrasound).” (Alec Salt Group, Washington University
School of Medicine)
 Infrasonic Noise Impacts
• Many people living close to turbines have reported experiencing dizziness, nausea, tinnitus,
and sleep disturbance, and many have attributed this to infrasonic (low frequency, non-
audible) noise.
• Many wind proponents claim these claims are false or at least unverified as being
epidemiologically significant, and cite a lack of peer-reviewed literature on the subject.
• My opinion is there might be a real issue here on simple scientific grounds: Turbines
definitely do produce significant levels of infrasonic noise (this IS documented in peer
reviewed research). This is created due to the pressure fluctuation that is create when a rotor
blade passes in front of the tower. Although we cannot feel the pressure of the atmosphere
around us, the pressure is actually great, and our bodies are in fact physically coupled to the
turbine through the pressure field. The result of the infrasonic pressure variations, although
not audible, can be thought of a definite physical vibration. And it seems reasonable to me on
these basic grounds that such vibration could have genuine effects on the ear's cochlea, or
the organs of balance in the ear. Application of the Precautionary Principle therefore argues
that the burden of proof that there is not an effective should rest on the proponents, and not
on those claiming to suffer symptoms.

30
 Infrasonic Noise Impacts
• Moreover, just because there is a dearth of peer-reviewed confirmation doesn’t mean there
isn’t a problem. I don’t believe there has been all that much enthusiasm for the funding of
studies that might reveal such a problem, what studies do exist strike me as preliminary at
best and likely subject to pro-wind bias.
• And finally, the problem is intrinsically very difficult to study from the standpoint of
establishing adequate controls and detrending for factors such as anti-wind bias. Some claim
that anti-wind bias is solely or mainly responsible for the claims of infrasound impact, and the
truth it, anti-wind bias certainly likely does play a significant a role, but this doesn’t imply that
there still isn’t a real problem. It just means it's that much harder to study!

31
 Low-Frequency (Infrasonic) Noise
• One legitimate research team working on infrasonic noise is a group led by Professor
Alec Salt, PhD, Professor of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck
Surgery at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis
• Website: https://oto.wustl.edu/items/salt-lab/
• One peer-reviewed source on this topic:
– “Responses of the ear to low frequency sounds, infrasound and wind turbines”
– Hearing Research, Volume 268, Issues 1-2, 1 September 2010, Pages 12-21
– Alec N. Salt and Timothy E. Hullar
– Department of Otolaryngology, Washington University School of Medicine, Box
8115, 660 South Euclid Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA

• “Experimental measurements show robust electrical responses from the cochlea in

response to infrasound (Salt and DeMott, 1999; Salt and Lichtenhan 2013).
• Salt also suggests that infrasound exposure can cause temporary “endolymphatic
hydrops”, a possible mechanism for the balance disturbances, tinnitus, headache, and
cognitive problems.
• http://acousticstoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/How-Does-Wind-Turbine-
Noise-Affect-People.pdf
 Detailed Cochlea Structure

Something one needs to appreciate when it comes to the ear, is that the human ear is one of
the most sensitive and complicated electromechanical devices on the planet, consisting of
over a million moving parts.
A quick look at some solar prospects and
development impact issues
• Solar has enormous flexibility:
– Completely scalable
– Ubiquitous resource
• Solar intrinsically has much better potential than wind for cost reduction:
– No moving parts/great longevity
– Relatively small amounts of material
– Many different types of PV material are possible
– The fundamental physics suggest much higher efficiencies will ultimately be
achieved
– Can be sited close to load
– Great potential for reducing “balance of system costs”
– Much better diurnal and seasonal correlation of production with load
– Wind projects in the Northeast are limited to relatively small scale
– Transmission for wind will likely be extremely costly
– Wind production is not well correlated with load
– Wind technology has an intrinsic reliance on moving parts, and lots of cement
and steel.
34
PV Module Cost Trend

• The cost of PV has plummeted

35
Wind Power Costs

• The cost of wind power has roughly leveled out, but more critically for
considerations around ridgeline wind, the cost of smaller projects in difficult-to-
develop sites is not very low, and highly variable. Looking at the average cost of
wind is therefore not a valid argument in support of such projects.
36
Data Source: EIA, Levelized Cost of New
Generation Resources in the Annual Energy
Outlook 2013 (as quoted on AWEA’s website)

Ridgeline wind

37
 Transmission Costs
for NE Wind Power
• The Northeast Grid is already fairly congested
• According to Gordon van Welie, president and
chief executive officer of ISO New England Inc: “A
conservative goal for 5,500 megawatts of wind
power and 3,000 megawatts of hydro power
through 2030 would carry transmission costs of
between $7 billion and $12 billion.”
– From: “New England grid chief: Cooperate on wind
power”, by David Sharp, Associated Press Writer,
August 16, 2010.
• 4000+ miles of new transmission lines

38
Solar Scalability

39
“Junk Solar” in Vermont: Need to this
right.

40
 Solar Land Area Requirements to Provide
90% of Vermont’s Energy in 2050
• Vermont's present electricity consumption is roughly 6500 GWh (6.5 million megawatt
hours). Factoring in growth in electric vehicles usage and heat pumps, but also strong
demand side management and efficiency improvements, we might find ourselves at
roughly 10,000 GWh (10 million megawatt-hours) by 2050.

• One megawatt of solar produces about 1 Giga-watt hour per year in Vermont on average.
So we would need about 9 Gigawatts of solar to meet 90% of the 10,000 GWh.

• 9 Gigawatts is 9000 megawatts, and if we assume 10 acres/megawatt (a bit on the high

side to be conservative), then:

VT would require 90,000 acres of solar to provide 90% of Energy by 2050

• Vermont has a little over 6 million acres. 90,000 acres is .09 million, so the 9 gigs of solar
would require (.09/6)x100 %= 1.5% of land surface in Vermont. At double the efficiency,
.75%.

• There is roughly 1.25 millions acres of farmland in Vermont. So the 9 gigs of solar would
require (.09/1.25) = 7.2% of farmland. At double the efficiency, then 3.1% of farmland.

41
 The Scale of Potential Impacts of
Ridgeline Wind in the Northeast
• Miles of Ridgeline Needed?
– Assume just 15% of NE electricity is produced with wind power (NY
and NE ISOs), which is less than 5% of regional energy demand
overall: 15% corresponds to about 250,000,000 MWh/yr.

– This would require at least 15,000 MW worth of wind generation.

Here is the calculation:
250,000,000 MWh/yr
= 15,000 𝑀𝑊
.25x8760 h/yr

– Assume 15 MW/mile of wind generation (generous).

– Implication:
• 15,000 MW/(15 MW/mile) = 1000 miles of ridgeline, not
counting access roads, laydown areas, power line corridors, etc.
42
Property Values
• Some studies suggest nearby wind development has little or no
adverse impact on property values, others suggest it does.
• But…few studies to date are available for areas prized for their
scenic value.
• In some studies properties that have not sold are not factored in.
• “Wind turbines are often perceived to have substantial negative
impacts on local residents, and new research by Clarkson School of
Business Assistant Professor Martin Heintzelman and
Environmental Sciences and Engineering Ph.D. candidate Carrie
Tuttle shows that, in some communities, these impacts translate
into declines in property values.”
– http://www.clarkson.edu/business/centers/environmentaleconomics.
html
• “The Clarkson study clearly shows value impacts out to three miles
… and clearly shows the closer the turbine, the greater the impact.”
– Michael S. McCann, CRA
McCann Appraisal, LLC

43