Cape Cod Commission Cape Light Compact

produced in collaboration with

Boreal Renewable Energy Development/Serchuk Associates

Assessment of Distributed
Generation Technology

Report funded by a grant from the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative

under the Community Planning and Development Solicitation (#2003-CP-01)

June, 2004
Acknowledgments
The Cape Cod Commission and Cape Light Compact would like to thank Boreal Renewable
Energy Development and Serchuk Associates for the research and analysis conducted for this
report.

Sincere thanks are extended to those individuals who volunteered to peer review early drafts
of this report, and provide feedback and comment. These individuals included:

Nils Bolgen, Massachusetts Technology Collaborative

Dwayne Breger, Massachusetts Division of Energy Resources
Kristen Burke, Massachusetts Technology Collaborative
Fred Fenlon, Cape Light Compact
Peter Gish, UPC Wind Management, LLC
Joe Hackler, Woods Hole Research Center
Hans Keijser, Town of Barnstable
John Moskal, Environmental Protection Agency
Charlie Salamone, NSTAR
Eric Simons, Disgen Systems
Bo Thisted, General Electric
Bill Veno, Martha’s Vineyard Commission
Tom Wineman, Energy Consultant
Sally Wright, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Barry Worth, Cape Light Compact
Table of Contents
SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
Research and Analysis 1
Environmental Permitting and Siting Issues 2
Analysis of Interaction of Economic and Zoning Issues 2
Assessment of Microturbines, Fuel Cells and Photovoltaic Systems 3

SECTION 2: INTRODUCTION 5
Methodology 5
Units of Measurement 6

SECTION 3: WIND SYSTEM BASICS 7

Available Energy 7
Basic Wind Turbine Systems 7
Wind Resources 8
Extractable Wind Energy, Power Curves and Capacity Factors 9
Certification 10

SECTION 4: ECONOMICS 11
Introduction 11
Avoiding Utility Bill Charges 11
Wholesale Market Energy Sales 12
Renewable Energy Certificates 13
Dampen Price Volatility 13
Conclusions 14

SECTION 5: ENVIRONMENTAL/SITING ISSUES 15

Background 15
Environmental Permitting and Siting Issues 15

SECTION 6: WIND TECHNICAL SURVEY AND ANALYSIS 25

Introduction 25
Purpose and Structure of Survey 26
Quality and Rate of Survey Response 26
Analysis of Survey Results 27
Analysis of Customer Class and Zoning Scenarios 30
Summary of Findings 32
Conclusion 33

SECTION 7: NON-WIND ASSESSMENT: MICROTURBINES, FUEL CELLS 35

AND PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEMS
Introduction 35
Microturbines 35
Fuel Cells 37
Photovoltaic Systems 38

(continued on page ii)

i
 Table of Contents (continued)

SECTION 8: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A WIND POWER RELATED 41

MODEL BYLAW

APPENDICES 43

Appendix A: Review of Wind Energy and Turbine Design

Appendix B: FAA Supplemental Obstruction Analysis Information
Appendix C: Survey of Wind Turbine Manufacturers
Appendix D: Tables Used for Survey Analysis in Section 6
Appendix E: Zoning Analysis
Appendix F: References/Bibliography

ii
 Section 1
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to provide a review of
the current technology available for land-based,
distributed generation (DG) facilities with a focus on
wind energy technologies.1 This technology review is
part of a study funded under a Community Planning
and Development Grant from the Massachusetts
Technology Collaborative to the Cape Cod
Commission and Cape Light Compact. The scope of
the grant also includes the production of a Suitability
Map and Model Bylaw for distributed, wind generation
facilities on Cape Cod. This Technology Assessment
aims to provide current information on wind turbine
technology, but also includes a section on other non-
wind technologies, both for context and to provide
information to the County’s constituents on other
distributed generation options.
Boreal Renewable Energy Development (BRED) and
Serchuk Associates were hired to perform a thorough
technology review of wind and non-wind energy
renewable distributed generation technology, and the
results of this detailed analysis form the basis of this
report. Final editing and presentation of the report have
been completed by the Cape Cod Commission and
Cape Light Compact in consultation with the
Massachusetts Technology Collaborative.
■ Research and Analysis
The technology review conducted by BRED included
a review of wind turbine technology, analysis of
turbine economics, interviews with U.S. and European
wind turbine planning officials and a review of
environmental permitting and siting criteria. With
recent wind turbine technology advances, wind turbine
1
For purposes of this report, distributed generation (DG) and wind energy generation are combined and frequently referred to as DG Wind
throughout. The pure definition of DG, however, is the generation of electricity by scalable generating facilities that are located at or near
the point of end-use consumption. These facilities can be located on either the customer side of the meter or the utility side of the meter and
may be owned by the individual customer, the utility or a third party generator. They are usually connected to the power grid, but may be
disconnected from the grid as stand-alone systems.
June, 2004
sizes have increased tower heights to over 400 feet
with blade diameters in excess of 300 feet. This growth
in wind turbine dimensions has resulted in enhanced
economic performance, but has also prompted
additional siting and permitting review considerations.
This report aims to provide up-to-date information on
the scale of distributed generation technologies to
inform the development of a model bylaw for use in
the region.
BRED conducted interviews with U.S. and European
planning officials in an attempt to learn from other
regional planning experiences concerning wind turbine
development. In the U.S., there is generally a lack of
extensive regional planning activities for wind turbine
development and therefore interviews were conducted
with European planning officials to gather some
context for the report. This limited survey revealed
that in certain parts of Europe, as the size of the
technology has grown, greater regional planning
measures have been adopted. This European
experience highlights the need for the Cape Cod
Commission and Cape Light Compact to develop a
model bylaw that accommodates this new technology,
while protecting the resources and values of Cape Cod.
The report also aims to provide extensive analysis of
anticipated system costs and availability, wind
resources, customer electricity consumption
characteristics and avoidable electric rates over the
life of the turbine system. This information will
provide insights into the benefits of utilizing this type
of technology and provides the basis for many of the
recommendations on DG wind systems presented in
the report.
1
 1 Executive Summary
■ Environmental Permitting
and Siting Issues
The report provides a brief discussion of possible
permitting requirements for wind generation
development, and the potential environmental review
that could be required under the state’s environmental
review process. In addition, the report identifies a
number of potential environmental/siting issues that
could be addressed as part of a development bylaw.
The key issues are briefly summarized below:
• The research conducted for this report found
that turbine blade failure (and its associated
public safety concerns) is not considered to be
a significant issue with modern, commercially
certified wind turbines.
• The report also finds that ice throw (i.e. ice on
the wind turbine blades falling onto the ground)
is mostly a consideration on ridge top locations
and less likely to be an issue on Cape Cod and
the Islands. Ice falling from wind turbine
blades is generally not expected to be of the
mass or characteristics that would pose an
unacceptable risk to humans or property and
according to recent studies, there are no
reported injuries from ice thrown from wind
turbines worldwide.
• Shadowing and flickering from wind turbines
can occur, potentially affecting sensitive
neighbors depending on their proximity to the
turbine and tower location, and on the time of
day and season. This effect can be predicted
through careful analysis and this type of impact
may be avoided by careful turbine placement.
• Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) air
navigation standards will likely require safety
lighting on top of turbines over 200 feet, and
in some instances on towers less than 200 feet.
The report concludes that most DG wind
facilities on the Cape will exceed this height.
• The report highlights a number of potential
siting and regulatory constraints associated
with locating DG wind facilities in or adjacent
to wetlands or rare species habitat on the
Cape. The report recommends that these areas
generally be avoided.
2 Assessment of Distributed Generation Technology
• Modern wind turbines are designed to generate
less noise than earlier models. The report notes
that most turbines will be able to comply with
state and local noise regulations and that
engineering studies could be required to verify
compliance with these standards.
• Avian impacts remain a concern for wind
turbine development, although smaller
facilities located away from fly-ways and
significant bird habitat may have a reduced
impact. The report recommends initial site
evaluation to identify the potential risk.
• Visual impacts are identified as the primary
concern in planning for DG wind development
on the Cape. The report recommends that visual
assessment and simulations be completed.
■ Analysis of Interaction of
Economic and Zoning Issues
The report identifies the many factors that affect the
economic payback of DG wind development (see
Figure 1).
The factors that affect DG wind economics are wind
resources, size of customer energy consumption and
size of wind turbine system. A summary of their
interactions include:
• The output of a turbine is a function of the area
swept by its rotor blades. A small increase in
rotor diameter means a big increase in expected
production. This is one reason why there are
great economies of scale for the increased size
of wind turbine systems, as generally the larger
the wind turbine (in kW), the more cost-
effective the system will be.
• Generally, the higher the elevation, the faster
the average wind speed. Because the theoretical
output of a wind turbine is the cube of the wind
speed, wind speed is the most important factor
in determining a turbine’s expected electricity
production.
 1 Executive Summary

Figure 1
Schematic of Factors Affecting Economic Payback of a DG Wind Installation

Customer Characteristics
Consumption Level (kWh/yr)
Consumption Patterns
Rate Class

Wind System Configuration

Turbine Configuration ➤
Power Curve
Costs
Tower Configuration
Height
System Specific
Class Economic Rate of
Wind Resources
➤ Return/Investment

➤
(a function of tower
Payback Period

➤
Site Characteristics height & site wind
Wind Resources resources)
Lot Size
Environmental Attributes ➤
➤
Permitting
Abutters

Market Characteristics
Utility Charges
Energy/REC Prices
Interest Rates/Tax Policy

• Medium (>30 kW) and large wind systems are
only available in a finite number of turbine /
tower combinations. Generally, larger turbines
will have larger rotor blades and thus will
require higher towers. This correlation is
influenced both by a need for the rotor blades
to have ground clearance, and the desire to reach
the faster winds that will be caught by the
system at higher elevation.
• For any given turbine system, it is unclear
whether the costs of a higher tower are offset
by the benefits of increased annual energy
production as the result of higher wind speeds
at greater elevations. Manufacturers only
engineer and sell a handful of tower sizes (2 to
6, generally) with each turbine. Thus placing a
very large turbine on a very short tower (with
enough ground clearance) is not possible in
practice; as such configurations are not sold in
the market today.
• Zoning height restrictions could have a
significant effect upon DG wind development
on Cape Cod, given the scale of modern wind
turbines and limited models available.
• A customer gets more revenue from offsetting
higher utility rates than selling (excess)
generation output to the wholesale market.
Thus appropriately sizing the turbine with the
customer’s load in order that most of the energy
produced by the turbine is consumed on-site is
important to get a better economic payback.
■ Assessment of Microturbines,
Fuel Cells and Photovoltaic
Systems
This part of the analysis provides technical
specifications for twenty-two distributed energy
products in three categories: microturbines, fuel cells
and photovoltaic systems. This information is
provided for context and comparison purposes and to
provide an insight into the current state of other DG
technologies. The report finds that microturbine, fuel
cell and PV systems in some ways present milder
challenges than wind turbines for planners, policy
makers and the communities seeking to accommodate
them. However, wind technology is in general more
market-ready and more economic than most other
distributed energy technologies. The report notes that

June, 2004 3
 1 Executive Summary

large amounts of microturbine, fuel cell or PV capacity
are not expected on Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard
in the near future.
However, the report notes that it is conceivable that
jurisdictional entities may seek to develop smaller
distributed energy projects using technologies other
than wind in the near future.2 In most or all cases,
these will be pilot and demonstration projects driven
largely by grants and other subsidies. Indeed, in the
case of photovoltaic systems, some development is
underway already, and at least one 200-kW fuel cell
has been installed.

2
A recent study found that Cape Cod customers would have cost-effective opportunities to deploy 105 MW of advanced fuel cells, 32 MW
of microturbines and 1 MW of photovoltaic technology by 2015, and that Martha’s Vineyard customers could deploy 0.1 MW of advanced
fuel cells, 2.2 MW of microturbines and 0.2 MW of photovoltaic systems. Ridley & Associates for the Cape Light Compact, Regional
Options Study (undated review copy), p. 7.

4 Assessment of Distributed Generation Technology

 Section 2
Introduction
The primary purpose of this technology review is to
analyze the tradeoffs and potential impacts of modern
distributed generation (DG) development, particularly
wind turbine development, on the unique natural and
cultural landscapes of Cape Cod. This analysis is
intended to inform the creation of a model bylaw that
can be used by municipalities to plan for this
technology within their communities. The focus of
the evaluation is the interaction between the scale,
economic viability, and environmental benefits and
detriments of wind energy conversion systems (wind
turbine systems). In addition, an overview of other
distributed generation systems is provided for context
and comparison.
To perform this study, Boreal Renewable Energy
Development (BRED) was hired to complete a survey
of wind system vendors and planning and regulatory
officials, review siting and permitting criteria, and
assemble, synthesize, and analyze a database of wind
system technical and cost information. The wind
assessment includes information and analysis on
turbines ranging from small residential systems (1
kilowatt (kW)) to utility scale systems (1 megawatt
(MW)). Serchuk Associates were retained by BRED
to develop a non-wind assessment that relies mostly
on publicly available data and market expertise. The
non-wind assessment includes information about fuel
cells, microturbines, and photovoltaics. For the
purposes of this report, distributed generation (DG) is
defined loosely, but generally means a system installed
to offset all or part of the utility consumption by an
on-grid consumer. Neither off-grid applications nor
large generating plants (e.g., wind farms) were a focus
of this report, however, some information about
smaller applications is provided for context.
June, 2004
■ Methodology
Given the complexity of the issues at hand and the
report’s intended function to provide information for
drafting a model bylaw, this document provides
significant detail and technical analysis. The report is
mainly directed at non-technical readers, and the more
complex technical analysis is provided in a series of
appendices.
The goal of this analysis was to provide appropriate
background to understand the issues related to wind
power development, rather than provide an exhaustive
review of the technology. This analysis weaves
together publicly available information on wind
energy, planning and zoning criteria with information
garnered from interviews with U.S. and European
experts on wind issues, and a technical survey of all
manufacturers currently offering wind systems in the
U.S. This has been accomplished by BRED through
the design of a technical survey that was distributed
to wind turbine manufacturers or their representatives.
Using this data and a proprietary pro forma spreadsheet
tool developed by BRED, analysis was performed on
the economic feasibility of wind turbines for a wide
variety of customer types, turbine systems, and height
scenarios.
Section 3 “Wind Basics”, provides a review of wind
energy and wind energy systems, as well as
information regarding turbine certification.
Section 4 provides a broad overview of the economics
associated with DG wind applications.
5
 2 Introduction

Section 5 provides details on potential environmental
impacts and siting considerations for wind systems,
and applicable regulations. Perspective of other
regional planning experiences is also provided from
interviews with US and European wind experts.
Section 6 contains a quantitative analysis on the
tradeoffs and economics of wind turbine systems. In
this section the results from the technical survey are
described, and an analysis of the various turbine-tower
configurations is provided.
Section 7 includes the assessment of non-wind DG
technologies that were included in the scope of work,
namely microturbines, fuel cells and photovoltaic
systems. The analysis provides technical specifications
for twenty-two illustrative non-wind distributed energy
products. The intent is not to provide encyclopedic
information on these systems in this report, but, rather,
to provide a context and comparison between other
types of DG technologies.
Section 8 provides preliminary recommendations and
findings that are relevant to overall planning efforts
to develop a model bylaw.
The remaining sections are appendices that provide
further background, and in many cases provide context
and support for declarations made in the main body
of this document.
■ Units of Measurement
European manufacturers dominate the wind industry,
therefore the industry convention is to use the metric
system of measurement (e.g., meters) rather than the
English system (e.g., feet). This report follows the
industry convention and uses the metric system, but
for reference purposes, Table 1 provides a simple
conversion.

Table 1
Metric to English Conversion of Distance Measurements

Unit Equivalent
Feet Meter Miles
Meter 3.281 1 6.214 x 10-4
Feet 1 0.3048 1.894 x 10-4
Miles 5280 1609 1

6 Assessment of Distributed Generation Technology

 Section 3
Wind System Basics

This section provides an overview of wind turbines
by providing information on wind resources, available
energy, the general components of turbine systems and
some of the economic considerations associated with
developing wind facilities.
■ Available Energy
A good wind resource contains enough kinetic energy
with which modern wind turbines can economically
produce electric energy. The amount of kinetic energy
in the wind is a function of three factors:
• The area through which the wind is blowing.
The larger the area, the more energy is available
and thus the greater theoretical power that is
potentially available in the wind. This
theoretical power is a function of the area swept
by the rotors, or the square of the rotor radius.
• The density of the wind. Air at sea level is denser
[higher pressure] than wind at higher altitudes,
and cold air is denser than warm air; and,
• The velocity of the wind. The faster the wind
blows the more energy in the wind.
Additional technical information on wind turbines can
be found in Appendix A.
■ Basic Wind Turbine Systems
Wind turbine design varies substantially, but almost
all modern, commercially available electric wind
turbine systems are of a three-bladed, upwind design
with a horizontal axis, such as the Vestas V47 turbine
used in Hull, MA and depicted in Figure 2. In general,
the major components of a wind turbine system include
the rotor blades, the nacelle (which sits on top of the
tower and includes the generator, gear box, controller,
shown in Figure 3), the tower, the tower foundation,
ancillary components such as transformer / inverter,
and fencing.
Figure 2
Photograph of Vestas V47 660 kW Wind Turbine.
Hull, Massachusetts4

Of these factors, the velocity of the wind is the most

important variable to consider when assessing wind
resources. This is because the kinetic energy in the
wind is a cubic function of the velocity of the wind,
and thus small increases in velocity result in larger
increases in the energy potential in the wind. On Cape
Cod, changes in elevation will probably have very little
impact on the density of the potential energy contained
in wind as the region is uniformly close to sea level.3

3
Further anemometry studies (some currently ongoing) will be required to fully ascertain the change in wind resources with elevation,
also known as vertical wind shear.
4
Photographed By Robert Shatten 2/10/04

June, 2004 7
 3 Wind System Basics
Figure 3
Cut Away of Typical Modern Wind Turbine5
Towers come in two basic types: lattice (i.e., metal
tower with a series of cross braces, often used for cell
towers) and tubular or monopole design (as seen in
Figure 2). The smallest systems have towers that use
guy wires that increase the footprint of a tower. Large
towers generally have a small foot print and no guy
wires. The size of the buried foundation will vary
depending on soil conditions and other geotechnical
site constraints. Sandy soils found on Cape Cod may
require bigger or deeper foundations to stabilize the
tower and turbine.
Manufactures usually offer a small number of towers
(generally 2 to 6) that work with each turbine and vary
in height. Nonetheless, a good rule of thumb is that
the tower height approximates the diameter of the rotor
blades. As noted above, the theoretical energy that
can be extracted from the wind is a function of the
square of the radius of the turbine blade. Therefore
bigger wind generating systems take advantage of this
fact by having longer blades, and are subsequently
placed on higher towers. In-depth analysis of this issue
is addressed in Section 6.
5
http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/wind_how.html#types
6
http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/wind_potential.html
8 Assessment of Distributed Generation Technology
Because of economic considerations, the average
turbine system size has been growing in order to more
efficiently extract energy from the wind. Thus the
larger the system available on the market today, the
more likely it will incorporate more recent
technological innovations. This is particularly relevant
for noise generation (as the newest turbines generally
do not create much noise) and blade design. Appendix
A describes some of the basic principles of rotor system
design.
■ Wind Resources
Good wind resources are the exception, not the norm,
as illustrated by the following statement.
Good wind areas, which cover 6% of the
contiguous U.S. land area, have the potential
to supply more than one and a half times the
current electricit consumption of the United
States.6
 3 Wind System Basics

Any factors that affect wind speed (velocity), even to
a small degree have large impacts on the energy that
can be derived from a wind turbine system. Wind
speed generally increases with elevation above ground
level, because at lower elevations friction caused by
the earth’s surface lowers the wind speed. Therefore,
before a turbine size can be selected and its
performance determined, it is important to know what
the wind resource is at a particular height. Given the
sensitivity of energy production to wind speed and the
sensitivity of wind speed to height, all things being
equal, it is much more efficient to put a turbine on a
higher tower (described in more detail in Section 6).
Wind is rated in classes that delineate specific ranges
of wind resources on a scale of 1 to 7, with Class 1
being a very low wind power resource and Class 7
being a very high wind power resource. Class 4 is
used as the standard by the wind industry as being the
lowest possible class for economically capturing wind
power with modern wind turbines. Table 2 displays
the wind power classes and associated wind speeds at
10 and 50 meters (33 and 164 feet).
Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard have significant
wind resources as illustrated by maps prepared in
collaboration between TrueWind Solutions and the
Massachusetts Technology Collaborative. These maps
(available from Massachusetts Technology Collaborative)
estimate wind resources at 70 meters above the surface
across the region, and show that the vast majority of
the County has a class 4 resource or better.
■ Extractable Wind Energy, Power
Curves and Capacity Factors
To this point the report has centered on the theoretical
amount of kinetic energy that can be extracted from
the wind. In actuality, only a portion of the potential
energy is converted into electricity. Turbines are rated
by size at their maximum production output, however,
in reality this output is not achieved at all wind speeds.
For example, when the wind does not blow, there is
no electricity produced. As the wind speed increases
the power produced by the turbine increases until very
high winds occur (e.g., over 25 m/s or 56 mph) at
which point the system reaches a cut-off speed. When
the cut off speed is reached, the turbine is braked or
the rotor blades are furled to prevent system damage.
This relationship is known as the power curve of a
wind turbine system, and is illustrated in Figure 4 with
the Fuhrlander family of turbines, which cover a wide
range of turbine sizes. As Figure 4 shows, the turbine
does not reach its maximum output at lower wind

Table 2
Classes of Wind Power Density at 10 m and 50 m(a) 7

10 m (33 ft) 50 m (164 ft)

Wind Power Speed m/s (mph) Speed m/s (mph)
Class
1 <4.4 (9.8) <5.6 (12.5)
2 4.4 (9.8)/5.1 (11.5) 5.6 (12.5)/6.4 (14.3)
3 5.1 (11.5)/5.6 (12.5) 6.4 (14.3)/7.0 (15.7)
4 5.6 (12.5)/6.0 (13.4) 7.0 (15.7)/7.5 (16.8)
5 6.0 (13.4)/6.4 (14.3) 7.5 (16.8)/8.0 (17.9)
6 6.4 (14.3)/7.0 (15.7) 8.0 (17.9)/8.8 (19.7)
7 >7.0 (15.7) >8.8 (19.7)

(a) Vertical extrapolation of wind speed based on the 1/7 power law

7
http://www.awea.org/faq/basicwr.html

June, 2004 9
 3 Wind System Basics

Figure 4
Power Curves of Fuhrlander Family of Turbines @ Sea Level
1100

1000

900 FL-30
FL-100
800
FL-250
700 FL-800
FL-1000
600 FL-1000+
kW

500

400

300

200

100

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Meters per Second

speeds. The primary industry standard for the power
derived in kW from a turbine for a given windspeed
assumes a turbine at sea level air density (1.226 kg/
m3), with a moderately smooth terrain, and a
temperature of 15 degrees Celsius (59 degrees
Fahrenheit). The power curve takes into account the
inefficiencies of the turbine in generating electricity,
but does not, for example, take into account line losses
from transmitting the electricity.
The power curve of a turbine is important to wind
turbine developers as this information is combined
with information about the wind resources to make
estimates of annual energy output. For instance, with
the variations in the wind resource over time (i.e.
factoring in times when the wind blows lightly or not
at all), a modern wind turbine on Cape Cod will likely
produce between 20% and 35% of what it could
produce if it was generating at maximum output all
year. This percentage is known as the capacity factor
for the turbine. For example, the Fuhrlander FL-250
has name plate maximum output of 250 kW. Thus
annual energy production can be estimated to be
between 438,000 kWh (250 kW times 8760 hours/year
times 20% capacity factor) and 766,500 kWh (250 kW
times 8760 hours/year times 35% capacity factor).
■ Certification
Independent third-party certifications of technologies
are used in many cases in order to obtain outside
financing and to prevent legal difficulties over non-
attainment of performance guarantees. Certifications
of wind turbines relate to independent third party
validation/verification of a manufacturers performance
capabilities and claims, and where necessary, to assure
that they meet international standards.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE’s) National
Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) is responsible for the
independent review of wind turbine technology. Under
the Certification Program, NREL will assist the U.S.
industry in obtaining American Association for
Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA)-type certification
for wind turbines and is conducting a suite of
certification tests that are specified by the International
Electro-technical Commission (IEC) standards. For
more information on this topic see Appendix A.

10 Assessment of Distributed Generation Technology

 Section 4
Economics
■ Introduction (vi) renewable energy surcharges; and,
(vii) energy efficiency surcharges.
This section is intended to provide a very broad
overview of the economics of a distributed generation The electricity generation portion of the bill, that
wind facility. There are three types of energy revenue accounts for about one-quarter to one-third of the total
and/or avoided costs that can be anticipated from DG cost, is the cost for the actual production of the
wind turbines.8 First, and generally most valuable, is electricity. Customers may have chosen their power
to avoid paying utility bill energy charges.9 Second is to come from a competitive power supplier (e.g.,
to sell part or all of the production of a wind turbine municipal aggregator like the Cape Light Compact)
into the wholesale market. Third is to capture revenue or may be on the standard offer or default services
from selling renewable energy credits (RECs) that are that the utility (local distribution company) is required
available for “new” wind turbines installed after March to provide by law as the supplier of last resort.
1, 1998, under the Massachusetts Renewable Portfolio
Standard (RPS). Unless a customer opts to totally disconnect from the
grid and rely on a combination of wind turbines and
■ Avoiding Utility Bill Charges other sources of electricity supply (e.g., solar/
photovoltaics, banks of batteries, micro-turbines),
Electric bills distributed to NSTAR customers are neither monthly customer charges nor demand (kW)
made up of two primary components: electricity charges 10 can be avoided. However, the energy
delivery charges and electricity generation (or power consumption-related charges a customer pays may be
supply) charges. avoided in part. The amount of energy charges a
customer pays on the utility bill varies by rate class
Electricity delivery (non-generation) charges include: and in many cases consumption patterns. These non-
(i) customer charges; generation charges usually constitute a significant
(ii) demand (kW) charges (typically fraction of an electric bill, though the actual amount
applicable to large users); will depend on a customer’s actual consumption
(iii) transmission charges; pattern and rate class (see estimates in Table 3). These
(iv) distribution charges; charges are in addition to generation charges that have been
(v) transition (i.e., stranded costs); in the 5.0 to 6.0 cents/kWh range for the last few years. 11

8
We have only addressed those financial benefits that are assured currently but, additional monetary benefits are possible. They include
stripping away the emission allowances (e.g., NOx) and selling those allowances. In addition it is possible in the future that wind systems
might be able to receive other payments from ISO-NE and might include “black start” and “capacity” payments.
9
Customers that sign-up for competitive generation supply (e.g., Mirant, Select Energy, Constellation New Energy) may be able to get two
bills one from NSTAR and one from their competitive generation supplier, though this is a rare case. For simplicity sake we assume,
regardless whether a customer is procuring generation from a competitive supplier, default service, or standard offer, that they only receive
one bill from NSTAR and that that bill includes generation and all other charges.
10
As the wind does not blow all the time, monthly peak demand (kW) nor the associated peak demand charges will not decrease significantly.
Demand charges are not assessed on residential customers.
11
Projections of future generation costs vary substantially. The Energy Information Administration generally projects lower electric and
gas prices through 2025 (see http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html#prices), in contrast one reviewer of a draft report stated “Our
information shows potentially much higher (generation) rates over the period in question because of the shortage of natural gas and certain
infrastructure problems.”

June, 2004 11
 4 Economics

Table 3
Estimated Average Non-Generation
Commonwealth Electric Energy Charges for 2006

Rate Class Cents / kWh

R1 4.1
R3 3.5
G1 4.1
G2 3.9
G3 3.0

Table 3 only displays estimates of the average non-
generation charges for 2006. With the end of the
transition period in March 2005 it is expected that these
charges will change, and most likely increase by a
small amount. The exception, in the long term, will
likely be transition charges. Except for 2005 for which
NSTAR has estimated much higher rates, they are
estimated to decrease slowly over the next 23 years
and end in 2026.12
Current regulations have established a 60kW threshold
for how DG wind systems connect to the grid. For
wind DG systems over 60kW, the customer generally
will have two meters (bi-metering), one measuring
consumption from the NSTAR distribution system and
a second measuring energy from the turbine sold into
the wholesale market. For example, when the turbine
is not generating energy, the customer will use power
from the NSTAR system that will be measured on one
meter and when the turbine is producing more energy
than is being consumed on-site, the second meter will
measure the amount of energy being supplied to the
grid.
For wind DG systems less than or equal to 60 kW, the
customer generally will have one meter that measures
the net consumption from the NSTAR distribution
system (net metering). In these systems the meter runs
backwards when the turbine is producing more energy
than is being consumed on-site and forwards when
the turbine is generating less power than used on site.
Thus customers will pay only for the net amount of
kWh consumed.13
■ Wholesale Market Energy
Sales
Whereas a wind farm would sell all or almost all of
their output into the wholesale energy market, most
DG wind applications will consume a majority of their
energy production on-site. Nonetheless, when the
turbine is producing more energy than is being
consumed on-site, the excess is sold to the wholesale
energy market. There are four options for selling
excess power beyond entering into a bilateral power
purchase agreement with a third party. They are:
1) Enter a separate customized bi-lateral
power purchase agreement
with NSTAR.
2) For those systems 1 MW or greater in
size, receive the hourly ISO-NE
spot price.

12
See D.T.E 03-118 Cambridge Electric Light Company & Commonwealth Electric Company 2003 Reconciliation of the Transition Charge,
Transmission Charge, Standard Offer Charge, Default Service Charge. http://www.state.ma.us/dpu/catalog/7213.htm Further, NSTAR
has proposed new standby rates for DG under DTE Docket 03-121 (http://www.state.ma.us/dpu/catalog/7206.htm). The proposed rates
would significantly decrease most DG project’s ability to avoid distribution costs, and thus decrease the economic incentive of installing
DG systems, while not decreasing the average charges imposed on customers. As of this report, the proposed standby rates are being
contested by many parties.
13
Even with “net metering” customers still have to pay monthly customer charges, and demand charges if applicable. Further, if a DG
owner produces more than they consume, they will receive a credit for the average short-run ISO-NE rate for their production.

12 Assessment of Distributed Generation Technology


3) For those systems less than 1 MW,
receive the arithmetic average of
the ISO-NE spot price for the previous
month.
4) For those systems less than 60 kW, the
option of “net metering” as
described above.
In general the average wholesale spot price will be
higher than what can be negotiated for wind output in
a bi-lateral contract. The downside, of course, is that
there is no certainty of revenue associated with
wholesale spot prices, and this may be considered an
unacceptable risk for investors or a likely impediment
for projects trying to obtain third party financing. If
only a small fraction of the turbine output is expected
to be sold on the wholesale market, then these issues
may be less significant.
■ Renewable Energy Certificates
An additional revenue stream for wind turbines in
Massachusetts comes from a legislative mandate to
promote renewable energy sources called the
Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). The potential
revenue comes from the sale of Renewable Energy
Certificates (RECs), or “green certificates”. These
RECs are attributable to renewable energy generated
and may be sold to other generators needing to be in
compliance with the RPS. The primary purpose of
the RPS legislation is to create demand for new
renewable electric generation sources and to help
diversify the domestic electricity generation mix
thereby leading to greater long-term price stability.
The Massachusetts RPS mandates that 1% of all in-
state investor owned utility service territory electric
consumption come from new (post-1997) renewable
14
No “double-counting” is allowed. That is 1 MWh of energy produced from a wind turbine would create 1 REC. A specific REC can be
used only to satisfy the Massachusetts RPS requirement or the Connecticut RPS requirement, but not both simultaneously. What is important
is the output from a turbine would be eligible to satisfy both State’s RPS requirements, and would thus command the higher price of the two
markets. Also note, Connecticut has not finalized their RPS rules, and it appears likely they will allow for easier use of non ISO-NE plants
to be certified as compliant for the Connecticut RPS.
June, 2004
4 Economics
resources by 2004. These levels increase by 0.5% each
year though 2009, and at the discretion of the
Department of Telecommunications and Energy
(DTE), a further 1% for each year from 2010 through
2014 (for a total of 9%). Failure of a supplier to meet
these levels will result in a requirement to make the
alternative compliance payment (ACP, i.e., penalty).
The ACP for an electricity supplier that does not reach
these mandates is currently $51.41 / MWh for
Massachusetts served load. Output from new wind
turbines installed on Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard
(or anywhere in the ISO-NE area, including off-shore
locations) would create RECs that could be used to
satisfy either the Massachusetts or Connecticut RPS
mandates.14
In the short-term, there is a severe shortage of RECs
due to the small number of new renewable projects in
Massachusetts and high demand as generators seek to
avoid the ACP payment, and thus prices are currently
hovering near $40 / MWh. The market for long term
RECs is much less certain. This issue is an important
part of the financing of DG wind applications.
■ Dampen Price Volatility
For most larger customers, the overall cost and
fluctuating price for energy is a key component of their
budgeting forecasts. Fuel costs for the wind turbines
will be zero, in contrast to very volatile natural gas,
fuel oil and electricity prices. While a DG wind turbine
may only provide a portion of the energy consumed
on-site (the most likely sizing will be between 20% to
50% of on-site consumption for larger commercial,
industrial, and institutional customers), even this will
dampen the risk associated with volatile energy prices,
and make budgeting and forecasting of energy costs
more certain.
13
 4 Economics
■ Conclusions
The various benefits described above are proportional
to the amount of energy wind turbines produce, which
is closely related to the wind resources where they are
sited. Thus, DG turbine developers will seek the best
combination of wind resources and end-use customers
with high utility costs or loads (i.e. energy
consumption). Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard
currently has an abundance of both attributes. The
14 Assessment of Distributed Generation Technology
benefits described are variable as the future levels of
generation, distribution, transmission, transition and
other utility rates are unknown and wholesale market
prices for both energy and RECs are variable.
Nonetheless, it is likely that economic benefits will
accrue from wind turbine installations; Section 6
explores the level of those benefits (and costs) for
various turbine system configurations.
 Section 5
Environmental/Siting Issues
This section provides an overview of potential
environmental and siting issues affecting DG wind
facilities. The National Wind Coordinating Council’s
Permitting of Wind Energy Facilities: A HANDBOOK
provides additional information in these topics and is
available at the following web site: http://
www.nationalwind.org/pubs/permit/permitting.htm
■ Background
As part of their research, BRED conducted a number
of telephone interviews with wind energy experts and
planners in the US and Europe in order to gather some
insight into issues facing the siting of DG wind
applications elsewhere. This survey included
discussion with representatives from the U.S.
Department of Energy, Bennington Vermont County
Regional Commission, TRC Planning consultants,
American Wind Energy Association (AWEA),
European Wind Energy Association, Gamesa Eolica
and the German Wind Energy Association. While the
sample size was small, the issues experienced by this
group had common themes, including issues relating
to height, visual impacts, community acceptance,
employment, economic development and turbine
configuration. In the case of the European interviews,
it was understood that as the scale of the technology
has increased, greater regional planning efforts have
been adopted to address potential impacts.
■ Environmental Permitting
and Siting Issues
This section provides an overview of environmental
permitting and siting issues but should not be
considered an exhaustive list. Individual sites may
trigger additional requirements based on specific site
conditions.
15
Telephone conversation 2-4-04 between Darryl Duckworth (FCC) (717) 338-2736 and Bob Shatten
June, 2004
1) Federal Communication Commission (FCC)
If a remote telemetry system is installed on a wind
turbine to monitor system performance and transmit
data (typically to the turbine manufacturer or project
developer), an FCC license would be required under
47 CFR Part 90 - Private Land Mobile Radio Services.
In most instances on Cape Cod, telemetry system
information will utilize telephone lines and therefore
in most cases on Cape Cod, no approvals will be
required from the FCC.
However, in some instances tall metal structures such
as wind turbine towers have produced interference
affecting AM radio transmissions. The FCC would
get involved in an interference issue if one occurred
after the installation of a turbine. These problems can
be mitigated through tower placement and other
methods.15 (see http://wireless.fcc.gov/antenna/)
2) Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act
(MEPA)
The Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act,
implemented by the Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs (301 CMR 11.00), requires that
state agencies study the environmental consequences
of their actions, including issuing permits or providing
financial assistance. MEPA requires state agencies to
take all feasible measures to avoid, minimize, and
mitigate damage to the environment. An
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) may be required
for certain projects if the nature, size, or location of a
project are likely, directly or indirectly to cause damage
to the environment. These thresholds can be found at
the following link:
http://www.state.ma.us/envir/mepa/thirdlevelpages/
meparegulations/301cmr1103.htm
15
 5 Environmental/Siting Issues
The most likely requirement for MEPA review would
be for a project that exceeded a capacity of 25MW or
construction of a transmission line with a capacity of
69kv or more for more than a mile. Considering these
thresholds only, most DG wind energy projects on the
Cape are unlikely to require MEPA review. However,
individual site characteristics of a location may trigger
MEPA review if certain environmental impacts can
be foreseen (for instance, impacts to wetlands, cultural
resources, or significant land clearing). Any project
determined to require preparation of an EIR
automatically becomes a Development of Regional
Impact (DRI) under the Cape Cod Commission
regulations and thus a DG wind project would have to
meet all the minimum performance standards of the
Regional Policy Plan.
3) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
The requirements governing standards for aviation
obstructions and their marking is regulated under 14
CFR Part 77 - Objects Affecting Navigable Surfaces
by the FAA. In order to be allowed to construct a
wind turbine tower and utilize a construction crane,
the FAA requires a “Notice of Proposed Construction
or Alteration” be filed. (The application form can be
found at: www.faa.gov/region/ane/ane40/foia/7460-
1n.doc.)
The FAA requirements are site specific and variable,
requiring geometric analysis by the FAA incorporating
the proximity to airports, terrain and ground elevations,
and wind turbine tower height. Additional background
information on the analysis that is performed by the
FAA can be found in Appendix B.
Depending on the proximity to an airport, it is not
anticipated that FAA will require obstruction lighting
of any kind if the proposed wind turbine is lower than
200 feet. Generally all structures higher than 200 feet
are required to be lit, which, in the case of wind
turbines, is measured to the top of the hub rather than
the tip of the blade. However, even structures lower
than 200 feet may be required to be lit at the FAA’s
discretion. In addition, clustering of wind turbines
may provide variations in lighting schemes that differ
from those required for a single tower structure.
16
http://wireless.fcc.gov/antenna/documentation/faadocs/7460-1K.pdf - 4965.4KB
17
Telephone conversation 2-04 between Sue Dempsey, FAA and Bob Shatten
16 Assessment of Distributed Generation Technology
According to the FAA’s Obstruction Marking and
Lighting Advisory Circular Document number: AC 70/
7460-1K, recommended lighting would be:
Wind turbine structures should be lighted
by mounting two flashing red beacons
(L-864) on top of the generator housing.
Both beacons should flash simultaneously.
Lighting fixtures are to be mounted at a
horizontal separation to ensure an un-
obstructed view of at least one fixture by
a pilot approaching from any direction.16
This Advisory Circular is currently being reviewed
by the FAA although the study has not been concluded
at the time of this report. Also, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Services may be requesting additional lighting
associated with water-based wind turbine systems.17
4) Wetlands
Cape Cod and the Islands have many wetland resource
areas, including salt marshes, bordering vegetated
wetlands, cranberry bogs and vernal pools, all of which
play significant roles in maintaining the health of the
natural environment. Consistent with the purposes of
local, state, and regional wetland regulations, which
strive to preserve and protect wetland functions, siting
wind turbine facilities within wetlands or their buffers
should be an option of last resort. There may also be
significant engineering challenges associated with
establishing stable foundations within wetland
environments, ultimately posing considerable cost and
ongoing maintenance concerns.
However, should wetland locations become a feasible
alternative for a given turbine project, the following
potential permitting requirements/siting constraints
should be kept in mind:
• Any proposed alteration of a wetland or work
within 100 ft of a wetland, or work within 200
ft of a river, as defined by the Rivers Protection
Act, will require filing with the local
conservation commission office. Local
commissions administer the state Wetlands

Protection Act (WPA), as well as any local
wetlands bylaw that the town may have
adopted. Most towns on Cape Cod and the
Islands have adopted bylaws, which may be
more restrictive than the state Act.
• The state Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) handles appeals of decisions
made by a local conservation commission
under the state WPA. DEP will also provide
comment to the MEPA office for projects
undergoing MEPA review (ENFs and EIRs)
regarding a project’s consistency with the DEP
Wetland Regulations.
• Projects which are required to prepare an EIR
also become a Development of Regional
Impact (DRI) under the Cape Cod Commission
Act, and must undergo DRI review.
Commission review of a project under the
requirements of the Regional Policy Plan will
require compliance with wetland and wetland
buffer requirements that are far more restrictive
than the state Act and most local bylaws.
• It is possible that projects located within
wetlands associated with navigable waterways
may also be required to acquire permits from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
• It may also be useful to keep in mind the effects
of the Coastal and Inland Wetlands Restriction
Acts (c.130, s. 105 and c.131, s.40A
respectively), which resulted in the placement
of restriction orders on selected wetlands
throughout the commonwealth (and many on
Cape Cod and the Islands) limiting the type of
activities that may occur within or impact these
wetland resource areas.
5) Rare Species
As with wetlands, Cape Cod and the Islands are host
to a wide variety of rare species, and the protection of
those species and their habitat is a priority reflected in
state, regional and local regulations. All efforts should
be made to avoid impacting rare species or their
June, 2004
5 Environmental/Siting Issues
habitat. However, where an otherwise feasible project
site may affect rare species (including both terrestrial
habitats and the “airspace” habitat associated with rare
birds), the following permitting requirements will have
to be met.
• A conservation permit from the Massachusetts
Natural Heritage and Endangered Species
Program (NHESP) may be issued consistent
with the requirements of the Massachusetts
Endangered Species Act (MESA). The
proponent will have to demonstrate that the
project will have no adverse impact on the
species in question
or its habitat. Mitigation may be an appropriate
alternative, to be determined by NHESP.
• As discussed above, projects meeting a MEPA
threshold may require the filing
of an ENF and possibly an EIR.
• Projects requiring an EIR will also require DRI
review by the Cape Cod Com-mission. Cape
Cod Commission standards for protecting rare
species and their habitat may be more
restrictive than MESA. Mitigation is generally
not an option
for Commission approved projects.
• Federal permits may be required for impacts
to federally listed rare species.
6) Stormwater Discharge Permitting
(Including National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Stormwater General Permit Notice
of Intent for Discharges to Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORWs) from Construction Sites or Industrial
Sites)
Stormwater requirements derive from the Clean Water
Act and apply when construction activities disturb
more than one acre of land. Both the EPA and
Massachusetts DEP have authority over stormwater
discharges so it is a joint, two-stop permitting process.
In addition, some municipalities may have local
ordinances that regulate stormwater.
17
 5 Environmental/Siting Issues

The requirements apply if the owner/developer for
point source stormwater discharge into the “waters of
the United States.” For non-point discharge,
construction that disturbs one or more acres must apply
for a permit. The permit is administered by EPA
through Phase II of the NPDES program under the
Clean Water Act.
For wind power development, unless access roads or
wind farm development are occurring it is unlikely
that more than one acre of land will be affected during
construction. However, in the event that these impacts
exist, stormwater permitting and surface water
discharge control will be required during construction.
The following link contains the relevant Massachusetts
(BRP WM 08A) permitting form relating to this
program: http://www.state.ma.us/dep/brp/stormwtr/
strmfms.htm
7) Noise
No landscape is ever completely quiet. Background
noise is always present in the form of noise from birds,
human activities, and, at wind speeds around 4-7 m/s
and up, the noise from the wind in leaves, shrubs, trees,
masts etc. will gradually mask (drown out) any
potential sound from a wind turbine.19
This makes it extremely difficult to measure sound
from wind turbines accurately. At wind speeds around
8 m/s and above, it generally becomes difficult to
attribute sound emissions from modern wind turbines,
since background noise will generally mask any
turbine noise completely.20
Additional background on modern wind turbine noise
and predictive noise estimation tools can be found on
the Danish Wind Energy association web site:
http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/env/sound.htm
Figure 5
Examples of Common Sound Levels

Early wind turbine designs did create noise complaints

from neighbors. There are two sources of wind turbine
noise, aerodynamic and mechanical. . The predominant
sound is the aerodynamic noise (a “swish”, “swish”,
“swish”) from the wind rushing through the three
turning blades. This varies depending on the rotor
radius, wind speed, blade surface finish and trailing
edge thickness. Significant noise reductions have
occurred through improved engineering by adjusting
the thickness of the blades’ trailing edges and by
orienting blades upwind of the turbine tower. A small
amount of noise is generated by the mechanical
components of the turbine, generally housed within
the nacelle. The meshing gears and generator are the
main sources of mechanical noise. It should be noted
that generally, noise falls off sharply with distance from
its emanating source.

For example, a typical wind turbine 250 meters from

a residence is no noisier than a kitchen refrigerator.18
Examples of common sound levels are provided in
Figure 5.

18
Adapted from AWEA web page: http://www.awea.org/faq/noisefaq.html
19
Danish Wind Energy Association web Page: http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/env/sound.htm#mask
20
Ibid.

18 Assessment of Distributed Generation Technology


NOISE METRICS
There are a number of ways in which sound levels
(noise) are measured. All of them use the logarithmic
decibel (dB) scale. For environmental measurements
the most commonly used network is the A-weighted
scale, which is a scale that emphasizes the middle
frequency sounds “weighted” to adjust the frequency
response of the measuring equipment to that of the
human ear. Since the scale is logarithmic, the addition
of two sounds of equal magnitude does not represent
a doubling of sound level. For example, two wind
turbines of 35 dBA at 500 ft would combine for a total
sound level of approximately 36-38 dBA, not a
doubling to 70 dBA. Based on BRED’s survey of
manufacturer data noise ranged between 27.9 and 48
dBA at a distance of 500 feet (approximately three
blade diameters). According to the American Society
of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
Engineers, Inc. for broadband sounds, experiments
have shown that 3 dBA is the minimum perceptible
change to the human ear.21
Both the state and federal government have regulations
or guidelines that must be followed. It is possible that
local authorities, typically through the Board of Health,
have noise policies relating to nuisance complaints.
FEDERAL NOISE STANDARD
Modern wind turbines are unlikely to reach any federal
noise limits. There are Federal noise standards
applicable to motor vehicles [Noise Emission Standard
for Medium and Heavy Trucks (40 CFR 205)] that
could be applicable if construction activities are
extensive, for example temporary road construction
for turbine site access. Also, there are OSHA noise
standards applicable to the construction activities.
EPA does not have specific noise regulations but
recommends that noise does not exceed a value of 55
dBA in residential areas.22 For a wind turbine, the
average sound level, based on manufacturer’s data at
a distance of 500 feet was estimated to be 35 dBA.
21
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers, Inc. 1989 ASRAE Gabdbiij - Fundamental (I-P Edition),
Atlanta, Georgia, 1989, p.7.7
22
Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety,
U.S. EPA Docurment 55/9-74-004
June, 2004
5 Environmental/Siting Issues
STATE NOISE REGULATIONS
Massachusetts has a noise regulation that is listed
below, as part of DEP’s noise, odor and dust
regulations (310 CMR 7.09-7.10).
A noise source will be considered to be
violating the Department’s noise regula-
tion (310 CMR 7.10) if the source:
Increases the broadband sound level by
more than 10 dB(A) above ambient, or
Produce a “pure tone” condition—when
any octave band center frequency sound
pressure level exceeds the two adjacent
center frequency sound pressure levels
by decibels or more.
These criteria are measured both at the
property line and at the nearest inhabited
residence. “Ambient” is defined as the
background A-weighted sound level that is
exceeded 90% of the time, measured dur-
ing equipment operating hours. “Ambient”
may also be established by other means
with consent of the Department.
8) Avian Impacts
The issue of avian deaths from wind turbines is often
cited as a potential impact of wind development.
Because more wind farms are located in the west, the
bulk of the research in the U.S. has related to western
land-based, wind farms that may have limited
application to New England bird species and behavior.
The lighting of tall structures (including communication
towers and wind turbines) is also a factor affecting
numbers of deaths for certain species, as studies have
shown that, in bad weather, certain types of lights (red,
pulsating lights) can attract birds at night. Birds may
become disoriented and fly towards towers, colliding
with rotors or guy wires supporting the structure.
However, the US Fish and Wildlife service has
developed recommendations aimed at minimizing these
impacts.
19
 5 Environmental/Siting Issues
Based on a study in the U.K., wind turbines kill one/
two birds per turbine per year on average, (or 1 out of
10,000 birds encountering a wind farm in a busy fly
through). However, this is an average figure and
therefore there will be locations where the number of
deaths attributable to a wind turbine are both above
and below the average. The Executive Summary of
the 2001 report “Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines:
A Summary of Existing Studies and Comparisons to
Other Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the
United States” highlights some of these issues.
Making projections of the potential
magnitude of windpower-related avian
fatalities is problematic because of the
relative youth of the wind industry and the
resulting lack of long-term data. ...Newer
generation windplants incorporate
improvements in site planning and changes
in the design of the wind turbines. Also,
many of the newer generation turbines are
designed to provide little perching and no
nesting structure (tubular towers, enclosed
nacelle). ...Although it’s not clear that
perching increases risk of collision, the lack
of perching and nesting opportunities may
dis-courage some bird species from using the
Wildlife Refuge Area (WRA).... Finally, most
wind plant developers are required to carry
out site evaluations at proposed wind plant
sites to determine impacts on birds and other
wildlife. While newer gen-eration turbines
may be considered more representative of
future developments, they have only been in
operation in the recent past (i.e. <10 years),
and less information on avian collision
hazards is available for these turbines.
Advances in tower design (tubular has replaced lattice
towers), turbine technology (the increased blade size
resulting in greater visibility), larger rotor diameter,
reduction in turbine blade speed and increased power
output per turbine (requiring fewer turbines for a given
land area) are advantageous for bird survivability
versus earlier wind turbine technology. However,
whereas avian studies are commonly conducted as part
of federal and state environmental review, such studies
are rare for projects that are not subject to
environmental review. Nonetheless, even with the
advances in wind turbine technology design, an initial
20 Assessment of Distributed Generation Technology
site evaluation should be conducted which identifies
any possible risk to native or migratory species,
particularly if these species are known to be threatened
or endangered.
The National Wind Coordinating Council (NWCC)
among others has funded research and prepared
publications linked below relating to potential avian
impacts (http://www.nationalwind.org/pubs/
default.htm)
9) Visual Impacts
Visual impacts are likely to be of primary concern in
planning for wind turbine development on Cape Cod.
The degree to which a turbine has visual impacts is
also related to its height, particularly given the scale
of modern wind turbines. By their nature, wind
turbines need to be tall structures to make use of the
better wind resources at higher elevations. The general
industry rule of thumb is that the bottom of the turbine
rotors should be at least 10 feet above any obstacle
within 300 feet, to avoid turbulence in the air column.
As a result, the rotors are by necessity located well
above most other landscape features.
Visual impacts are a subjective matter depending on
whether members of the general public view wind
turbines either as a positive (improvement) or a
negative (detraction) on the viewscape. Visual impact
is assessed largely by qualitative judgments, as it is
concerned with the human appreciation of, and
interaction with, the landscape. Generally, when wind
turbines are seen spinning, they are perceived as being
useful and therefore, beneficial by some, while others
may view them as a blight on the natural environment.
On Cape Cod, where tall man-made structures are
relatively rare, careful siting of larger wind turbines
will be necessary to insure the success of these projects.
For instance, there are federal, state and local
designations that affect landscape in terms of its
conservation value, such as, wildlife preserves
(Massachusetts Audubon Wellfleet Sanctuary), state
parks (Nickerson State Park) and national parks (Cape
Cod National Seashore). These areas are sensitive
resources and may be impacted if siting is not carefully
considered. There are other designated areas that may
be sensitive visual resource areas and further affect
decision-making regarding viewshed (e.g., historic
districts, archaeological sites, etc.).

The Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Aberdeen,
UK has performed extensive targeted research relating
to visual impacts from wind farm development in the
U.K. The following is summarized from their web
page:
“Wolsink and van de Wardt (1989) cited van de Wardt
and Staats’s (1988) study which used semantic
differentials to investigate the impact of wind turbines
on scenic quality in Holland. The latter’s study
concluded that the strongest influence was caused by
the number of visible wind turbines in the landscape
(i.e., the greater the number the greater the intrusion).
The effect of the size of wind turbines: 1MW (50m
high tower and rotor diameter) and 200kW (30m high
and 24m rotor diameter) was also considered. The
study found that smaller turbines have less negative
impact on the landscape than larger turbines. The
influence of size was found to be relatively small
compared with the influence of the number of units.
Using principal component analysis on the semantic
differentials, the authors found a latent dimension of
perception: landscape coherence. The negative
influence of the ‘introduction and the number of
turbines’ was attributed to a “decrease in coherence
of the landscape” and consequently a decrease in
people’s scenic preference of scenic quality. This is
consistent with studies by Kaplans which have found
that coherence is directly related to preference.”
Part of Thayer and Freeman’s (1987)
investigation into observer attitudes,
symbolic or connotative meanings of wind
energy developments found that people
tend to prefer fewer larger turbines to more
smaller ones. The finding supports van de
Wardt and Staats’s (1988) conclusion that
number of turbines have greater effect on
landscape quality than size of turbines. For
similar reasons, the Scottish Office’s (1993)
planning advice on wind farms also favored
the installation of fewer larger turbines.23
A variety of tools are available to analyze and possibly
mitigate adverse impact from a proposed development.
These include geographic analysis, photographic
23
The Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Aberdeen. UK - http://www.macaulay.ac.uk/ccw/task-two/strategies.html
June, 2004
5 Environmental/Siting Issues
modeling and 3D-computer modeling. The Vermont
Public Service Board provides guidance and a ranking
system for wind turbines that take into account the
appropriateness of the site. Although this guide is
aimed at residential turbines, many of the principles
employed have merit for smaller, DG applications. It
should be noted that in Europe, only major wind
projects (wind farms) are required to perform visual
impact studies, not individual turbine development.
A summary of visual impact methods, hardware and
software tools can be found in:
http://www.macaulay.ac.uk/ccw/appendix/app4.html
10) Local Historic Districts
The Cape has a number of Local Historic Districts
that establish a process for review of exterior
alterations of structures visible from a public way.
Local Historic Districts in the towns of Barnstable,
Dennis, Eastham, Harwich, and Provincetown were
created under Chapter 40C (the Historic Districts Act)
of Massachusetts General Law. The towns of Chatham
and Falmouth have established local historic districts
under special legislation. The Old Kings Highway
Regional Historic District, covering portions of
Sandwich, Barnstable, Yarmouth, Dennis, Brewster
and Orleans, was also created by a special act of
legislation. Locally appointed Historic District
Commissions hold public hearings as part of their
review process and determine whether a proposed
structure is appropriate in the district.
11) Blade Failure
Blade failure (often referred to as blade throw) is
generally not an issue with modern, commercial
certified turbines. Its importance for siting relates to a
potential public health and safety concern should a
piece of the machinery comes loose. Failures
sometimes occurred with a low frequency in the early
1980’s when turbine blades were constructed of wood,
aluminum and steel. During the 1990’s construction
materials have changed to fiberglass composites and
more recently, carbon/fiberglass composites are being
introduced. These new materials have made
significant improvements in relation to fatigue and
21
 5 Environmental/Siting Issues
failure of the rotors and severe failures are rare. If a
blade failure does occur it is typically characterized
by splits or cracks on the leading or trailing edge, rather
than catastrophic failure. The probability of failure
likely increases in severe wind events such as
hurricanes.
Modern wind turbines incorporate a number of safety
features to protect against damage to the machinery
and as fail-safe mechanisms in the event of a
malfunction. For instance, vibration detectors,
overspeed sensors and braking mechanisms are all
designed to shut down the turbine immediately if it
begins to operate abnormally.
The U.S. Department of Energy’s Sandia National
Laboratory (Sandia) has published numerous technical
papers relating to fatigue analysis of wind turbines
and completed research projects where wind turbine
composite blades are bent, twisted, warped and placed
under tension. Modern wind turbine blades are
designed to be very durable and the design life of a
wind turbine blade is equivalent to a commercial
airplane operating in take-off mode for approximately
30 years.
A link for those interested in further in depth research
on material science and material fatigue issues relating
to turbine blades can be found at:
h t t p : / / w w w. s a n d i a . g o v / R e n e w a b l e _ E n e rg y /
wind_energy/topical.htm#PROBABILITY
12) Ice Throw
Icing of blades can occur in colder climates. In New
England, ice accumulation on wind turbines is
typically of greater concern for ridge-line installations
versus other land-based locations. Significant ice
accumulation on Cape Cod on wind turbines is not
anticipated to occur with great frequency, although
when temperatures are below average some
accumulations are possible.
This issue is of concern in terms of public safety but it
also affects turbine aerodynamics and performance as
ice slows the rotor blades. Control systems on the
24
American Wind Energy Association: http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/ms_ice_0306.html
22 Assessment of Distributed Generation Technology
turbines stop the rotors if the blades become
unbalanced (when iced). This prevents damage to the
rotating equipment and also provides a safety
mechanism.
An expansive discussion of aerodynamics of falling
ice from wind turbines can be found on the AWEA
web page (http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/
ms_ice_0306.html) that notes that it is a valid safety
concern. However, the AWEA also notes that as the
ice sheds, it falls to the base of the tower unless there
is a wind, in which case it will fall with the wind.
Wind farm operators report that the ice does not fall
beyond the tower base during light breezes, and not
even as far as the tower’s fall zone during heavier
winds.
The AWEA concludes by stating:
“In the work entitled “Assessment Of Safety
Risks Arising From Wind Turbine Icing,” by
Colin Morgan, Ervin Bossanyi, and Henry
Siefert. The study notes that, “there has been
no reported injury from ice thrown from wind
turbines, despite the installation of more than
6,000 MW of wind energy worldwide.” The
paper concludes that the risk of anything or
anyone being hit by ice from a wind turbine
is “10-6 strikes/m2/year, which is the typical
probability of (being hit by a) lightning strike
in the UK” (The authors are from the UK.)24
13) Lightning
According to a 2002 study called the Wind Turbine
Lightning Protection Project published by the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, the early development
of modern wind turbine generators in the United States
were primarily located in California, where lightning
activity is the lowest. As such, lightning protection
for wind turbines was not considered to be a major
issue for designers or wind farm operators during the
1980s. However, NREL indicates that “wind turbine
installations have recently increased in the Midwest,
Southwest and other regions of the United States where
lightning activity is significantly more intense and
lightning damage to wind turbines is more common.”

Lightning strikes are capable of damaging turbines and
in areas where lightning is a potential issue, protection
systems can be installed to limit the effects of the strike.
14) Shadow Casting and Flicker
Shadows cast from wind turbines generally occur in
close proximity to the turbine, although this will vary
depending on the time of year, latitude and turbine
height. Flicker affects can occur when the sun shines
through the rotor blades at certain times of day and
results in the temporary blocking of the suns rays with
each pass of a rotor blade. Concerns about these
temporary phenomena are usually perceived as a
nuisance by nearby receptors (i.e. homes and
businesses) rather than a potential hazard, but are
nonetheless important considerations in siting turbines.
These effects are predictable as the location and
position of the sun can be accurately plotted and
computer-modeling tools are also available to predict
the area that will have a shadow cast upon it or will be
subject to flicker. Careful siting of turbines to account
for these effects can often remedy any potential
conflict.
The affects on neighboring properties can also be
mitigated, thus avoiding potential negative aesthetic
impacts. For instance, tree planting in key locations
can block the shadow of the turbine from sensitive
receptors
Additional reading and a graphic calculation tool to
predict shadow casting and flicker can be found at the
Danish Wind Industry Association web page:
http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/env/shadow/
index.htm
15) Land Clearing
The amount of land clearing necessary will vary
depending on the topography of the site, wind speed/
direction, turbine size and the surrounding vegetation/
land use. Clearing could affect natural habitat and
provide an opportunity for non-native species to
25
2002 NEPOOL Margin Emission Rate Analysis - December 22, 2003 by ISO New England
June, 2004
5 Environmental/Siting Issues
establish themselves in the cleared area. If access roads
are needed, further clearing may be necessary. Without
proper controls, erosion may also be an issue in some
locations. The impacts of land clearing will vary from
site to site and should be adequately addressed through
careful siting and mitigated where appropriate.
16) Avoided Emissions
Renewable forms of energy have the environmental
benefit of avoiding emissions from other non-
renewable generators. To establish the potential
avoided emissions resulting from DG wind
applications, BRED developed a tool to predict the
area-wide offset of emissions from the installation of
renewable energy. The basis for the analysis is unit
pollutant emission rates of the New England power
pool (NEPOOL) contained in an annual report (2002)
that they publish for the purpose of predicting benefits
from demand side management programs (e.g., energy
conservation programs). The NEPOOL study uses
both real power plant dispatch history and their
associated emissions as reported to EPA, and electric
production simulation software (PROSYM)
modeling.25
The modeling predicts “marginal emission rates”, that
are the emissions associated with the last power plant
that is required to be dispatched onto the grid. The
report provides unit emission rates for NOx, SO2, and
CO2. The underlying theory for this analysis is that if
the load is decreased through conservation or if
renewable energy replaces conventional fossil-fuel
generating plants in meeting the load, that the last and
least economic power plant would not be dispatched
by NEPOOL. For more background on the report see
http://www.iso-ne.com/Planning_Reports/Emissions/
The example presented in the following Table 4 (next
page) shows the potential offsets associated with the
theoretical installation of ten -1.5 MW turbines
throughout Cape Cod running at a capacity factor of
26.3% and estimates the following benefits in terms
of emissions offsets in the region of the New England
power grid:
23
 5 Environmental/Siting Issues

Table 4
Annual Potential Environmental Benefits
of Ten 1.5 MW Cape Cod Installed Turbines

Pollutant Annual Potential

Average Annual
Emission Avoided
Rate (lb/MWh) Emissions
(ton/yr)
SO2 3.27 57
NOx 1.12 19
CO2 1337.8 23,116

In addition, according to EPA, every megawatt-hour
of electricity generated by wind energy also offsets
particulates, 3.5 ounces of trace heavy metals (e.g.
mercury) and more than 440 pounds of solid waste
from fossil-fueled generation.26
17) Other Benefits
Renewable energy facilities also have other benefits,
not necessarily related to siting, but which may be
important as part of a broad strategy of public outreach
and education for gaining support for development of
these kinds of DG applications. For example, in many
instances, the siting of a wind turbine can have
educational benefits for a broad spectrum of the
population. In Beverly, the Centerville Elementary
School has installed a small 10kW turbine and
incorporated other elements of green design to use
energy more efficiently and provide an opportunity to
educate community members, Similarly, the wind
turbine installed in Hull, MA has also provided
educational opportunities for residents of that
community and those in the surrounding regions.

26
U.S. EPA January 2000 Climate Change Technologies - Wind Energy

24 Assessment of Distributed Generation Technology

 Section 6
Wind Technical Survey and Analysis

■ Introduction • how wind system technical information and

The main focus of this section is to provide a summary
of the information gathered as part of the survey of
manufacturers completed by BRED for this report.
The survey was conducted to gain an understanding
of the current state of the technology and to quantify
the expected scale of modern wind turbines. This
analysis was needed before a model bylaw could be
developed for DG wind turbines on Cape Cod, as
zoning restrictions (e.g. height, setback, noise limits)
can have a significant affect on the feasibility of a
project. This section partly places the analysis within
an economic context to provide the most realistic view
of likely DG developments in the region. Many factors
affect system payback and its relative economics
(shown schematically in Figure 6), and therefore this
section provides a step-by-step description of the
following:
costs were gathered;
• the availability of wind systems configurations
(e.g., what systems are sold as standalone
DG installations in the USA, and which tower
sizes are available with which turbine models);
• the relationship of system size in nominal output
(kW), system height, and system costs;
• the relationship between on-site electric
consumption and NSTAR rate class and charges;
and,
• the results of economic payback calculations for
various scenarios of customer/system
configurations.

Figure 6
Schematic of Factors Affecting Economic Payback of a DG Wind Installation

Customer Characteristics
Consumption Level (kWh/yr)
Consumption Patterns
Rate Class

Wind System Configuration

Turbine Configuration ➤
Power Curve
Costs
Tower Configuration
Height
System Specific
Class Economic Rate of
Wind Resources
➤ Return/Investment
➤

(a function of tower
Payback Period
➤

Site Characteristics height & site wind

Wind Resources resources)
Lot Size
Environmental Attributes ➤
➤
Permitting
Abutters

Market Characteristics
Utility Charges
Energy/REC Prices
Interest Rates/Tax Policy

June, 2004 25
 6 Wind Technical Survey and Analysis
■ Purpose and Structure
of Survey
In order to understand the impact that zoning
restrictions or bylaws might have on wind turbine
development on Cape Cod, it was necessary to obtain
technical and cost information on turbines currently
available in U.S. markets. With this information and
the appropriate analysis tools, an analysis was
conducted for tradeoffs associated with various zoning
scenarios.
A technical survey was designed and conducted with
wind turbine manufacturers and/or their
representatives. Prior to contacting turbine
manufacturers, publicly available information was
added in order to increase response rates and decrease
respondent burden. Data came from manufacturer
websites and the “Wind Energy 2003 Market Survey”
published by the German Wind Energy Association
(www.wind-energie.de).
The turbine data requested included:
• Manufacturer
• Model
• Nominal Output (kW)
• Model Availability in USA (Yes, No, Soon)
• Wind Class (per IEC 61400-1)
• Grid Frequencies (50 Hz / 60 Hz/ Both)
• Voltage
• Initial Commercial Operation Year
• System weight in kg (Turbine + Nacelle +
Blades Weight)
• Rotor Diameter (meters)
• Survival Wind Speed (meters / sec.)
• Compatible Towers (up to five models)
• Turbine Cost Commissioning Cost
• Warranty Length in Years
• Warranty Coverage (.e.g., turbine, blades, not
foundation)
• Warranty Cost
• Example Shipping Costs (Barnstable, MA)
• Manufacturer Liability Insurance Availability
(Yes, No, Soon)
• Manufacturer Liability Insurance Cost
• O&M Costs
• Typical Construction Costs
• Typical Interconnection Requirements
26 Assessment of Distributed Generation Technology
• Description of Ancillary Facilities
• Access Requirements / Minimum Site
for Erecting Turbine
• Noise Levels dBA 50/250/500 feet
• Delivery Lead Time in Months
• Representative Location(s) of Turbine
• Certifications
• Comments (add anything extra you think
is important)
• Retrofit Costs over a 20 year lifetime
• Power Curve 0-25 mps
Tower Data requested included:
• Manufacturer
• Tower Model
• Tower Type (Lattice, Tubular, Other)
• Uses Guy Wires (Yes, No, Depends)
• Height (meters) Base Width/Length (meters)
• Weight (kg)
—Compatible Turbine Information
(Up to six)
—Hub Height (meters)
—Top of Blade Height (meters)
—Crane Capacity (kg) with Turbine
Model
• Tower & Foundation
• Example Shipping Costs (Barnstable,
MA - USA)
• Primary Erection Equipment Needed
(e.g., crane, other - please describe)
• If Crane needed, Crane Boom Length (meters)
• Description of Minimum Requirement for
Staging Area
• Certifications
■ Quality and Rate of Survey
Response
As part of the survey, BRED contacted 19 turbine
manufacturers (see Table C1 in Appendix C) who
indicated by their marketing efforts that they sold
turbines into the US market. These manufacturers
covered all size ranges of turbines, from 1 kW to over
1000 kW. Only fifteen of the manufacturers indicated
that they offered turbines in the US market, and
although thirteen agreed to participate initially, only
seven participated by making available cost and power
 6 Wind Technical Survey and Analysis

curves on available turbine models. It should be noted
that even among the seven fully participating vendors,
the number of fields entered varied widely. Data was
collected on 84 turbines, 103 towers, and 145 unique
turbine-tower combinations.
■ Analysis of Survey Results
because of the demand for offshore projects where
construction costs favor larger machines, but also due
to greater wind resources at higher elevations. While
only a few years ago wind turbines over 1 MW were
rarities, now turbines less than 1.5 MW used in wind
farms are a rarity. We assume that with the current
state of the technology, turbines larger than 1.5 MW
will be a rare exception for DG applications.

For this analysis, the report assumes that only standard
(and not custom) systems will be available for DG
wind development. Much of the analysis presented
here relies on work conducted by BRED, and many
of the conclusions are supported by graphs presented
in D for reference.
1) Relationship between Nominal kW
and System Size
Commercially available wind turbine sizes range
substantially from 0.4 kW to 4.5 MW (see Table 5).
Turbine sizes keep increasing, in large measure
By studying Figure 7, the relationship between the
nominal (or maximum theoretical) output of individual
turbines and their rotor diameter can be seen. This
figure shows that larger rotor diameters have
correspondingly greater nominal output. This is not
surprising given the earlier discussion that the
theoretical power extracted from the wind is directly
related to the area swept by the turbine blade.
The importance of this for production of a model bylaw
is that larger rotor diameters will result in greater
heights to the tip of any wind turbine.

Table 5
Range of Turbine Sizes Currently Offered by Manufacturers in US or Europe

Manufacturer # of Turbines Min kW Max kW

AOC 1 50 50
Bergey 4 1 50
Bonus Energy 5 600 2300
Ecotecnia 4 640 1670
Enercon 6 300 4500
Fuhrlander 5 30 1000
Gamesa 5 660 2000
GE 6 900 3600
MADE 4 660 2000
Mitsubishi 6 200 2000
NEG Micon 8 750 4200
Nordex 6 600 2500
Northern Power 1 100 100
SouthWest 4 0.4 3
SPS-Norwin 3 225 750
Suzlon 5 350 2000
Vestas 6 660 3000
WTI 5 10 20
Total / 84* 0.4 4500
Average

June, 2004 27
 6 Wind Technical Survey and Analysis
Figure 7
Comparison of Nominal kW to Rotor Diameter
100
90
80
70
60
Meters
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 500 1000
Turbine kW
A general rule of thumb is that the rotor diameter will
be equal to the hub height of the turbine. The higher
the hub height and rotor, the less turbulence there is
likely to be in the wind and the higher the wind speed.
Hub height is also related to the radius of the rotor to
provide adequate clearance from the ground.
2) Relationship between scale of the
turbine and costs.
The costs associated with buying and running the
equipment are very important considerations for
development of DG wind facilities. Many of the
turbines sold have a relatively long payback or even
negative paybacks for grid connected DG applications.
The following analysis helps provide an understanding
of DG wind system economics, and is a prelude to
analysis of how zoning restrictions might affect the
economic viability of wind turbine development.
TURBINE COSTS
There are substantial economies of scale related to the
cost of wind turbines. The survey conducted by BRED
as part of this report revealed that the cost per kW of
purchasing turbines (exclusive of tower) decreased the
larger the nominal output of the turbine became. For
instance, a 25 kW turbine has a base purchase price of
28 Assessment of Distributed Generation Technology
Rotor Diameter
1500 2000 2500 3000
about $2000/kW, a 250 kW turbine has a base purchase
price of about $1200/kW, and a 1000kW turbine has
less than $1000/kW purchase price. Note: there was
a far lower response rate on cost of turbines (as it is
considered proprietary by many vendors), than there
was on turbine size (kW), which is always publicly
available. Nonetheless, it is clear manufacturers have
good reason to move to larger and larger turbine kW;
they can provide much more energy for only a marginal
increase in costs with larger turbines. More specific
information on this relationship can be seen in
Appendix D, Figure D3 and D4. Furthermore, when
the installed cost of the turbine is considered (without
tower) a similar pattern emerges, in that the cost per
kW decreases with the size of the turbine selected as
shown in Appendix D, Figure D5. Operation and
maintenance costs also have economies of scale that
are shown in Appendix D, Figure D6.
The implication of this is that the economies of scale
of larger output turbines make them generally a much
more cost-effective purchase than turbines with
smaller output. This observation, when considered
with the above findings that larger turbines are also
taller, implies that taller turbine systems will be more
cost effective than shorter turbine systems.
 6 Wind Technical Survey and Analysis

TOWER COSTS higher towers are far heavier, are manufactured to work
Tower costs are substantial (Figure 8) and unlike the with ever heavier turbine systems, need more
costs associated with turbines, tower costs per unit size substantial foundations, must be engineered to more
(i.e., $/meters in height), increase as height increases exacting standards, require more specialized transport,
as shown in Figure 9. The reasons for these and require very large cranes which are extremely
diseconomies of scale are many fold, for instance expensive to mobilize and demobilize. Conversely,

Figure 8
Tower Height Compared to Tower Installation Cost
$250,000

Tower
Investment
$200,000
Cost
Installed Cost
Cost

$150,000
$$Installed

$100,000

$50,000

$-
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Tower Height - Meters

Figure 9
Tower Height Compared to $ Installed Cost / Meter Height
$3,500
Tower Height
Height

$3,000

$2,500
/ Meter Tower

$2,000
Cost/Meter

$1,500
Installed Cost
$$ Installed

$1,000

$500 $ Cost / Meter

Tower Height

$-
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Tower Height - Meters

June, 2004 29
 6 Wind Technical Survey and Analysis
the smallest towers are likely to be lattice rather than
the tubular design favored for most large modern
towers.
The implication here is while higher towers will
produce more energy because the average wind speed
generally increases as elevation increases; there is a
significant tower cost to be paid for the increased
system height. Whether this tradeoff is worthwhile
from an economic standpoint will depend on the site
and will be system specific. For instance, would the
increased system purchase and installation costs be
offset by the additional benefits of increased energy
production caused by the average higher wind speeds
at the higher hub height elevation?
This issue could be important as communities review
proposals for turbines, in that the relative benefits of
ever-taller turbines may be somewhat limited, while
the community perception of the visual impact of those
towers may be significant.
3) Availability of Models
The smallest turbines (1-20 kW) applicable for home
or small business use are readily available, although
this kind of technology is not the focus of the report
or model bylaw. Larger systems (50+ kW) require
between a 4-month and 8 month delivery lead time
from purchase order date, and delivery lead time is
generally positively correlated with the size of the
system. In addition, at least one manufacturer
(Gamesa) noted that their quotes of costs for the survey
were based on the assumption of a wind farm
installation. Currently it would be difficult for them
to support a sale of a single turbine on the East Coast
of the United States, as their entire support
infrastructure is in the Great Plains. Gamesa was not
alone in their focus on wind farms to the detriment of
single turbine sales. The same was heard from
manufacturers of large wind farm type systems (1.5+
MW). To induce some companies to provide a “hard”
quotation for a single turbine would be difficult and
likely, at a minimum, would have to include higher
warranty costs and an agreement for longer warranty
response time. This problem of availability will only
be exacerbated if the Production Tax Credit (PTC) is
renewed, thus prompting much more wind farm
demand in the US, and less interest in the sale of single
turbines by some manufacturers.
30 Assessment of Distributed Generation Technology
However, some manufacturers (e.g. GE, Furhlander,
and Vestas) are willing to provide confidential quotes
for delivery for large size (> 1MW) single turbine
systems. In addition the company(ies) that wins the
MTC Community Wind preferred manufacturer
contract presumably will have to build-up
Massachusetts’s infrastructure, and is likely to readily
provide bids for single turbine installations as the
preferred manufacturer process includes a bid for
installing single turbines. The companies offering
turbines in the mid-range 100 kW to 1 MW size
(Fuhrlander, Northern Power, and Specialized Power
Systems) were willing to provide hard quotations for
actual installation, and see the single installation
market as an important part of their sales strategy.
As noted in the description of the survey above, at
least three large foreign manufacturers do not sell into
the US market. The reasons include:
• Need to build 60 Hz rather than 50 Hz systems
• A GE US North American patent on variable
speed machines has kept some manufacturers
or some models out of the US market.
• The high start-up costs to sell into the US
market.
■ Analysis of Customer Class
and Zoning Scenarios
In order to assess the potential impact of zoning height
restrictions on wind power development, BRED
analyzed several scenarios of economic payback for
various turbine/tower combinations for different
prototypical customers.
It should be emphasized that the assumptions made
for this analysis in large part dictate the economic
conclusions of the analysis. The assumptions are
specific to a private, commercial developer at a
location where the average wind speed is 7m/s (near
the minimum wind speed for economically viable
turbines). These assumptions are appropriate for this
report in that they help to define the scale of turbines
that could be expected on the Cape (i.e. it assumes
lower wind speeds and that the developer will seek to
maximize the return on investment for its stakeholders
by utilizing the largest turbine/tower combination
possible). Therefore, the analysis aims to anticipate

the largest possible turbine/tower combinations.
However, as indicated earlier, small increases in wind
speed at individual sites could dramatically change
the economic picture and thus affect the size of the
turbine. Similarly, municipalities may have different
parameters that affect the viability of a capital project
that may be different than those acceptable to private
developers. Therefore, it is essential for all turbine
developments to have specific site data on the wind
regime and to conduct a complete feasibility analysis
to establish specific economic viability.
1) Description of Base Case Conditions
An infinite number of scenarios could be considered
because of the numerous factors affecting the
economic viability of the facility. Therefore “base
case” conditions were assumed for the analysis (shown
in Appendix E, Table E1).
For this analysis, prototypical customers were defined
based on each of the major rate classes and load
profiles for customers in the NSTAR service territory.
The five major categories that exist under this system
are listed below, together with average annual
consumption. More detailed information on these rate
classes may be found in Appendix E, Table E2.
• Residential (R1) - Average consumption of
6,000 kWh
• Residential Electric Heating (R3) - Average
consumption of 11,000 kWh
• Small Commercial (G1) - Average
consumption of 26,000 kWh
• Medium Commercial (G2) - Average
consumption of 1,200,000 kWh
• Large Commercial & Industrial (G3) -
Average consumption of 6,000,000 kWh
The largest rate class by number of customers is the
basic residential class (R1), but this class also has the
lowest average usage and annual sales by customer.
The G2 and G3 class customers are small in number,
but have a large consumption of energy on a per
customer basis. See Appendix E, Table E3 for more
detailed information on the consumption/kWh for each
class of customer.
June, 2004
6 Wind Technical Survey and Analysis
2) Large Commercial & Industrial (G3)
Customers
There are seven G3 customers on Cape Cod and
Martha’s Vineyard that consume three percent of the
total energy. Customers in the G3 rate class have such
large electricity consumption that they provide the best
economic payback on average of any rate class for
DG wind applications.
BRED matched the most economic tower/turbine
combinations (which range from 800 kW to 1800 kW
(1.8MW)) to the prototypical G3 customer. This
analysis showed that the top of blade height for all of
the commercially available turbine/tower
combinations exceeds 230 feet and in the majority of
combinations, exceeds 300 feet (see Appendix E, Table
E4). This has obvious implications for development
of a model bylaw for these facilities on the Cape.
BRED’s analysis also showed that the choice of
different tower height does not make a dramatic
difference on internal rate of return (IRR).
BRED also conducted a similar analysis for smaller
turbines, with correspondingly smaller overall turbine/
tower heights (see Appendix E, Table E5). The analysis
showed that the years to positive cash flow increases
dramatically when the system size (and height) is
reduced, and the IRR decreases as turbine height
decreases. This analysis illustrated that none of the
turbine-tower combinations for sub-800 kW systems
will likely have an acceptable payback period for
private companies (likely 3 years or less) for any but
the most extraordinary customer.
Municipally owned DG systems may have different
economic constraints and models that would affect the
economic viability of different sized tower/turbine
combinations. Further analysis of the factors affecting
public development of DG wind facilities is beyond
the scope of this report, however, a more detailed
analysis would be a useful tool for Municipalities as
they consider their options for renewable energy
consumption.
31
 6 Wind Technical Survey and Analysis
3) Medium Commercial (G2) Customers
There are 157 G2 customers on Cape Cod and Martha’s
Vineyard that consume eleven percent of the total
energy. Customers in the G2 rate class have the second
best economic payback opportunity of any rate class
for DG wind given their large electricity consumption
and rate structure.
As with G3 customers, the payback period for sub 800
kW systems is likely to be unacceptable to most
investors/customers (see Appendix E, Table E6).
BRED’s analysis also showed that IRR for G2
customers decreased rapidly and the years to positive
cash flow increased dramatically for larger turbines,
as compared with the G3 customers (see Appendix E,
Figure E7). This decrease in financial returns for the
larger turbines results from the turbine being over-
sized for the on-site consumption (see Appendix E,
Figure E8). This means a much higher portion of
energy is being sold back into the wholesale market
rather than being consumed on-site to avoid utility
generation charges. This is an important consideration
when determining the appropriate size facility for a
given electricity customer.
4) Small Commercial (G1) / Residential (R1)
and Electric Heating (R3) Customers
The vast majority of the customers on Cape Cod and
Martha’s Vineyard are associated with a relatively
small amount of annual consumption of the R1, R3,
and G1 customer classes. As they consume fewer kWh
annually, there is less electricity to avoid, and generally
should be matched up with smaller turbines.
BRED’s analysis concludes that DG wind becomes
untenable for the smallest customers and systems when
grid connected. In fact, for grid connected
applications, the net present value (NPV) becomes
negative, and IRR and years to positive cash flow
becomes undefined (see Appendix E, Tables E9, E10
and E11). However, from an environmental
standpoint, smaller turbines may be utilized by users
looking to reduce consumption from fossil fuels and
could be subsidized by grants and other philanthropic
sources. Furthermore, as the technology develops in
the future and becomes more efficient, these
economies may change.
32 Assessment of Distributed Generation Technology
■ Summary of Findings
The most important factors contributing to the
economics of DG wind development are wind
resources, size of customer energy consumption and
size of wind turbine system. The summary results are:
• There are economies of scale for wind
turbines, thus all things being equal, the larger
the wind turbine (in kW) the more cost-
effective the system.
• Generally, the higher the elevation the faster
the average wind speed.
• Medium (>20 kW) and large wind systems
only come in a finite number of turbine / tower
combinations. Generally the larger the
turbine, the larger the rotor blade, and the
higher the turbine tower. This correlation is
influenced both by a need for the rotor blades
to have ground clearance and a desire to reach
faster winds that will be caught by the system.
• For any given turbine system, it is unclear
whether the costs of a higher tower are offset
by the benefits of increased annual energy
production as the result of higher wind speeds
at greater elevations. Conversely,
manufacturers only engineer and sell a handful
of tower sizes (2 to 6, generally) with each
turbine. Thus placing a very large turbine on
a very short tower (with enough ground
clearance) is not possible in practice as such
configurations are not sold in the market today.
• A customer gets more revenue from offsetting
higher utility rates, than selling (excess)
generation output to the wholesale market.
Thus appropriately sizing the turbine with the
customer’s load in order that most of the
energy produced by the turbine is consumed
on-site is important to get a better economic
payback.

■ Conclusion
Given the constraints of these physical and market
realities, the analysis shows that best economic
payback for wind systems are for larger turbines (over
750 kW) matched with the largest electric loads. These
larger systems all have a top of blade height well over
200 feet, and some have a minimum top of blade height
greater than 300 feet. It is likely that the type of DG
applications on the Cape will include turbines of this
scale. Therefore, any model bylaw with a height limit
below 200 feet would restrict the system size that could
be sold, and thus restrict the choice of wind turbine
June, 2004
6 Wind Technical Survey and Analysis
systems to those with a much worse economic
payback. In essence, a 200-foot height restriction
would be a de facto economic prohibition on wind
turbine DG development.
Finally, it is important to remember that this analysis
focused on stand-alone DG wind turbine applications,
and did not consider merchant wind farms that would
be selling directly into the wholesale market and not
be attempting to offset a customer’s load. The
economic realities of a wind farm would have a
different economic dynamic, though restricted to the
same physical and market realities.
33
34 Assessment of Distributed Generation Technology
 Section 7
Non-Wind Assessment: Microturbines,
Fuel Cells and Photovoltaic
■ Introduction
The information compiled in this section is a result of
research conducted by Serchuk Associates and
provides technical specifications for twenty-two
distributed energy products in three categories:
microturbines, fuel cells and photovoltaic (PV)
systems. The intent is not to provide exhaustive or
encyclopedic information on the areas covered, but
rather to provide a context and comparison for wind
technology, the main focus of this report. This analysis
found that microturbine, fuel cell and PV systems in
some ways present milder challenges for planners,
policy makers and the communities seeking to
accommodate them than do wind turbines. However,
wind technology is generally more market-ready and
more economic than most other distributed energy
technologies. The analysis does not expect large
amounts of microturbine, fuel cell or PV capacity in
Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard in the near future.
It is conceivable that jurisdictional entities will seek
to develop distributed energy projects using
technologies other than wind in the near future.27
Initially, these will be pilot and demonstration projects
driven largely by grants and other subsidies. Indeed,
in the case of photovoltaic systems, such development
is to some extent underway already, and at least one
200-kW fuel cell has been installed.
Fuel cells and microturbines can be operated on
renewable fuels such as landfill gas or gas produced
from animal waste (although such configurations have
been limited so far to pilots and demonstrations), as
well as conventional fuels such as natural gas or
27
A recent study found that Cape Cod customers would have cost-effective opportunities to deploy 105 MW of advanced fuel cells, 32
MW of microturbines and 1 MW of photovoltaic technology by 2015, and that Martha’s Vineyard customers could deploy 0.1 MW of
advanced fuel cells, 2.2 MW of microturbines and 0.2 MW of photovoltaic systems. Ridley & Associates for the Cape Light Compact,
Regional Options Study (undated review copy), p. 7.
June, 2004
propane. However, even when operated on
conventional fuels, both fuel cells and microturbines
have significantly cleaner emissions than combustion-
based central station power plants or conventional
distributed generators such as diesel or natural gas
engines. For that reason, they are often grouped with
renewable technologies in qualifying for public
subsidies, albeit sometimes with built-in handicaps that
give an advantage to true renewables. This analysis
includes data on systems using both conventional and
renewable fuels.
The analysis relies heavily on publicly available
information such as on-line technology specifications
and websites. This section includes only products that
were generally available on a commercial basis to the
public, rather than pilot, demonstration or experimental
systems. However, the fuel cell and microturbine
industries are pre-commercial. It is not clear whether
the manufacturers are consistently shipping all the
systems described here, and even some of the most
visible manufacturers are in financial difficulty.
■ Microturbines
1) Microturbine technology
A microturbine is a small, gas-driven turbine connected
to a generator. Capacities range from 30 to 400 kW.
Compared to engine-driven generator sets,
microturbines have relatively few moving parts and
relatively low air emissions. Microturbines can be
used in cogeneration applications (also known as
combined-heat-and-power or CHP). Indeed, it can be
35
 7 Non-Wind Assessment: Microturbines, Fuel Cells
and Photovoltaic Systems
difficult for microturbines to satisfy users’ economic
criteria without cogeneration. Such uses raise the
overall system efficiency significantly through
employing the hot, relatively clean exhaust gas to heat
water or space, to drive an absorption chiller, to
regenerate a desiccant dehumidifier, or in industrial
drying processes.
An installed microturbine system consists of three
basic components: the fuel handling subsystem, the
microturbine itself, and the power electronics. Because
microturbines require fuel at comparatively high
pressure (generally from 64 - 90 psig), the fuel
handling subsystem must include at least a compressor.
Some models include an integral compressor (e.g.,
Ingersoll-Rand’s units), while others may not. This
subsystem may also include a gas clean-up module
for renewable or other non-conventional fuels, the
impurities in which may damage the turbine.
At the other “end” of the microturbine, the power
electronics subsystem converts the system’s alternating
current, which is very high frequency due to the rapid
rotation of the turbine element, into direct current, and
then back to useable 60-cycle alternating current. The
required power electronics will vary with the
customer’s needs, depending, for example, on whether
the microturbine is intended to shut down if grid power
fails so as to protect line workers repairing the outage,
or if in those circumstances the customer wishes the
unit to isolate itself from the grid and continue
generating independently. Finally, microturbines
intended for cogeneration applications (e.g., some
Ingersoll-Rand and Bowman models) include a heat
recovery module.
2) The microturbine industry
Microturbines entered field-testing around 1997, and
most products arrived at the market in 1999 or 2000.
After a period of publicity, it became clear by late 2001
that significant hurdles obstructed market acceptance
of the technology. Most companies have failed to
achieve their sales goals and, partly as a result, many
28
L. Goldstein et al., Gas-Fired Distributed Energy Resource Technology Characterizations, NREL/TP-620-34783 (Golden, CO: NREL
and GRI, December 2003), p. 4-11, at http://www.osti.gov/dublincore/gpo/servlets/purl/15005819-mO4BBN/native/.
36 Assessment of Distributed Generation Technology
are moving to larger-capacity systems in an attempt
to expand margins. Many firms are also focusing on
niche markets, especially those featuring waste (or
“opportunity”) fuels, such as landfills, breweries, food
processing facilities, or other sources of energy-rich
waste gas. Many firms also continue to develop
integrated cogeneration packages that produce both
power and useable heat.
As of early 2004, the industry remains unstable. For
instance, British firm Bowman Power Systems Limited
failed to raise needed capital, and called in an
Administrator to help it resolve its financial
difficulties. Meanwhile, Capstone Turbine’s 2003
shipments were well below those of 2002, and far
below 2001 levels. However, Capstone has announced
that its 200-kW unit is nearly ready for beta testing
and may be ready for sale in 2004. Ingersoll-Rand
has not announced sales figures for its own new 250-
kW system, but reports that sales have been somewhat
disappointing.
3) Selected Microturbine Models
The Specification Spreadsheet (see attachment)
contains data on the following models:
• Capstone C30 Landfill or Digester Biogas
• Capstone C60 Natural Gas
• Capstone C60 Integrated CHP
• Elliott 100-kW CHP Microturbine
• IR PowerWorks 70L for Grid-parallel
Electric Power
• IR PowerWorks 70S for Continuous Electric
Power
• IR PowerWorks 250 for Continuous Electric
Power
4) Microturbine costs
None of the publicly available specification sheets list
prices for microturbine products. However, a set of
technology characterizations28 released recently by the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the Gas
 7 Non-Wind Assessment: Microturbines, Fuel Cells
and Photovoltaic Systems
Research Institute (now the Gas Technology Institute)
offers the following ranges (2003 dollars) for four
representative gas-fired microturbine models,
including products offered by the manufacturers in our
survey. Note that this data set excludes microturbines
configured for renewable fuels.
• Installed cost (power only): $1,576 - $2,263
per installed kilowatt
• Installed cost (cogeneration configurations):
$1,769 - $2,636 per installed kilowatt
• Operation and maintenance costs (excluding
fuel): $0.013 - $0.020 per kilowatt-hour.29
■ Fuel Cells
1) Fuel Cell Technology
Fuel cells generate power through chemical means,
without combustion, by converting hydrogen and
oxygen to electricity, heat and water. The system may
employ pure hydrogen, or derive it from a hydrogen-
bearing fuel such as natural gas, gasoline, methanol,
landfill gas, digester gas, and the like. The oxygen is
typically derived from the atmosphere. Fuel cells
typically have very low (although not zero) gaseous
emissions. However, the process of removing
hydrogen from a hydrocarbon may result in significant
emissions of carbon dioxide, the principal man-made
greenhouse gas. And, although fuel cells’ chemical
processes are silent, their compressors and fans are
not.
There are several varieties of fuel cell, primarily
characterized by the different electrolytes they employ.
They feature different operating temperatures and
efficiencies as well. For example, most fuel cells
envisioned for residential or portable use are low-
temperature polymer-electrolyte membrane (PEM)
cells, while the higher-temperature phosphoric acid,
molten carbonate and solid oxide varieties are
generally envisioned for automotive or industrial uses.
Generally speaking, though, fuel cells contain
subsystems analogous to the three that constitute
29
Fuel costs are not included here since non-fuel O&M is a standard industry metric.
June, 2004
microturbines: a fuel-handling subsystem, the
electricity-generating fuel cell stack, and the power
electronics.
In the case of PEM cells, the fuel-handling module
may contain a reformer to remove the hydrogen from
natural gas fuel. (Due to doubts about the quality of
available reformers, some manufacturers have released
PEM products that accept only pure hydrogen.) The
higher temperatures of other varieties may function
to remove the hydrogen without a separate reformation
step. If the fuel cell is operating on landfill or other
varieties of biogas, the fuel-handling process will also
include various steps to clean the gas of impurities
that would otherwise poison the stack. At the other
“end” of the fuel cell, the power conditioner converts
the electricity produced to alternating current of the
correct frequency or regulated direct current.
2) The Fuel Cell Industry
Fuel cells have enjoyed—or been cursed with—even
greater positive publicity than microturbines, in spite
of their modest business success so far. Many sober
market analysts continue to predict very large markets
for fuel cells in providing stationary, portable and
mobile power. Nevertheless, only a very few firms
have fuel cell products on the market that can fairly
be characterized as commercial. So far, fuel cells have
met marginally more success for portable than for
stationary or mobile applications, but no fuel cell
product has yet reached mass markets.
Stationary fuel cells, the topic of this analysis, remain
very expensive compared to alternative sources of
distributed energy (generally over $3,000 per
kilowatt), and even more so compared to conventional
central-station power. Only one fuel cell product, UTC
Fuel Cells’ 200-kW phosphoric acid model, has
appreciable operating history, with about 250 units sold
since 1992.
As a result, the last few years have seen considerable
consolidation in the fuel cell industry, as large
corporations with an apparent long-term commitment
37
 7 Non-Wind Assessment: Microturbines, Fuel Cells
and Photovoltaic Systems
to the technology buy out smaller innovators. Even
so, most firms have cut the number of employees and
level of expenditures in an attempt to conserve capital.
Even the industry leader, UTC Fuel Cells, laid off
employees in mid 2002 and again in early 2003.
3) Selected Fuel Cell Models
The Specification Spreadsheet (see attachment)
contains data on the following models:
• Ballard Power Systems’ AirGen
• Plug Power’s GenSys
• Plug Power’s GenCore
• Avista Labs’ Independence 1000
• Fuel Cell Energy’s DCA 300A
• UTC Fuel Cells’ PC25
4) Fuel cell costs
None of the publicly available specification sheets list
prices. The recent volume of technology
characterizations referenced above lists the following
cost ranges for a set of gas-fueled fuel cells for
cogeneration applications (2003 dollars).30 Note that
this dataset assumes natural gas as a fuel, and excludes
renewable fuels and the direct-hydrogen powered
Ballard, Avista and Plug Power units described in the
Specification Spreadsheet.
• Package cost: $2,830 - $4,700 per installed
kilowatt
• Installed cost: $3,250 - $5,500 per installed
kilowatt
• Operation and maintenance costs (excluding
fuel): $0.023 - $0.043 per
kilowatt-hour
■ Photovoltaic Systems
1) Photovoltaic Technology
Photovoltaic technology is capable of producing
distributed power with no on-site pollution. PV cells
are solid-state semiconductor devices that convert light
30
Ibid., p. 5-15.
38 Assessment of Distributed Generation Technology
into direct current. Most PV modules (i.e., “solar
panels”) contain crystalline cells, which, compared to
other cell types, enjoy more mature manufacturing
process (and therefore lower manufacturing costs) and
higher efficiency. However, crystalline manufacturing
remains slow and wasteful of materials, and it has
proven difficult to automate. Several firms have
therefore turned to thin-film processes, which deposit
a shallow layer of photovoltaic material on a low-cost
substrate. In the future, thin film may come to play a
greater role in the market, as will more exotic
materials.
Apart from the electricity-generating module, a
customer installing a grid-connected PV system
requires the “balance of system,” which includes an
inverter to convert DC to AC power, wiring, mounting
hardware and monitoring devices—not to mention
customized installation.
2) The Photovoltaic Industry, Markets
and Products
Around the year 2000, markets for grid-connected,
building-located PV systems, driven largely by
subsidies and other policy support, began to outpace
markets for grid-independent commercial applications
(e.g., telecommunications repeaters, highway call
boxes and other remote uses). Most growth is expected
from smaller systems in distributed, grid-connected
markets, but the U.S. has seen small but increasing
numbers of megawatt-scale PV installations.
Although there remains significant room for
innovation and cost cutting in solar cell materials and
manufacturing, the nearest-term opportunities concern
the balance-of-system components, especially
inverters, as manufacturers rush to market grid-ready,
pre-engineered packages. This has led to a trend
toward vertical integration, as module manufacturers
try to extend their reach down the value chain.
Inverters continue to represent the Achilles heel of the
PV industry, with mean time between failure
reportedly close to five years, in contrast to the 25-
year projected lifetime of the modules themselves.
 7 Non-Wind Assessment: Microturbines, Fuel Cells
and Photovoltaic Systems
The growth of markets for photovoltaic systems has
on occasion been hindered by local ordinances that
prohibit visible modifications to homes and other
buildings. In some sub-developments, covenants limit
residents’ ability to alter the appearance of their homes,
and may specifically prohibit roof-mounted solar
power (and solar water heating) systems. Traditional
PV systems can be perceived as particularly
undesirable, partly due to the geometric pattern of five-
or six-inch cells on a typical crystalline PV module.
Thin-film PV products, should they gain appreciable
market share, might ameliorate this problem, as their
sunlight-collecting surface usually features a single
uniform color. An even better solution, and a
particularly intriguing market development, is the
recent emergence of building-integrated PV (BIPV).
These products function as shingles, cladding or other
integral building elements, and can be incorporated
directly into the built structure. They not only offer
potential aesthetic advantages over their predecessors,
but also potential economic ones, as they may allow
for cost offsets through making the building materials
they replace unnecessary. However, BIPV has made
fewer inroads in the U.S. than it has in Europe and
Japan, partly due to lack of awareness among
architects.
With a few exceptions such as Evergreen Solar,
UniSolar and First Solar, most North American module
manufacturing is dominated by subsidiaries of large
multinational corporations, including BP, Sharp,
Sanyo, Shell Kyocera and RWE. GE is apparently
seeking to purchase the assets of Astropower, a well-
known small firm that has encountered serious
financial difficulties.
3) Selected Photovoltaic Products
The attached Specification Spreadsheet includes a
variety of types of photovoltaic products, including
modules, pre-packaged systems, and building-
integrated products:
31
For instance, Photon International’s annual solar module market survey lists roughly 340 models, counting only those crystalline
silicon module models over 80 Watts and thin-film units over 50 Watts in capacity (February 2004).
June, 2004
• Evergreen Solar’s EC-115 module
• RWE Schott Solar’s heavy-duty ASE-300-
DFG/50 module
• BP Solar’s BP-4160S
• Sharp’s triangular ND-070ERU module
• Sharp’s rectangular ND-NOECU module
• PowerLight’s PowerGuard solar roofing tiles
• Kyocera’s MyGen 24 prepackaged residential
solar system
• Astropower’ Sunline-36 prepackaged residential
solar system
• United Solar Ovonics’ building-integrated
solar roofing shingle
Note that this is a very small cross section of the
photovoltaic products available for residential,
commercial and municipal use.31 Moreover, in many
cases, larger solar installations are better characterized
as projects rather than products. Each installation,
whether it is a photovoltaic shade over a parking area,
a building fa ade, a flat-roof installation on a
warehouse or government building, or other
application, results in a unique design. Nevertheless,
the Specification Spreadsheet contains typical solar
technology offered by the most active manufacturers.
4) Photovoltaic Costs
For systems under 10 kWp (kW peak capacity) in
capacity, photovoltaic modules typically cost $4,000
- $5,000/kWp. The balance-of-system components
and installation may add $3,000 - $6,000/ kWp for
even the simplest system. Larger systems will be
somewhat less expensive on a per-kilowatt basis.
Based on indices of current retail prices, one reputable
source calculates the following electricity prices for
PV systems. Note that these prices assume 5% interest
rates and do not include applicable subsidies. They
do include all installation and integration costs
(seeTable 6). About 80% of the firms included in these
indices are located in the U.S. Note that given typical
Cape Cod conditions, actual costs are likely to
39
 7 Non-Wind Assessment: Microturbines, Fuel Cells
and Photovoltaic Systems

Table 6
Typical Prices for Photovoltaic Systems32

2-kW roof-mounted Installed system price $18,923

residential, grid-connected Sunny climate energy cost 39.55 cents/kWh
with battery back-up Cloudy climate energy cost 87.01 cents/kWh
Installed system price $361,932
50-kW ground-mounted,
Sunny climate energy cost 29.18 cents/kWh
grid-connected
Cloudy climate energy cost 64.91 cents/kWh
Installed system price $2,450,711
500-kW flat roof-mounted,
Sunny climate energy cost 21.15 cents/kWh
grid connected
Cloudy climate energy cost 46.54 cents/kWh

resemble the data given below for cloudy climates,
although the actual price of PV power will be a result
of weather conditions, equipment costs, applicable
subsidies and type of finance.
The calculation of such costs for Cape Cod and
Martha’s Vineyard is beyond the scope of the present
exercise. For the sake of illustration, however, we
note that a recent proprietary analysis describes two
hypothetical cases in the service territory of a
Northeastern utility. In one case, a $16,000, 2-kW
residential system enjoying net metering and financed
through a home equity loan is calculated to cost the
homeowner $2,456/kW after application of relevant
subsidies and tax credits. The system achieves
payback after 11 years. In the second case, a $65,000,
10-kW commercial system financed through a
commercial loan is reckoned to cost the owner $1,282
per installed kilowatt after applicable subsidies -
which, in the case of the utility in this example, are
quite appreciable. The system achieves payback after
5 years. Of course, these cases may or may not
resemble the circumstances of any individual
purchaser, and they are highly dependent on the
subsidies available at the time the case studies were
developed.
A typical 2-kW residential PV array using crystalline
silicon modules requires about 160 square feet of
installation space. Thin-film modules may require
double that area, due to their lower efficiency.

32
Source: Solarbuzz.com, viewed 16 Jan. 2004 at http://www.solarbuzz.com/SolarIndices.htm.

40 Assessment of Distributed Generation Technology

 Section 8
Recommendations for a Wind
Power Related Model Bylaw
In this section recommendations are offered for
consideration as a model bylaw is developed and for
additional study that would assist Municipalities in
understanding the technology and its applications.
• A height restriction of 200 feet would be a de
facto denial of economically feasible siting of
wind turbines in all but the most unusual cases.
We recommend either 400 foot or no a priori
height restriction on turbines in appropriate
districts (e.g., commercial and industrial
parks). A restriction of 200 feet height is most
likely appropriate for residential zones.
• The minimum set back of a turbine system
should be associated with its fall zone and
noise impacts, not an arbitrary minimum
acreage.
• The designation of sensitive and or scenic
resource overlay districts (such as National
Monuments and Recreation areas, State parks,
wildlife refuges, historic, archeological sites)
should be considered on zoning maps. .
• Visual impact studies are recommended, but
the level of detail could vary depending on
the scale and potential visual impact on
sensitive resources of a given project. The
potential for mitigation of visual impact
through conservation or scenic area land
banking may be a possibility. The higher a
wind turbine, the more economically efficient,
the greater the ability for financial set-aside
for mitigation.
• Analysis for shadowing and flicker caused by
turbine blades should be performed.
• Each project should mandate that manufacturer
noise information be supplied (including tonal
noise) to determine compliance with
Massachusetts state noise policy. Qualified
engineers should be involved on a site-specific
basis in confirming aspects of the noise
environment and predicted impacts.
June, 2004
• FAA obstruction review and lighting
requirements will likely require lights on all
but the shortest towers. Revised regulations
are currently under development. The impact
of these lights should be considered as part of
any visual assessment.
• Avian studies are unlikely to be needed for
every project, unless other state or federal
permits are required. However, consultation
with groups/agencies with information about
avian use of areas would be advisable and
performed on a site-specific basis to identify
any possible risk to native or migratory
species. One “programmatic” evaluation for
the region may be appropriate, rather than
requiring each wind-power proposal to
perform a separate study, although no such
study is currently under development.
• Placement of wind turbines in wetland
resources, buffer areas and coastal zones,
should be pursued only after other upland and
developable resources have been explored.
However, there may be highly desirable
locations in coastal zones that would be
economic and minimize adverse impacts, such
as on developed breakwaters etc.
• An important issue identified by completion
of this assessment is the need for an overview
of how to develop DG wind facilities. Such
an effort would involve issues related to
ownership and financing options of the
facilities, sizing and economics, and would be
a valuable tool for Municipalities especially
as they explore options for DG wind. This
effort could be integrated or coordinated with
efforts by the MTC’s Community Wind
Initiative.
41
42 Assessment of Distributed Generation Technology
Appendices

Appendix A: Review of Wind Energy and Turbine Design

Appendix B: FAA Supplemental Obstruction Analysis

Information

Appendix C: Survey of Wind Turbine Manufacturers

Appendix D: Tables Used for Survey Analysis in Section 6

Appendix E: Zoning Analysis

Appendix F: References/Bibliography

Assessment of Distributed Generation

June, 2004Technology • June, 2004 43
 Appendix A
Review of Wind Energy
and Turbine Design

44 Assessment
Assessment
of Distributed
of Distributed
GenerationGeneration
Technology
Technology
• June, 2004
Appendix A – Review of Wind Energy and Turbine Design

A. Available Energy

For a flow of air with velocity v and density ρ through a unit area A perpendicular to the
wind, the kinetic energy per unit time is given by P1:

P = 1 mv 2 = 1 ( Avρ )v 2 = 1 ( Aρ )v 3
2 2 2

where P = kinetic energy per unit of time

A = area (m2)
ρ = density (kg / m3) (Note: ρ is the Greek letter “rho”)
v = velocity (m/s, meters per second)

Air density (ρ) is also a function of a number of factors

Pr − VP 273 kg
ρ = 1.2929
760 T m 3

where Pr = atmospheric pressure, mm of Hg (mercury)

VP = vapor pressure, mm of Hg
T = temperature, degrees Kelvin.

The vapor pressure term is a small correction term, around 1%, and can usually be
neglected. High temperatures and low pressures reduce the density of air, which will
reduce the power per area. A major factor for change in density is the change in
pressure with elevation. A 1000 m (3,280 ft) increase in elevation will reduce the
pressure by 10% and thus reduce the potential energy by 10%. If only elevation is
known, air density can be estimated by2

ρ = 1.226 − (1.194 * 10 −4 ) z

where z= elevation above sea level (meters)

The industry standard density for comparing output of wind turbines is 1.226 kg/m3,
which corresponds to a temperature of 15 degrees C (59 deg F) and an air pressure of
sea level.
A. Theoretical Limits and Practical Limits

1
www.windworkers.com JP Sayler and Associates Wind Resources and System Performance
2
http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/appendix_A.html#vertical. See also
http://www.seic.okstate.edu/owpi/about/Library/Lesson3_WPD_windclass.pdf
A wind turbine does not extract all the kinetic energy from the wind, but has practical
limits.

The actual power will depend on several factors, such as the type of
machine and rotor used, the sophistication of blade design, friction
losses, and the losses in the pump or other equipment connected to the
wind machine. There are also physical limits to the amount of power that
can be extracted realistically from the wind. It can be shown theoretically
that any windmill can only possibly extract a maximum of 59.3% of the
power from the wind (this is known as the Betz limit). In reality, this
figure is usually around 45% (maximum) for a large electricity producing
turbine and around 30% to 40% for a windpump3.

The practical limit of wind turbine efficiency is given by the following found at the
American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) website:

P = 1 ( Aρ )v 3 Cp Ng Nb
2

Where Cp = Coefficient of performance (.59 is Betz

limit) is the maximum theoretically possible,
.35 for a good design)
Ng = generator efficiency (50% for car
alternator, 80% or possibly more for a
permanent magnet generator or grid-
connected induction generator)
Nb = gearbox/bearings efficiency (depends,
could be as high as 95% if good)
v = velocity (m/s, meters per second)

If there is any single equation that the beginning wind enthusiast should
memorize, this is it.4

C. Basic Wind Turbine Systems – Rotor Design

There are two primary physical principles by which energy can be extracted from the
wind; these are through the creation of either lift or drag force (or through a combination
of the two). The difference between drag and lift is illustrated by the difference between
using a spinnaker sail, which fills like a parachute and pulls a sailing boat with the wind,
and a Bermuda rig, the familiar triangular sail which deflects with wind and allows a
sailing boat to travel across the wind or slightly into the wind.

Drag forces provide the most obvious means of propulsion, these being the forces felt by
a person (or object) exposed to the wind. Lift forces are the most efficient means of
propulsion but being more subtle than drag forces are not so well understood.

The basic features that characterize lift and drag are:

• drag is in the direction of air flow.

3
http://www.itdg.org/html/technical_enquiries/docs/wind_electricity_generation.pdf
4
http://www.awea.org/faq/windpower.html)
 • lift is perpendicular to the direction of air flow
• generation of lift always causes a certain amount of drag to be developed
• with a good aerofoil, the lift produced can be more than thirty times greater
than the drag
• lift devices are generally more efficient than drag devices

Types and characteristics of rotors

There are two main families of wind machines: vertical axis machines and horizontal axis
machines. These can in turn use either lift or drag forces to harness the wind. The
horizontal axis lift device is the type most commonly used. In fact other than a few
experimental machines virtually all windmills come under this category.

There are several technical parameters that are used to characterize windmill rotors.
The tip speed ratio is defined as the ratio of the speed of the extremities of a windmill
rotor to the speed of the free wind. Drag devices always have tip-speed ratios less than
one and hence turn slowly, whereas lift devices can have high tip-speed ratios (up to
13:1) and hence turn quickly relative to the wind5.

The proportion of the power in the wind that the rotor can extract is termed the
coefficient of performance (or power coefficient or efficiency; symbol Cp) and its
variation as a function of tip speed ratio is commonly used to characterize different types
of rotor. As mentioned earlier there is an upper limit of Cp = 59.3%, although in practice
real wind rotors have maximum Cp values in the range of 25%-45%.

Solidity is usually defined as the percentage of the area of the rotor, which contains
material rather than air. Low-solidity machines run at higher speed and tend to be used
for electricity generation. High-solidity machines carry a lot of material and have coarse
blade angles. They generate much higher starting torque (torque is the twisting or rotary
force produced by the rotor) than low-solidity machines but are inherently less efficient
than low-solidity machines. The windpump is generally of this type. High solidity
machines will have a low tip-speed ratio and vice versa.

There are various important wind speeds to consider:

• Start-up wind speed - the wind speed that will turn an unloaded rotor.
• Cut-in wind speed – the wind speed at which the rotor can be loaded.
• Rated wind speed – the windspeed at which the machine is designed to run
(this is at optimum tip-speed ratio).
• Furling wind speed – the windspeed at which the machine will be turned out
of the wind to prevent damage.
• Maximum design wind speed – the windspeed above which damage could
occur to the machine.
• The choice of rotor is dictated largely by the characteristic of the load and
hence of the end use.

5
Note most large modern systems rotate at a constant on near constant rate (revolutions per minute)
Some rotor types and their characteristics are shown in Table A1, but it should be noted
that only three-bladed rotors are currently used for modern turbines6.

Table A1
Comparison of Rotor Types

Type Speed Torque Cp Solidity(%) Use

Horizontal
Axis
Multi blade Low High 0.25 - 0.40 50 - 80 Mechanical
Power
Three- High Low up to 0.45 <5 Electricity
bladed Production
aerofoil
Vertical Axis
Panemone Low Medium < 0.1 50 Mechanical
Power
Darrieus Moderate Very Low 0.25 - 0.35 10 - 20 Electricity
Production

D. Wind Shear: Wind Speed and Height

Below is a brief discussion of the modeling of wind shear7.

The windspeed at some other height can be approximated by a power

law.

3.6

where vo = measured windspeed

Ho = height of known windspeed vo
H = height

The exponent α is around 1/7 for a stable atmosphere (decrease in

temperature with height), however it will vary, depending on terrain and
atmospheric conditions From Eq. 3.6 the wind shear, change in
windspeed with height, can be estimated (Figure A2).

Calculations for Figure A2 are for known windspeed of 10 m/s at 10 m, α

= 1/7. Other formulas for estimating windspeed with height are

6
This section is taken verbatim from
http://www.itdg.org/html/technical_enquiries/docs/energy_from_wind.pdf
7
The following discussion of wind shear is based closely on Dr. Vaughn Nelson’s class notes - Chapter
3 of PHYS302: Wind Energy and Wind Turbines, Fall semester 2003, West Texas University.
 3.7

3.8

where zo is the roughness parameter. Equation 3.8 allows a zero

windspeed at the surface. The roughness parameter ranges from 0.02
m for flat open terrain with short grass to larger than 1 m for rough
terrain.

E. Wind Shear: Wind Speed and Height

The energy that can be derived from wind is a cubic function of the windspeed and
therefore any factors that affect wind speed, even to a small degree, has large impacts
on the energy that can be derived from a wind turbine system. Windspeed generally
decreases with decreases in elevation from above ground level because the friction
caused by the earth’s surface slows the speed of the wind at lower elevations. Wind
shear is defined as the change in windspeed with height (see Figure A2). Thus
understanding the level of and effects of wind shear is important to understanding how
height limitations will affect the energy output of turbines, and ultimately the economic
viability of wind turbine systems.

Figure A2
Change in Windspeed with Height, Wind shear.

Distribution of Wind Resources and Power Curves

Factors discussed above that affect wind power include: the altitude of the site, the
height of the turbine above surface, the area swept by the rotors of the turbine, the
average temperature, the efficiency of the system converting kinetic energy to electric
energy, and most importantly the average wind speed. This still is still not sufficient,
however, to make a “good” estimate of the energy output from a wind turbine. One still
needs to have estimates of two more factors to predict the energy output of a turbine,
and they are:

The probability density distribution (PDD8, i.e., distribution) of the wind speed over time.
The most common industry assumption is that wind follows a Weibull distribution9.

k v
k −1
  v k 
F (v) = ∆v   exp −   
c c   c  

where F(v) = frequency of occurrence associated with each incremental windspeed of

∆v centered at v
∆v = width of class or bin (e.g., 1 m/s)
v = mean windspeed
k = is a shape parameter
c = Gamma (1/K) and approximated by the constant of 0.89 for most values of k

The Weibull distribution is characterized by two parameters, the shape parameter, k

(dimensionless) and the scale parameter, c (m/s). The Rayleigh distribution is a special
case of the Weibull distribution where k = 2. For regions of the trade winds where the
winds are fairly steady, the shape factor may be as high as 4 to 5. For most sites in
Europe and the United States, k varies between 1.8 to 2.4.10

Examples of Weibull density function for an average windspeed of 6.0 m/s are shown in
Figure A4. Figure A4shows the Weibull distribution with varying values of the “k”
parameter which as noted above controls the shape of the curve. Note when k=2, the
distribution is the same as the Rayleigh distribution, which is commonly used as the
default distribution of windspeed.

The important point to understand is that for a given wind speed (e.g., 6.0 mps) the more
peaked the distribution (i.e., the higher the value of the “k” parameter), the less potential
energy for that wind resource. This result occurs because the kinetic energy of wind is a
cubic function of the wind speed.

A simple example may suffice to explain this phenomenon. Assume two simple
distributions, a more peaked distribution with a mean of 6 meters/second would have the
wind blowing at 5 m/s ¼ of the time, 6 m/s ½ of the time and 7 m/s ¼ of the time, while a
flatter distribution would have the wind blowing at 4 m/s 10% of the time, 5 m/s 20% of
the time, 6 m/s 40% of the time, 7 m/s 20% of the time and 8 m/s 10% of the time.

8
The PDDin this case defines the probability that the wind will blow at various speeds over a given a
period of time (e.g., one year). For example the PDD might show that the wind will blow at 0 m/s 3% of
the time during a year, at 1 m/s 5% of the time during a year, at 2 m/s 10% of the time during a year, etc.
9
For more on the Weibull distribution see http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/wres/weibull.htm.
10
Vaughn Nelson, Wind Energy and Wind Turbines, Alternative Energy Institute, West Texas A&M
University, January 2004.
The estimated average energy produced by a wind turbine can be computed from the
sum of the products of the PDD and power curve (e.g., the probability that the wind is
blowing at 1 mps * kW produced at 1 mps, + the probability that the wind is blowing at 2
mps * kW produced at 2 mps, + the probability that the wind is blowing at 3 mps * kW
produced at 3 mps, etc.). Estimating the energy produced over time (kWh) is computed
by multiplying this result by the number of hours in the time period (e.g., one year = 8760
hours).
Table A3 shows the computation of average energy produced for a FL-250 (at sea level,
with moderate roughness and temperature of 15 degrees Celsius) for the flat and
peaked wind distributions with mean of 6.0 m/s described above.

Table A3
Comparison Average kW Output of a FL-250 System for a Simple Peaked and. Simple Flat Wind
Distribution

Wind Power Fraction of Peaked Flat Flat

Speed Curve kW Occurrence Distribution: Distribution: Distribution:
(m/s) Production Avg kW Fraction of Avg kW
Output Occurrence Output
1 0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0
2 0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0
3 1 0% 0.0 0% 0.0
4 7 0% 0.0 10% 0.7
5 25 25% 6.3 20% 5.0
6 35 50% 17.5 40% 14.0
7 59 25% 14.8 20% 11.8
8 91 0% 0.0 10% 9.1
9 127 0% 0.0 0% 0.0
10 160 0% 0.0 0% 0.0
Total 100% 38.5 100% 40.6
 Figure A4
Modeled Probability Density Function of Wind Speed Using Weibull Distribution @ 6.0 MPS

20.0%
Probability Wind is Blowing - Avg Wind Speed 6.0 mps .

18.0%

16.0%
k= 1.50
14.0% k= 1.75
k= 2.00
12.0% k= 2.25
k= 2.50
10.0% k= 2.75
k= 3.00
8.0%

6.0%

4.0%

2.0%

0.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Wind Speed in Meters/Second

The various components of the analysis are combined, which results in estimates of the
annual average energy production for a single turbine model, the FL-250 (nominal peak
kW of 250 kW). Figure A6 graphically represents for this production turbine – the FL-250
- the concepts presented above; that is the relationship of average wind speed and the
PDD of wind speed on annual energy production.

As can be seen, an increase in average wind speed from 5.0 mps to 7.0 mps m/s
approximately doubles the modeled energy the FL-250 produces. Assumptions of the
Weibull k (which controls the shape of the wind speed distribution – PDD as seen in
Figure A4) also affect modeled energy production, but to a lesser degree. For example
at an average wind speed of 6.0 mps a change in the Weibull k from 2.0 to 3.0
decreases the modeled annual energy output from 455 GWh to 401 GWh, a decrease of
12%.

Given the sensitivity of energy production to wind speed and the sensitivity of wind
speed to height, all things being equal, it is much more efficient to put a turbine on a
higher tower. The effect of tower height is described in more detail in Section 6.
 Figure A5
Power Curves of Fuhrlander Family of Turbines @ Sea Level

1100

1000

900 FL-30
FL-100
800
FL-250
700 FL-800
FL-1000
600 FL-1000+
kW

500

400

300

200

100

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Meters per Second
 Figure A6
Estimated Annual Energy Production of Fuhrlander FL-250 (250 kW) for Sample Scenarios for Various
Weibull Shape Factors.

700

600
Modeled Annual GWh Production .

500

400

k= 1.50
300
k= 1.75
k= 2.00
200 k= 2.25
k= 2.50
k= 2.75
100 k= 3.00

-
5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0
Average Wind Speed - Meters per Second

F. Certification
In addition to the information provided in Section 3E, certification is being addressed
through the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). AWEA is the American
industry organization liaison between Department of Energy (DOE) National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL) and the International Electro-technical Commission (IEC).
AWEA lists the relevant standards on the following web page
(http://www.awea.org/standards/iec_stds.html#WG%201,%202,%203 )

One example of a certification requirement is to characterize the dynamic behavior of the

wind turbine's operation. An important objective of the dynamic characterization test is
to provide a Certification Agent with test data to show that the wind turbine's mechanical
equipment is operating within design vibration limits. For NREL's industry participant,
the test results are an indication of the wind system's overall quality of mechanical
operation that can be used to compare with established industry standards for a wind
system's response under typical and extreme operating conditions.

www.osti.gov/dublincore/gpo/servlets/purl/783417-kWkYfm/native/

The following link describes results of a quarterly newsletter the Field Verification
Program for Small Wind Turbines:

www.osti.gov/dublincore/gpo/servlets/purl/789467-zI5BjN/native/
According to Herbert Sunderland of DOE’s Sandia Laboratory, Underwriters Laboratory
will be an independent certifying body of wind turbines and expects to issue a
certification design by April 2004, which would state that a wind turbine is in
conformance with IEC standards. U.L. offers this certification service as a business
opportunity.

http://www.ul.com/dge/windturbines/certification.html

Certifications of wind turbine technology in Europe are performed in an analogous

manner through the insurance industry. Coverage is being provided for example by the
Germanischer Lloyd WindEnergie GmbH company.

http://www.gl-group.com/cgi-bin/w/w3red?SET=CERT&SUB=3
Appendix B
FAA Supplemental Obstruction
Analysis Information

June, 2004 45
Appendix B: FAA Supplemental Obstruction Analysis Information

The provisions in 14 CFR Part 77 include permanent (e.g., wind turbine) or temporary
construction (e.g., crane for installation) or alterations that will penetrate imaginary
surfaces near airport runways. The FAA defined imaginary surfaces apply to different
geometric surfaces emanating from airport runways known as primary, approach,
transitional, horizontal and conical surfaces (Figures below). These surfaces are shaped
by different geometric descriptions as follows:

Primary:
Centered around runway
Extends 200 ft beyond the runway end
Width varies from 250ft to 1000 ft

Approach:
Begins at end of primary surface
Inner edge: same width as primary surface
Outer edge varies :1,250 ft to 16,000 ft
Length varies: 5,000ft or 10,000ft
Slope varies: 20:1 34:1 50:1

Transitional (Figure 4-2):

Extends outward and upward at right angles to runway centerline
Starts at outside edge of primary surface
Slope is 7:1

Horizontal:
Extends 150ft horizontally off of the top of the transitional surface
 Figure B1
FAA Imaginary Surfaces

Figure B2
FAA Transitional Surfaces
 Appendix C
Survey of Wind Turbine
Manufacturers

46 Assessment of Distributed Generation Technology

Appendix C: Survey of Wind Turbine Manufacturers

Table C1
th
Wind Turbine Manufacturer Survey Response Status February 6 , 2004

Manufacturer HQ U.S. Product Survey Status Comments

Country Availability?
Atlantic Orient Canada Yes Fully Participated
Bergey USA Yes Fully Participated
Windpower
Bonus Energy Denmark Yes Agreed to Is not currently able to
A/S Participate – service individual
declined to provide turbines outside of
data their current service
installations in U.S.
(wind farms)
Ecotecnia Spain No No Reply
Enercon Germany No Declined to Currently banned from
Participate selling in U.S. market
until 2010
Fuhrlander Germany Yes Fully Participated
Gamesa Eolia Spain Yes Fully Participated* * Only provided cost
data associated with
wind farm size
installations.
GE Wind USA Yes Fully Participated Some data claimed as
Energy confidential and will
not be included in
study
MADE Spain Yes No Reply
(Endesa
Group)
Mass USA No No Reply Prototype in testing,
Megawatts not commercially
Wind Power, available
Inc.
Mitsubishi Japan Yes Agreed to
Power Participate – but
Systems data is yet to be
delivered
NEG Micon Denmark Yes Agreed to Recently announced
USA Participate – but merger with Vestas
data is yet to be
delivered
Nordex A/S Germany No Declined to
Participate
Northern USA Yes Fully Participated
Power
Manufacturer HQ U.S. Product Survey Status Comments
Country Availability?
Systems
Southwest USA Yes Partially Participated
Windpower - Additional
information gathered
from distributor
Specialized USA Yes Partially Participated Will manufacture
Power Norwin (a Norwegian
Systems company) turbines in
USA. Has indicated
will forward tower
information when
available.
Suzlon India Yes Agreed to
Energy Ltd Participate – but
data is yet to be
delivered
Vestas Denmark Yes Declined to
American Participate
Wind
Technology
Inc.
Wind Turbine USA Yes Fully Participated
Industries
Corp.
Appendix D
Tables Used for Survey Analysis
in Section 6

June, 2004 47
Appendix D – Tables used for survey analysis in Section 6

Figure D1
Comparison of Nominal kW to Rotor Diameter, Hub Height, and Top of Blade Height

180
Rotor Diameter
160 HubHeight
Top of Blade Height
140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Turbine kW

Figure D2
Comparison of Rotor Diameter to Hub Height and Top of Blade Height

180

160

140 HubHeight
Top of Blade Height
120

100

80

60

40

20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Rotor Diameter - Meters
 Figure D3
Nominal Turbine kW Compared to Purchase Price / kW and Rotor Size

3500 120

3000
100

Meters (Rotor Diameter)

2500
80

2000
$ Purchase Price / kW
60
Rotor Diameter (meters)
1500

40
1000

20
500

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Nominal kW

Figure D4
Nominal Turbine kW for Turbines Less than 500 kW Compared to Purchase Price / kW and Rotor Size

3500 120

$ Purchase Price / kW
3000
Rotor Diameter (meters) 100
Meters (Rotor Diameter)

2500
80

2000
60
1500

40
1000

20
500

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Nominal kW
 Figure D5
Nominal Turbine kW Compared to $/kW Installed Cost (Not Including Tower)

$4,500

$4,000

$3,500

$3,000
$ Installed /kW
$2,500

$2,000

$1,500

$1,000

$500

$-
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000
Nominal kW

Figure D6
Installed Capacity Compared to O&M and Retrofit Costs / kW

$350

$300

$250

$200 $ Annual / kW

$150

$100

$50

$-
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000
Nominal kW
 Appendix E
Zoning Analysis

48 Assessment of Distributed Generation Technology

Appendix E: Zoning Analysis

Table E1
Base Case Site Attributes11

Site Attribute Base Case Value

Avg. Anemometer Wind (m/s) 7.0
Anemometer. Height (m) 50
Turbulence Factor 0.1
Site Altitude (m) 50
Weibull K 2.5
Federal Production Tax Credit Not Available
Months to Install from Project Start 12
Year of Project Start 2004
Dollars Per Euro 1.25
REC Price 0.0200 $/kWh
Average Wholesale Price of Electricity 0.0400 $/kWh
Consumer Inflation 2%
Energy Inflation 2%
O&M Inflation 2%
Down Payment Percent 100%
Depreciation Method MACRS
Project Development Fee 10%
MTC Buydown $0
Assumed sheer factor 1/7

There are five major rate classes under this system, listed below. Load profiles for
average consumption over 8760 hours were taken from the NSTAR web-site for each of
the five major rate classes. Attributes of the prototypical customers used in the balance
of this analysis are shown in Table 8.

Table E2
Prototypical Customer Attributes

Description Rate Class / Annual Federal Tax State Tax Rate

Load Profile Consumption Rate
Class kWh (Rounded)
Residential R1 6,000 28% 5%
Residential R3 11,000 28% 5%

11
Given comments on the draft report and public presentation a clarification is called for. There was no
specific assumption on the percentage of energy sold back into the grid and not consumed on-site due to
temporal mis-match between generation and load. For a given wind regime, the model randomly
assigns wind speeds on a probabilistic basis to each of the 8760 hours of the year. The model then
matches the energy production for each hour with the NSTAR load profiles. All things being equal the
larger the turbine the larger fraction of energy non consumed on-site.
Electric Heating
Small G1 26,000 28% 5%
Commercial
Medium G2 1,200,000 35% 6%
Commercial
Large G3 6,000,000 35% 6%
Commercial &
Industrial

The actual number of customers and annual sales for these different rate classes are
shown in Table 9. The largest rate class by number of customers is the basic residential
class (R1), but this class also has the lowest average usage and annual sales by
customer. As will be seen below, the economic case for installing a DG turbine at the
site of R1, R3, or G1 customer is not compelling. While small in number of customers,
the G2 and G3 classes have the best economic potential for DG wind installations
because of their large consumption of energy on a per customer basis. Following is an
analysis of the relative economic payback for each of these classes.

Table E3
Customers and Annual Consumption by Rate Class for Cape Cod & Martha’s Vineyard

Rate Class # Customers Sales (kWh) Pct of kWh Avg. kWh /

Year per
Customer
R1 138,676 840,785,225 41% 6,063
R3 18,189 209,054,605 10% 11,493
G1 19,764 541,690,586 27% 27,408
G2 157 227,077,364 11% 1,446,353
G3 7 68,705,722 3% 9,815,103
Other 18,595 151,393,700 7% 8,142
Total 195,388 2,038,707,202 100% 10,434

G3 Customers

Table E4 displays the height combinations for the five largest turbines (that provided
sufficient information) and the payback for the prototypical G3 customer. Each of the
turbines (which range from 800 kW to 1800 kW (1.8MW)), is matched to its compatible
towers. Table 10 clearly shows that the top of blade height for all of these commercially
available turbine/tower combinations exceeds 230 feet and in the majority of
combinations, exceeds 300 feet. This has obvious implications for development of a
model bylaw for these facilities on the Cape. A review of Table E4 also shows that for
each turbine, the choice of different tower height does not make a dramatic difference on
internal rate of return (IRR) for this base case scenario, and at least for
Gamesa_G52_800kW, higher towers sometimes provide worse financial results. Note
that Gamesa only provided installed costs for the large wind farm applications; costs are
not directly applicable to a single turbine installation, and certainly would be higher than
the wind farm application.
 Table E4
Payback for Turbine-Tower Combinations Applicable for Typical G3 Customers: 800-1800 kW

Turbine Tower / IRR Over Years to Ann. kWh $/

Top 20 Years Positive Installed
Blade Cash Flow kW
Height
(feet)
Gamesa_G52_800kW* 144 / 230 33% 2.7 1,867,217 $778*
Gamesa_G52_800kW* 180 / 266 35% 2.6 2,009,695 $779*
Gamesa_G52_800kW* 213 / 298 33% 2.7 2,118,637 $875*
Gamesa_G52_800kW* 243 / 328 31% 2.8 2,204,696 $970*
Gamesa_G80_1800kW* 197 / 328 28% 3.2 4,836,406 $938*
Gamesa_G80_1800kW* 220 / 351 29% 3.1 4,999,793 $938*
Gamesa_G80_1800kW* 256 / 387 29% 3.1 5,231,279 $994*
Gamesa_G80_1800kW* 328 / 459 29% 3.1 5,607,397 $1,052
FL-800_800kW 164 / 253 16% 5.1 1,709,921 $1,339
FL-800_800kW 197 / 285 18% 4.8 1,816,712 $1,328
FL-800_800kW 230 / 318 18% 4.7 1,908,156 $1,370
FL-1000_1000kW 197 / 295 22% 4.0 2,307,813 $1,101
FL-1000_1000kW 230 / 328 22% 3.9 2,417,141 $1,135
FL-1000_1000kW 269 / 367 23% 3.8 2,534,386 $1,151
FL-1000_1000kW 328 / 426 24% 3.7 2,684,277 $1,178
FL-1000+_1000kW 197 / 302 22% 4.0 2,686,734 $1,261
FL-1000+_1000kW 230 / 335 23% 3.9 2,810,184 $1,295
FL-1000+_1000kW 269 / 374 23% 3.8 2,940,777 $1,311
FL-1000+_1000kW 328 / 433 24% 3.6 3,106,384 $1,338
*Note that Gamesa only provided installed costs for the large wind farm applications; costs are not directly
applicable to a single turbine installation, and certainly would be higher than the wind farm application.

BRED also conducted a similar analysis for smaller turbines, with correspondingly
smaller overall turbine/tower heights. As can be seen in Table E5 the IRR decreases as
turbine height decreases, and the years to positive cash flow increases dramatically
when the system size (and height) is reduced. This analysis illustrated that none of the
turbine-tower combinations for sub-800 kW systems will likely have an acceptable
payback period for private companies (likely 3 years or less) for any but the most
extraordinary customer. Municipally owned DG systems may have different economic
hurdle requirements.

Table E5
Payback for Turbine-Tower Combinations Applicable for Typical G3 Customers: 100-1000 kW

Turbine Tower / IRR Years to Ann. kWh $/

Top Over 20 Positive Produced Installed
Blade Years Cash kW
Height Flow
(Feet)
Turbine Tower / IRR Years to Ann. kWh $/
Top Over 20 Positive Produced Installed
Blade Years Cash kW
Height Flow
(Feet)
FL-100_100kW 108 / 151 3% 14.6 262,620 $2,893
Northern 82 / 117 1% 17.0 159,517 $3,020
Power_NW100/19_100kW
Northern 98 / 133 2% 15.8 170,434 $3,050
Power_NW100/19_100kW
Northern 115 / 149 3% 14.8 180,210 $3,070
Power_NW100/19_100kW
FL-250_250kW 131 / 187 11% 6.8 571,368 $1,642
FL-250_250kW 164 / 220 13% 6.3 610,894 $1,670
FL-800_800kW 197 / 285 18% 4.8 1,816,712 $1,328
Gamesa_G52_800kW* 144 / 230 33% 2.7 1,867,217 $778
FL-1000_1000kW 197 / 295 22% 4.0 2,307,813 $1,101
FL-1000+_1000kW 197 / 302 22% 4.0 2,686,734 $1,261
* Note that Gamesa only provided installed costs for the large wind farm applications; costs are not directly
applicable to a single turbine installation, and certainly would be higher than the wind farm application.

G2 Customers

There are 157 G2 customers on Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard that consume eleven
percent of the total energy. Customers in the G2 rate class have the second best
economic payback opportunity of any rate class for DG wind given their large electricity
consumption and rate structure.

Table E6 displays the height and payback for the prototypical G2 customer for turbines
in 100 kW to 1000 kW range. As with G3 customers, the payback period for sub 800 kW
systems is likely to be unacceptable to most investors/customers.

Upon closer inspection of Table E5 and Table E6, it is interesting to note that the IRR
decreases dramatically and the years to positive cash flow increase dramatically for
larger turbines for the typical G2 customer compared to the typical G3 customer (this is
illustrated in Figure E7). This happens even though the G2 customer avoided utility
costs excluding generation (estimated to be 3.9 ¢/kWh in 2006) are higher than avoided
utility costs for G3 customers (estimated to be 3.0 ¢/kWh in 2006, see Table 3). This
decrease in financial returns for the larger turbines results from the turbine being over-
sized for the on-site consumption. This means a much higher portion of energy is being
sold back into the wholesale market rather than being consumed on-site to avoid utility
generation charges. This is shown more clearly in Figure E8, where changes in annual
customer electricity consumption were varied for an assumed installation of a FL-250
system with 131 foot tower (187 foot top of blade height). Figure E8 shows that for larger
kWh consumers, a larger percent of turbine output will be consumed on site, resulting in
a higher IRR and a shorter time period to positive cash flow.
 Table E6
Payback for Turbine-Tower Combinations Applicable for a Typical G2 Customer: 100-1000 kW

Turbine Tower / IRR Years to Ann. kWh $/

Top Over 20 Positive Installed
Blade Years Cash kW
Height Flow
(Feet)
FL-100_100kW 108 / 151 4% 12.6 262,620 $2,893
Northern 82 / 117 2% 15.7 159,517 $3,020
Power_NW100/19_100kW
Northern 98 / 133 3% 14.5 170,434 $3,050
Power_NW100/19_100kW
Northern 115 / 149 3% 13.5 180,210 $3,070
Power_NW100/19_100kW
FL-250_250kW 131 / 187 12% 6.5 571,368 $1,642
FL-250_250kW 164 / 220 13% 6.1 610,894 $1,670
FL-800_800kW 197 / 285 13% 6.1 1,816,712 $1,328
Gamesa_G52_800kW 144 / 230 26% 3.5 1,867,217 $778
FL-1000_1000kW 197 / 295 16% 5.2 2,307,813 $1,101
FL-1000+_1000kW 197 / 302 16% 5.2 2,686,734 $1,261

Figure E7
Comparison of IRR over 20 Years for Typical G2 and G3 Customers

35% 33%

30%
26%
G3 IRR-20
Internal Rate of Return .

25%
G2 IRR-20 22% 22%

20% 18%
16% 16%
15% 13%
13% 13%
12%
11%
10%

5% 4%
3% 3% 3%3%
2% 2%
1%
0%
)

)
)

)
)

95

02
51

87

20

85

30
17

33

49

(2

(2

(3
(1

(1

(2

(2
(1

(1

(1

0+
00

50

50

00

0
0

00
80
10

10

10
-1

-2

-2

-8

00
-1
a-
P-

P-

P-
FL

FL

FL

FL

-1
FL
es
N

FL
am
G

Tubine Model (Top of Blade Height ft.)

 Figure E8
Comparison of Financial Return for Typical G2 Customer when Varying Annual Consumption

120.0% 8

7
100.0%
Percent Consumed On-Site / IRR

Years to Cash Flow Positive

6
80.0%
5
IRR-20
60.0% 4
% Production Consumed on
Site
Year Cash Flow Positive 3
40.0%
2
20.0%
1

0.0% 0
80 0

90 0

00 0

10 0

20 0

30 0

40 0

50 0

60 0
1, 000

0
00

00

00

00

00

00

00
00

00

00
0,

0,

0,

0,

0,

0,

0,

0,

0,

0,

0,
70
70

1,

1,

1,

1,

1,

1,

1,

Annual On-Site Consumption kWh (Utility + DG)

Small Commercial (G1) / Residential (R1) and Electric Heating (R3) Customers

The vast majority of the customers on Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard are associated
with a relatively small amount of annual consumption of the R1, R3, and G1 customer
classes. As they consume fewer kWh annually, there is less utility electricity
consumption to avoid, and generally should be matched up with smaller turbines.

As related above, the smaller turbines have a much higher cost per installed kW. From a
purely economic standpoint, DG wind becomes untenable for these smallest customers
and systems (when grid connected). In fact, for grid connected applications, the net
present value (NPV) becomes negative and IRR and years to positive cash flow
becomes undefined. However, from an environmental standpoint, smaller turbines may
be utilized by users looking to reduce consumption from fossil fuels and could be
subsidized by grants and other philanthropic sources.

Economic information is presented for G1, R3 and R1 rate classes below. For G1
customers using turbines in the 10 to 100 kW range (shown in Table E9, the top of blade
height is between 50 and 200 feet in height. Tables E10 and E11 show similar results
for residential rate classes (R3 and R1), though some of the tower heights are below the
50 feet. The Net Present Value (NPV) decreases for the residential customers as
compared to the G1 customer because the capital cost outlay becomes smaller with the
smaller systems (i.e., less ventured, less lost).

Table E9

Payback for Turbine-Tower Combinations Applicable for a Typical G1 Customer: 10-100 kW

Turbine Top Blade Net Present Ann. kWh $ / Installed

Height Value 20 kW
(Feet) Years
AOC_15/50_50kW 107 $(33,484) 124,018 $2,640
AOC_15/50_50kW 126 $(31,470) 133,877 $2,760
Northern 133 $(163,607) 170,434 $3,050
Power_NW100/19_100kW
Northern 149 $(158,524) 180,210 $3,070
Power_NW100/19_100kW
FL-30_30kW 128 $(125,051) 88,501 $4,233
FL-30_30kW 118 $(118,654) 86,074 $3,900
FL-30_30kW 128 $(129,104) 88,501 $4,400
FL-100_100kW 151 $(184,272) 262,620 $2,893
WTI_23-10_10kW 116 $(60,868) 20,838 $4,759
WTI_23-10_10kW 136 $(61,623) 22,155 $4,993
WTI_23-10_10kW 96 $(60,645) 19,307 $4,566
WTI_23-12.5_12.5kW 116 $(59,096) 26,047 $4,047
WTI_23-12.5_12.5kW 136 $(59,648) 27,694 $4,234
WTI_23-12.5_12.5kW 96 $(59,125) 24,134 $3,893

Table E10
Payback for Turbine-Tower Combinations Applicable for a Typical R3 Customer: 0.9-10 kW

Turbine Top Blade Net Present Ann. kWh $ / Installed

Height Value 20 kW
(Feet) Years
Bergey_Excel-S_10kW 71 $(26,136) 13,837 $4,287
Bergey_Excel-S_10kW 90 $(25,824) 15,307 $4,387
Bergey_Excel-S_10kW 110 $(25,976) 16,502 $4,517
Bergey_Excel-S_10kW 133 $(26,589) 17,650 $4,699
Bergey_XL.1_1kW 47 $(2,634) 2,166 $4,726
Bergey_XL.1_1kW 66 $(2,372) 2,470 $4,831
Bergey_XL.1_1kW 86 $(2,265) 2,703 $5,051
Bergey_XL.1_1kW 109 $(2,248) 2,921 $5,381
Bergey_XL.1_1kW 34 $(2,732) 1,897 $4,431
SouthWest_WhisperH40_0.9kW 27 $(2,167) 1,045 $2,362
SouthWest_WhisperH40_0.9kW 33 $(2,169) 1,142 $2,543
SouthWest_WhisperH40_0.9kW 53 $(1,961) 1,386 $2,649
Turbine Top Blade Net Present Ann. kWh $ / Installed
Height Value 20 kW
(Feet) Years
SouthWest_WhisperH40_0.9kW 68 $(2,035) 1,525 $3,028
SouthWest_WhisperH40_0.9kW 83 $(1,987) 1,641 $3,161
SouthWest_WhisperH80_1kW 27 $(1,558) 1,942 $2,702
SouthWest_WhisperH80_1kW 33 $(1,492) 2,101 $2,865
SouthWest_WhisperH80_1kW 53 $(1,133) 2,483 $2,960
SouthWest_WhisperH80_1kW 68 $(1,134) 2,690 $3,301
SouthWest_WhisperH80_1kW 83 $(1,033) 2,855 $3,421

Table E11
Payback for Turbine-Tower Combinations Applicable for a Typical R1 Customer: 0.9-10 kW

Turbine Top Blade Net Present Ann. kWh $ / Installed

Height Value 20 kW
(Feet) Years
Bergey_Excel-S_10kW 71 $(26,967) 13,837 $4,287
Bergey_Excel-S_10kW 90 $(26,719) 15,307 $4,387
Bergey_Excel-S_10kW 110 $(26,919) 16,502 $4,517
Bergey_Excel-S_10kW 133 $(27,576) 17,650 $4,699
Bergey_XL.1_1kW 47 $(2,591) 2,166 $4,726
Bergey_XL.1_1kW 66 $(2,341) 2,470 $4,831
Bergey_XL.1_1kW 86 $(2,244) 2,703 $5,051
Bergey_XL.1_1kW 109 $(2,239) 2,921 $5,381
Bergey_XL.1_1kW 34 $(2,683) 1,897 $4,431
SouthWest_WhisperH40_0.9kW 27 $(2,117) 1,045 $2,362
SouthWest_WhisperH40_0.9kW 33 $(2,117) 1,142 $2,543
SouthWest_WhisperH40_0.9kW 53 $(1,961) 1,386 $2,649
SouthWest_WhisperH40_0.9kW 68 $(2,035) 1,525 $3,028
SouthWest_WhisperH40_0.9kW 83 $(1,987) 1,641 $3,161
SouthWest_WhisperH80_1kW 27 $(1,558) 1,942 $2,702
SouthWest_WhisperH80_1kW 33 $(1,492) 2,101 $2,865
SouthWest_WhisperH80_1kW 53 $(1,133) 2,483 $2,960
SouthWest_WhisperH80_1kW 68 $(1,134) 2,690 $3,301
SouthWest_WhisperH80_1kW 83 $(1,033) 2,855 $3,421
Appendix F
References/Bibliography

June, 2004 49
Appendix F: References / Bibliography
For More Information:

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory operates the National Wind Technology
Center and other wind-related programs for the U.S. Department of Energy.
Tel: 303-275-3000
Website: http://www.nrel.gov/wind/

Sandia National Laboratories, located in Albuquerque, New Mexico, has been involved
in renewable energy technologies, including wind, for more than 20 years.
Tel: 925-294-3000 and 505-844-3441
Website: http://www.sandia.gov/Renewable_Energy/wind_energy/homepage.html

DOE’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Network provides information on wind
energy.
Website: http://www.eren.doe.gov/RE/wind.html

The National Wind Coordinating Committee provides a forum for identifying issues that
affect the use of wind power.
Tel: 888-764-WIND or 202-965-6398
Website: http://www.nationalwind.org

The American Wind Energy Association is a national trade association that represents
hundreds of wind energy member companies and advocates from the United States and
around the world.
Tel: 202-383-2500
Website: http://www.awea.org

The U.S. Fuel Cell Council is a national industry association that supports the
commercialization of fuel cell technology.
Tel. 202-293-5500
Website: http://www.usfcc.com/

The Solar Electric Power Association is a collaboration of utilities, the solar industry and
energy service providers.
Tel. 202-857-0898
Website: http://solarelectricpower.org/

For More Information on Avian/Wind Publications:

The Proper Use of Studying Wind Energy / Bird Interactions: A Guidance Document
August 2003 - PDF 45KB

Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines: A Summary of Existing Studies and Comparisons
to Other Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States
August 2001 - 283KB PDF
Proceedings of National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting IV
May 2000

Studying Wind Energy/Bird Interactions: A Guidance Document

December 1999 - 624KB PDF

Proceedings of National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting III

May 1998

Proceedings of National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting II

September 1995
Proceedings of National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting I
July 1994