Wind Energy Development in Montana

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Wind Energy Development in Montana"

Jonathan Carson
6 years ago
Views:

Win Energy Development in Montana Virginia Shannon Wor count: 963 Introuction: Win energy is the fastest growing renewable energy source in the Unite States at a rate of 3% annual growth per year

Developing win energy throughout the Unite States accomplishes environmental, economic, an political goals such as proviing a clean source of energy, increasing the number of local jobs, an ecreasing

eia.oe.gov). Montana is currently ranke as the 5th top state for win potential at an estimate 12 billion kwh per year (www.climatecentral.org).

1 Win Energy Development in Montana Virginia Shannon Wor count: 963 Introuction: Win energy is the fastest growing renewable energy source in the Unite States at a rate of 3% annual growth per year over the past 5 years (energy.gov). Developing win energy throughout the Unite States accomplishes environmental, economic, an political goals such as proviing a clean source of energy, increasing the number of local jobs, an ecreasing reliance on foreign fuel (winpoweringamerica.gov). The U.S. has a potential win energy estimate to provie more than 2% of electricity however win energy prouce only 1.3% of total U.S. electricity in 28 (tonto.eia.oe.gov). Montana is currently ranke as the 5th top state for win potential at an estimate 12 billion kwh per year ( To select new sites for eveloping win energy potential in Montana physical an social criteria must be closely analyze. The goal of this stuy was to fin the five most suitable cities for new win energy prouction sites base on win potential, terrain, builable area, proximity to existing infrastructure, lan ownership, an local support of win energy. 1, Miles 1 Miles Map 1. Montana with marke cities evaluate in stuy for evelopment of win energy suitability. High elevation Low elevation

Methos: New win energy prouction sites in Montana were foun base on 4 stages of analysis: removal of constraint areas an weighing of physical an social criteria, creation of a viewshe layer,

Constraints were consiere non-builable areas of open water, perennial ice or snow, evelope lan, wetlans, BLM special lans, national parks, towns, wilerness areas, an willife refuges.

2 Methos: New win energy prouction sites in Montana were foun base on 4 stages of analysis: removal of constraint areas an weighing of physical an social criteria, creation of a viewshe layer, selection of best site within top cities, an further analysis base on local support. Constraints were consiere non-builable areas of open water, perennial ice or snow, evelope lan, wetlans, BLM special lans, national parks, towns, wilerness areas, an willife refuges. Suitability of cities was etermine by weighing criteria from seven layers: win power class, proximity to power generation sites, towns, an transmission lines, egree of slope, lan ownership type, an lan cover type. A viewshe layer was create to assess the visual impact of win turbines from the historic Lewis an Clark trail as a final factor in the analysis for the suitability of cities. Cities with high suitability scores were isolate an further analyze for specific sites with high criteria. Local attitues towars win energy were assesse to unerstan the feasibility of eveloping new win energy sites in the five cities with highest suitability. Unevelopable lan: 1 Miles Map 2. A shapefile of the state of Montana was use to create a raster of constraint area. All constraints were erase consecutively from the shapefile to prouce a final shapefile with constraint areas classifie as. 1 Miles Constraint area Consiere area Map 3. The constraint areas erase from Montana are non-builable areas because of physical limitations of open water, perennial ice or snow, evelope lan, roas, an towns or legal limitations of national parks, wilerness area, willife refuges, an BLM special lan. All the remaining lan was consiere as potential lan for win energy sites.

Physical an social criteria: To weigh criteria in orer to create a suitability inex for every location in Montana, each criteria layer was broken into

Further istances were least esirable base on the principal that a transmission line is $15, to $5, per mile an therefore the further away, the steeper the cost.

Eucliean istances from all Montana points to power statations in 37-mile increments. Map 6.

Eucliean istances from all Montana points to transmission lines in 5-mile increments. Map 8.

3 Physical an social criteria: To weigh criteria in orer to create a suitability inex for every location in Montana, each criteria layer was broken into sub-criteria classes. All sub-criteria were given score 1-1. Eucliean istance layers were reclasse into 5 classes that showe close to far istances. Further istances were least esirable base on the principal that a transmission line is $15, to $5, per mile an therefore the further away, the steeper the cost. 1 Miles Criteria scores Map 4. Eucliean istances from all Montana points to cities in 2-mile increments. Map 5. Eucliean istances from all Montana points to power statations in 37-mile increments. Map 6. Lan ownership was score in ascening orer of state parks an willife management areas, private, national forests, feeral lan. Map 7. Eucliean istances from all Montana points to transmission lines in 5-mile increments. Map 8. Slope was score in 4 classes: ieal (-5 egrees), ok (5-1 egrees), not ieal (1-15 egrees), an not useable (15 egrees an above) Map 9. Win power class was score for classes above 4 as suitable for generating win energy with 7 being the highest at a score of 1. Map 1. Lan cover was score by how easy builing is by type: grasslan (1), barren lan (8), cultivate crops (5), mixe forest (1).

Map 11. All criteria layers were put into a weighte evaluation to prouce a suitability inex for every location in Montana.

8, proximity to transmission lines =.6, proximity to towns =.4, an proximity to power sites = Suitability inex.2. Value High suitability : 1 1 Miles Low suitability:.

The suitability inexes for each location within the city buffer were average together to prouce an average suitability inex for each city in Montana.

4 Map 11. All criteria layers were put into a weighte evaluation to prouce a suitability inex for every location in Montana. Weights represente the importance of the criteria in the suitability of a location for builling win energy sites out of 1.: win power =.4, slope =.2, lan ownership =.2, lan mt_state cover =.8, proximity to transmission lines =.6, proximity to towns =.4, an proximity to power sites = Suitability inex.2. Value High suitability : 1 1 Miles Low suitability: Low suitability cities Top 1 most suitable cities 5 Miles Map 12. Cities were ae onto the suitability inex raster an given a 2-mile buffer. The suitability inexes for each location within the city buffer were average together to prouce an average suitability inex for each city in Montana. The cities were reclasse into top 1 high suitability cities. Scenic consieration: Map 13. A viewshe from NAME the Lewis an Clark Trail was create to take into Baker consieration the impact of new win Big Timber turbines on the lanscape an horizon Chinook from Conra the scenic trail. Cities were eliminate if a Cut Bank majority of their buffer zone coul be seen Fort Benton from the Lewis an Clark Trail to avoi Harlem possible resistence to builing win energy Harlowton sites because of "not in my back yar" Havre synrome. Top 1 most suitable cities Lewis an Clark Trail Not seen Seen 1 Miles

A potential site in each of the top five cities was chosen by looking closely at suitability for each layer an

Once a site was chosen base on all of the criteria broken own into iniviual layers it was put on the map of

Criteria scores 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Transmission lines Not seen Seen Map 14.

1 Miles Map 17. Slope in Havre, Montana. Map 18. View from Lewis an Clark Trail in Havre, Montana. Map 19.

Local support: Baker Chinook Harlem Havre Fort Benton Counties Low green mentality High green mentality 1 Miles

Green mentality in counties of the top 1 cities was mappe base on means of travel to work for 16 years an oler

5 A potential site in each of the top five cities was chosen by looking closely at suitability for each layer an fining the best site. Maps show how the site evaluation was one in the top five cities. Once a site was chosen base on all of the criteria broken own into iniviual layers it was put on the map of overall suitability to make sure it matche with an area of high suitability an was not on any constraint areas. Criteria scores Transmission lines Not seen Seen Map 14. Lan ownership in Havre, Montana Map 15. Lan cover in Havre, Montana. Map 16. Win power in Havre, Montana. 1 Miles Map 17. Slope in Havre, Montana. Map 18. View from Lewis an Clark Trail in Havre, Montana. Map 19. Overall suitability for a chosen site in Havre, Montana. Local support: Baker Chinook Harlem Havre Fort Benton Counties Low green mentality High green mentality 1 Miles Map 2. Green mentality in counties of the top 1 cities was mappe base on means of travel to work for 16 years an oler from 2 census ata. Green travel (public transportation, motorcycle, bike, an walk) were ivie by the ifference of total travel an work at home to create a ratio of green commuters. Green mentality was associate with green commuters by assuming those who conserve energy by transportation woul be intereste in green energy prouction.

Results: Baker Chinook Harlem Havre Fort Benton Power generation sites Transmission lines Lewis an Clark Trail 1 Miles Map 21. Top five suitable cities for new win energy prouction.

Within these city buffers, suitability inex was high an evelopment of win energy sites ha the least impact on views from the Lewis an Clark Trail.

6 Results: Baker Chinook Harlem Havre Fort Benton Power generation sites Transmission lines Lewis an Clark Trail 1 Miles Map 21. Top five suitable cities for new win energy prouction. Analysis suggeste that the top five cities in Montana for new evelopment of win energy prouction were Havre, Chinook, Harlem, Fort Benton, an Baker. Within these city buffers, suitability inex was high an evelopment of win energy sites ha the least impact on views from the Lewis an Clark Trail. Green mentality within the top five cities varie high to low. Havre, Hill County ha the greatest green mentality, suggesting the citizens may better receive plans for new win power evelopment. Both Blaine County an Hill County ranke high for green mentality in the northern region whereas Wheatlan County an Fallen County ranke lowest for green mentality in the southern regions. Currently, the largest win farm in Montana is the Juith Gap Win Energy Center that proucts 15 megawatts of power from 9 turbines (nrc.mt.gov). The largest selecte site from the top five cities in Montana was 4 times the size of the Juith Gap Win Energy Center with 2,357 acres to support 3,535 win turbines in Chinook, Montana (Map 23). Chinook woul be a goo location because of its close proximity to Harlem an Havre because energy coul be use to power the neighboring cities without too much loss through transmission or the steep costs of builing long istance transmission lines. Center of Havre Roas Transmission lines Selecte site 5 Miles Map 22. Havre ha an average suitability inex of The site cannot be seen from the Lewis an Clark Trail, has class 4 wins, is on BLM lan, an has suitability scores of 8. The potential site is approximately 1,85 acres, which coul fit up to 2,77 win turbines.

A Multi-Criteria Evaluation of Wind Power in Montana

A Multi-Criteria Evaluation of Wind Power in Montana Finding the top 5 incorporated Cities Mia Lieb-Lappen Middlebury College December 7, 2009 Word Count: 968 I. INDRODUCTION Montana has the 5 th highest