International comparisons of energy use and the environment: Does it make sense to call on wind power?

European Environmental Law Review

Volumn 15, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 162-174

  Langenkamp, R Dobie ^a   Zedalis, Rex J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TULSA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EMISSION CONTROL; ENERGY USE; ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE; GREENHOUSE GAS; KYOTO PROTOCOL; WIND POWER;

EID: 33745686656     PISSN: 09661646     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (165)

1. See "Oil Prices Climb to All-Time High", BBC News-World Edition, 13 May 2004, available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/ 3709749.stm (accessed Oct. 14, 2005);
2. "Oil and Gasoline Rise to Records as Demand May Outpace Supply", Bloomberg.com, 18 March 2005, available at http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news (accessed 15 October 2005);
3. Mark Chediak, "Gasoline Prices Climb Sharply, Hit New High", Washingtonpost.com, 12 August 2005, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/11/ AR2005081102017.html (accessed 15 October 2005).
4. For the very latest information of relevance, see e.g., American Academy for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), "New Study in Science Warns of Greenland's Accelerating Glaciers" (16 February 2006), available at www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0216ice.shtml (accessed 20 February 2006);
5. Andrew Bridges, "Greenland Glaciers Meltina at Faster Rate", Washingtonpost.com (17 February 2006), available at www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/ AR2006021700577.html (accessed 20 February 2006).
6. See also Curtiss Morgan, "Wetter Atmosphere Linked to Warming", The Seattle Times, 7 October 2005, available at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002545205_warmo7.html (accessed 7 October 2005)(satellite confirmation that moisture levels in atmosphere rising at rates projected by global warming computer models).
7. For text of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1997), see http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf (accessed 10 December 2005).
8. Regarding update information on the implementation of the Convention, see generally United Nations Convention on Climate Change site, available at http://unfccc.int/2860.php (accessed 10 December 2005).
9. Alternative energy sources currently available include, wind power, solar, geothermal, wave/current/tidal, ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC), etc. For discussions of these, see generally U.S. Dep't of Energy, Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, Solar Energy Technologies Program: Multi Year Program Plan 2007-2011 (2005);
10. Geothermal Resources Council, Geothermal Energy - The Reliable Renewable (2004);
11. Gordon Feller, Wind, Waves & Tides: Economically Viable Energy from the World's Oceans (EcoWorld 2002);
12. Patrick Takahashi, Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (1996).
13. On the economic viability of the alternative energy sources currently available, see e.g., Karen Palmer & Dallas Burtaw, Electricity, Renewables and Climate Change: Searching for a Cost-Efective Policy (Resource For the Future, May 2004).
14. See International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook: 2004 Edition at 430, "Reference Scenario: World" (Total Primary Energy Supply).
15. See ibid. (Total Final Consumption).
16. The actual figures indicate that electrical generating facilities consumed 3,764 MTOEs of input to meet end user demands for electricity at the level of 1,139 MTOEs. See ibid.
17. (Power Generation and Heat Plants) and (Total Final Consumption). It should be noted that, when the 3,764 MTOEs of input consumed by electricity generating facilities is adjusted down-ward to account for standard energy loss, and that product is then added to the 7,075 MTOEs consumed by end users of all energy sources, the total of 10,300 MTOEs is then approached.
18. See ibid. "Reference Scenario: World" (Total Final Consumption). Compare with the text accompanying below note 88 (2002 IEA Report based on figures for year 2000 showing 11% for combustible renewables and waste).
19. See ibid. at 438 "Reference Scenario: OECD North America" (Total Final Consumption).
20. See ibid. at 462 "Reference Scenario: OECD Europe" (Total Final Consumption).
21. See ibid. at 450, "Reference Scenario: OECD Pacific" (Total Final Consumption).
22. See ibid. at 430, "Reference Scenario: World" (Total Final Consumption - Electricity).
23. See ibid. at 431 "Reference Scenario: World" (Total Final Consumption - Transport).
24. See ibid. (Industry - Coal, Oil, and Gas; Other Sectors - Coal, Oil, and Gas).
25. See ibid. at 462, "Reference Scenario: OECD Europe," (Total Final Consumption Electricity; Transport; Industry - Coal, Oil, and Gas; Other Sectors - Coal, Oil, and Gas).
26. See ibid. at 438-39, "Reference Scenario: OECD North America" (Total Final Consumption - Electricity; Transport; Industry - Coal, Oil, and Gas; Other Sectors -Coal, Oil, and Gas).
27. See ibid. at 450-51, "Reference Scenario: OECD Pacific" (Total Final Consumption - Electricity; Transport; Industry - Coal, Oil, and Gas; Other Sectors - Coal, Oil, and Gas).
28. See text accompanying above note 5. But again, since the total amount of MTOEs of raw inputs used to generate the electricity consumed by end users greatly exceeds the MTOEs actually delivered, the actual figure for world MTOEs consumed in 2002 might be better stated at the previously referenced figure of 7,075 MTOEs.
29. See text accompanying above notes 5-7. Nonetheless, the figures used in the material that follows will be based on total world consumption at the 10,300 + MTOE figure.
30. See Energy Information Administration, International Energ, Outlook: 2005 Edition at 92. Note that this is stated in year 2000 dollars.
31. That figure is derived by dividing world total GDP of (US)$47,227 billion by 10,369 MTOEs. If one were to use the alternative world MTOE figure of 7,075, representing what was consumed by end users, the 0.22 MTOEs per $1000 of GDP would be reduced downward to roughly 0.15 MTOEs per $1000 of GDP. Again, what follows is based, however, on the 10,300 MTOE figure.
32. The figure here is for all raw energy inputs consumed, includnig those consumed by electrical generating facilities. To reiterate, such facilities consume several times more raw energy in inputs than they supply to end users as electricity.
33. See International Energy Outlook: 2005 Edition, above note 19 at 89, App. A, Tb1. A1 (North America).
34. See International Energy Outlook: 2005 Edition, above note 19 at 89, App. A, Tb1. A1 (North America). 37
35. See ibid. at 89, App. A, Tb1. A1 (Japan; Australia/New Zealand; South Korea).
36. See ibid. at 92 (Japan; Australia/New Zealand; South Korea (Billion 2000 US$)). 36 See International Energy Outlook: 2005 Edition, above note 19 at 89, App. A, Tb1. A1 (North America).
37. See ibid. at 89, App. A, Tb1. A1 (Western Europe). 36 See International Energy Outlook: 2005 Edition, above note 19 at 89, App. A, Tb1. A1 (North America).
38. See ibid. at 92 (Western Europe (Billion 2000 US $)). 36 See International Energy Outlook: 2005 Edition, above note 19 at 89, App. A, Tb1. A1 (North America).
39. See Energy Policies of IEA Countries: 2004 Review at 377, Part 3.2 "Energy Balances and Key Statistical Data of IEA Countries" (United States, Germany, United Kingdom, and Japan).
40. See OECD, Gross Domestic Product (chart based on current prices), available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/4/33727936.pdf (accessed 15 November 2005). For comparative GDP figures for all of OECD North America, Pacific, and Western Europe, see text accompanying above notes 23, 25, and 27.
41. See OECD in Figures: Statistics on the Member Countries (2004 edition) at 45, available at http://www1.oecd.org/publications/e-book/ 0104071E.PDF (accessed 15 November 2005).
42. See ibid. at 44.
43. See ibid. at 45. 44 See OECD in Figures: Statistics on the Member Countries (2004 edition) at 45, available at http://www1.oecd.org/ publications/e-book/0104071E.PDF (accessed 15 November 2005).
44. See ibid. at 44.
45. These figures are arrived at by dividing MTOEs of primary energy consumed in the respective industrial sectors by total GDP for the particular country.
46. As for particular reasons for these disparities, one might suggest two of those previously alluded to: low North American energy costs, historically; and vast travel distances. It may be another reason in operation has been the fact that, until the late 1960s, the United States faced relatively little competition in domestic and international market place. Simply because of geographical proximity, the European nations found themselves in the position of facing greater inter-continent competition. The distinction between these situations could translate into different attitudes regarding energy savings in the production of products.
47. 2 Emissions).
48. See text accompanying above note 12.
49. 2 Emissions).
50. See ibid. at 441, "Reference Scenario: OECD North America" (Total CO2 Emissions).
51. See ibid. at 453, "Reference Scenario: OECD Pacific" (Total CO2 Emissions).
52. See ibid. at 465, "Reference Scenario: OECD Europe" Transport)/
53. See ibid. (Industry: Other Sectors).
54. See ibid. (Power Generation and Heat Plants).
55. See ibid. at 441, "Reference Scenario: OECD North America," (Transport).
56. See ibid. (Industry: Other Sources).
57. See ibid. (Power Generation and Heat Plants).
58. See ibid. at 453, "Reference Scenario: OECD Pacific," (Transport).
59. See ibid. (Industry: Other Sectors).
60. See ibid. (Power Generation and Heat Plants).
61. See above note 39.
62. 2 Emissions).
63. See above note 40.
64. See text accompanying above note 44.
65. See text accompanying above note 41.
66. See text accompanying above note 47.
67. See text accompanying above note 16.
68. See text accompanying above note 15.
69. See text accompanying above note 17.
70. See International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook: 2004 Edition at 441, "Reference Scenario: OECD North America" (Industry; Other Sectors).
71. See text accompanying above note 16.
72. See above note 59 at 465, "Reference Scenario: OECD
73. See text accompanying above note 12.
74. See above note 59 at 453, "Reference Seenario: OECD Pacific" (Industry; Other Sectors).
75. See text accompanying above note 17.
76. See text accompanying above note 15.
77. See text accompanying above note 43.
78. See text accompanying above note 17.
79. See text accompanying above note 49.
80. See text accompanying above note 16.
81. See text accompanying above note 46.
82. See International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook: 2004 Edition at 462, "Reference Scenario: OECD Europe" Power Generation and Heat Plants).
83. See text accompanying above note 66.
84. See above note 71 at 450, "Reference Scenario: OECD Pacific" (Power Generation and Heat Plants).
85. See text accompanying above note 68.
86. See above note 71 at 438, "Reference Scenario: OECD North America" (Power Generation and Heat Plants).
87. See text accompanying above note 70.
88. See his call for increased international competitiveness, reduction of foreign hydrocarbon imports, and the development of renewable energy alternatives, mentioning wind power in particular, (speech transcript) "President Bush Speaks on his 2006 Agenda", Washingtonpost.com (1 February 2006), available at www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/context/ article/2006/02/01/AR2006020101410.html (accessed 2 February 2006).
89. See also, John D. McKinnon & Christopher Cooper, "Bush Aims to Cut Energy Imports, Ease War Anxiety", Wall Street Journal 1 February 2006 at A1, col. 6;
90. Elizabeth Bumiller, "Bush's Goals on Energy Quickly Find Obstacles", New York Times 2 February 2006 at A1, col. 2.
91. See e.g., First National Power, Powering the future with Green Power, available at www.firstnationalpower.com (accessed 19 February 2006);
92. AWEA News Release, "Renewable Portfolio Standard Adopted by New York State", available at www.awea.org/news/news040924.nys.html (accessed Feb. 19, 2006);
93. OG&E, "OG&E Wind Power", available at www.oge.com/es/ wp/default.asp (accessed 19 February 2006).
94. See text accompanying above note 6.
95. See text accompanying above note 12.
96. See text accompanying above note 14.
97. See text accompanying below notes 89-94 (discussing some projections of somewhere in the vicinity of 10% of electricity being supplied by wind power in the next couple of decades).
98. See Global Wind Energy Council, Global Wind Power Continues Expansion at 2 (4 March 2005)(based on 12% of world's electricity supplied from wind by 2020), available at www.awea.org/news/ 03-04-o5-GlobalWindEnergyMarkets.pdf (accessed 9 February 2006).
99. See Renewables in Global Energy Supply: An IEA Fact Sheet (Nov. 2002) at 1, available at www.iea.org/textbase/papers/2002/leaflet.pdf (accessed 10 January 2006).
100. See ibid.
101. See ibid.
102. See ibid. (2000 Fuel Shares of World Total Primary Energy Suppy). Compare with above note 9 (2004 IEA Report showing figures for 2002 at 14% for biomass and waste). (2000 Fuel Shares of World Total Primary Energy Suppy). Compare with above note 9 (2004 IEA Report showing figures for 2002 at 14% for biomass and waste)
103. See ibid. (2000 Fuel Shares of World Total Primary Energy Suppy). Compare with above note 9 (2004 IEA Report showing figures for 2002 at 14% for biomass and waste)
104. See ibid. (2000 Fuel Shares of World Total Primary Energy Suppy). Compare with above note 9 (2004 IEA Report showing figures for 2002 at 14% for biomass and waste)
105. See ibid. (2000 Fuel Shares of World Total Primary Energy Suppy). Compare with above note 9 (2004 IEA Report showing figures for 2002 at 14% for biomass and waste)
106. For a review of the international legal principles applicable to the search for and use of these alternative renewables, see Rex J. Zedalis, International Energy Law: Rules Governing Future Exploration, Exploitation and Use of Renewable Resources (2000).
107. See above note 77. (Total Primary Energy Supply)
108. See Union of Concerned Scientists, Strong Winds: Opportunites for Rural Economic Development Blow Across Nebraska (2001), available at http://go.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/archive/page.cfm?pageID-132 (accessed 18 January 2006);
109. American Wind Energy Assoc., Wind Power in Pennsylvania, available at www.awea.org/pennsylvania/ (accessed 18 January 2006).
110. See Louise Guey-Lee, Forces Behind Wind Power (February 2001)(text accompanying note 5), available at www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/ solar.renewables/rea_issues/wind.html (accessed 18 January 2006);
111. American Wind Energy Assoc., Wind Energy: An Untapped Resource, available at www.awea.org/pub/factsheets/ Wind_Energy_An_Untapped_Resource.pdf (accessed 18 January 2006).
112. See "Germany split over green energy", BBC News, 25 February 2005, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4295389.stm (accessed 26 January 2006).
113. See Danish Wind Energy Assoc., Map and Text, available at www.windpower.org/en/tour/wres/dkmap.htm (accessed 26 January 2006).
114. See European Wind Energy Assoc., Wind Force 12 (2005), available at www.ewea.org/index.php?id=30 (accessed 20 January 2006).
115. See Lester R. Brown, Wind Power Set to Become World's Leading Energy Source (20 June 2003-4)(Earth Policy Institute - Eco-Economy Updates), available at www.earth-policy.org/Updates24.htm (accessed 20 January 2006)
116. See text accompanying above note 93. (Total Primary Energy Supply)
117. This represents total US net summer generation capacity for 2004. See Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Annual: 2004, available at www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html (accessed 3 February 2006).
118. See generally American Wind Energy Assoc., How may turbines does it take to make one megawatt (MW)?, available at www.awea.org/fag/tutorial/ wwt_basics.html (accessed 3 February 2006)(the absolute largest turbines have a 6mw capacity).
119. Information suggests that turbines run somewhere between 65-90% of the time, but typically at less than full capacity. This results in actual output ranging from 25-40% of absolute capacity. See generally American Wind Energy Assoc., What is capacity factor, available at www.awea.org/ fag/tutorial/wwt_basics.html (accessed 3 February 2006).
120. Again, assuming a 1.5mw turbine operating at 33% capacity, this results in absolute capacity output of .450mw. By dividing the total desired capacity figure of 96,000mw by the absolute output of 0.450mw, a yield of 213,000+ units results.
121. The (US)$1.5 million for a single 1.5 mw turbine is used here as a convenient, though roughly accurate, estimate. It should also be noted that actual estimates place equipment and installation costs between (US)$1 million per mw capacity to nearly (US)$1.8 million, see EcoNorthwest, A Guidebook for Estimating Local Economic Benefits of Small Wind Power Projects for Rural Counties in Washington State at 8-9 (Portland, Ore. 14 January 2005), available at www.econw.com/pdf/ wind_guidebook_011405.pdf (accessed 9 February 2006).
122. See J. Barth, Coal-Fired Power Production at 4 (April 2004), available at www.ef.org/documents/CoalFiredPowerProduction.pdf (accessed 3 February 2006)(noting an IGCC coal-fired plant capital cost of (US)$1,300 per kw (or $1.3 million per mw).
123. In fact, at 1994 study on California wind turbines suggested at average rate of about 23%. See California Energy Comm'n, Wind Project Performance: 1994 Summary at 1, 25 (Sacramento: CEC, 1 August 1995).
124. See "Alternative Energy Gets Real", BusinessWeek Online (27 December 2004), available at www.businessweekonline. com/magazine/ content/04_52/b3914456.htm (accessed 4 February 2006);
125. Christopher Perdue, "Uncertainty Continues Over Wind Tax Credit", ElectricEnergy Online (14 September 2004), available at ElectricEnergyOnline. com/IndustryNews.asp?m = lid = 26651 (accessed 4 February 2006).
126. See AWEA, Wind Energy Fact Sheet, available at www.awea.org (accessed 15 December 2005);
127. AWEA (Press Release), Wind Power Program Debuts in New Mexico (19 February 1999), available at www.igc.apc.org/awea/news/wpa6.html (accessed 19 December 2005).
128. Oregon electric rates for customers of wind power from Wyoming pay an additional (U.S)$3.09 per 1000 kwh (or 3.09 cents per kwh). See Utility Wind Energy, Electricity From Wyoming Winds Used in Oregon, available at http://healthenergy.com/Utility _wind_power.htm (accessed 4 February 2006).
129. For a review of electric feed laws in Europe, see Gipe, below note 124 at 214, tbl.
130. This is based on the following calculations: 96,000mw (or 96,000,000kw) to reach the 10% figure (see text accompanying above notes 100-01); 96,000,000kw × 24 hours per day = 2,304,000,000kwh; 2,304,000,000 × 365 days per year = 840,960,000,000kwh per year; 840,960,000,000kwh per year × (US)$.048 = (U.S.)$40,366,080,000.
131. It should be noted here that state-of-the-art nitros oxide and sulfur oxide scrubbers for a 1000mw coal-powered plant run in the vicinity of (US)$300 million. Given the (US)$310 billion involved in a wind power program designed to produce 10% of US electricity by early in the second decade of the 21st century, nearly 1,000 scrubbers could be purchased. This is well more than enough to scrub the entire coal-fired capacity of the United States.
132. This is based on the following calculation: (US)$14,476 per month × 12 = $173,712 per year. See Loan Payments Handbook at 262 (1974)(listing payment of $144.76 per month on $15,000: $14,476 on $1.5 million).
133. This is based on the following calculation: (US)$25,483 per month × 12 = $305,796 per year. See Loan Payments Handbook at 566 (1974)(listing payment of $254.38 per month on $15,000: $25,438 on $1.5 million).
134. For indications of a recent German report raising questions about whether it would make more sense to use the monies associated with that government's commitment to supply 20% of its electrical energy from wind turbines over the next decade on simply enhancing home energy efficiency and retrofitting existing power plants, see Luke Harding, John Vidal & Alok Jha, "Report doubts future of wind power", Guardian Unlimited (26 February 2005), available at http://society.guardian.co.uk/ environment/story/0,14124,1425868,00.htm (accessed 9 February 2006). It bears observing, however, that anytime you can get debt recovery costs to as low as four cents per kwh, it could make the installation of wind turbines economical for individuals wishing to install them for their own off-grid needs. After, in such situations one would not have to be concerned with covering wage-based operating expenses, land rental costs, marketing, transmission and distribution costs, or producing profits. The focus in this brief essay, though, is on large-scale wind farms integrated into the community-wide electric power generation system. Thus, costs, expenses, and additions of that sort cannot be avoided.
135. See generally Federal Energy Regulatory Comm'n, Assessing the State of Wind Energy in Wholesale Electricity Markets (Docket NO. AD04-13-000) at 20 (Nov. 2004).
136. See also K. Kasiperumal & R. Ramakumar, "Factors Limiting the Penetration of Wind Power", 37th Annual Frontiers of Power Conf. Proceedings, Oklahoma State University (25-26 October 2004).
137. On the problem of fluctuations and low voltage ride-through (LVRT), see Nicholas N. Miller, "Successful Integration of Wind Generation: Comments on AWEA Petition", FERC Technical Conf. 24 September 2004.
138. See generally In the Matter of: Interconnection for Wind Energy and Other Alternative Technologies (Docket NO. PL04-15-000) (24 September 2004).
139. See In the Matter of: Interconnection, ibid. at 172-73 (on LVRT)
140. See generally Power Systems Engineering Research Center, Reactive Power Support Services in Electricity Markets, Pub. No. 00-08 (May 2001).
141. See FERC Order No. 888, Promoting Competition Through Open Access, available at www.ferc.gov/legal/majord-reg/land-docs/order888.asp (accessed 6 February 2006).
142. See Power Systems Engineering Research Center, Reactive Power Support Services in Electricity Markets at 2 (2001).
143. See Avian Subcommittee of the National Wind Coordinating Committee, Studying Wind Energy/Bird Interactions: A Guidance Document at 1 (1999), available at www.nationalwind. org/publications/avian/avian99/ Avian_booklet.pdf (accessed 6 February 2006).
144. See ibid.
145. See Paul Gipe, Wind Power at 299 (Chelsea Green Pub. Co., 2004).
146. See "The Effect on Birds", in The Case Against Wind "farms", Country Guardian (May 2000), available at www.countryguardian.net/case.htm#iwider (accessed 6 February 2006).
147. On blade speed, see e.g., Country Guardian, What's Wrong with Windfarms: The Case Against Windfarms" at Sec. L., available at www.countryguardian.net/case (accessed 5 January 2006).
148. See also Vol. 1 Wind Energy - The Facts: Technology at 20 (complied by P. Gardner, et. al.)
149. See Vol. 1 Wind Energy, ibid at 67 (13 metres across and up to 2 metres in depth).
150. For another suggestion on turbine foundations, see Combination Spread Footing With Micropiles, available at www.comtechsystems.com/Articles/ CSFM.pdf (accessed 7 February 2006).
151. See Vol. 1 Wind Energy, ibid. at 66.
152. Utilising 50 year wind loads as a benchmark for offshore wind turbines, see generally Recommendation for Technical Approval of Offshore Wind Turbines (December 2001), available at www.wt-certification.dk/Common/ RecomOffshore12UK.pdf (accessed 1 March 2006)
153. The calculation to arrive at this figure depends on what one means by "across." Assuming that "across" means from corner to opposite corner, the process would involve the following. Divide the hexagon into six triangles, since this is the easiest way to work with hexagons (and other regular [i.e., each side is the same length] shapes with an even number of sides). In the case of a hexagon, this would result in six equilateral triangles, with all sides equal in length, and all angles exactly 60 degrees in arc. We then divide each equilateral triangle into two right triangles. Now, because we know the hexagon is 43 feet in length, we know that the distance from the exact center of the hexagon to one of the corners is 43/2 feet. This means each equilateral triangle has sides measuring 43/2 feet (also meaning that each "side" of the hexagon is 43/2 feet in length). Dividing the equilateral triangle into two right triangles, each right triangle will have interior angles measuring 30, 60, and 90 degrees. The side that the 90 degree angle "opens to" measures 43/2 units in length (because we didn't actually do anything to this side). The side that the 30 degree angle "opens to" measures 43/4 units in length (because we merely divided it into half). The side that the 60 degree angle "opens to" requires a bit of trigonometry (trig). One of the trig dentities is Tangent (X) = Opposite/Adjacent, the latter two being lengths of sides relative to the angle X. Opposite is the length of the side that the angle "opens to'. Adjacent is the length of the side that the angle is measured from (not the hypotenuse - the longest side in the triangle; our hypotenuse measures 43/2 and our adjacent side measures 43/4, if you draw it out). Plugging numbers into our equation, we see that Tan (60) = Opposite/(43/4). Multiplying both sides of the quation by (43/4), we see that (43/4) × Tan (60) = Opposite, which equals about 18.625 feet (rounded down). Having the length of the two sides of the right triangle, we then solve for the area of the right triangle. This is done by calculating the area of a square/rectangle with similar dimensions (43/4 by 18.625), and then dividing by two, since a triangle is always perfectly half the area of a rectangle with similar dimensions. We then see that the area of each right triangle is equal to: (1/2) × (43/4) × 18.625 = 100.11 square feet. Rebuilding the haxagon now, we reassemble two right triangles to form an equilateral triangle, so the area of each equilateral triangle is equal to: 2 × 100.11 = 200.22 square feet. Assembling six equilateral triangles into our hexagon, we multiply the area of each equilateral triangle by six... 6 × 200.22 = 1,201.32 square feet. This is the surface area of each hexagon. Because we have 30 of these, the total area is equal to: 30 × 1,201.32 = 36,039.6 square feet. To find the volume, we multiply area by depth, so... 6 × 36039.6 = 216,237.6 cubic feet for the total operation. If, however, we measure the hexagon "across", not from corner to corner, but rather splitting a side in half (edge-to-edge), keep this in mind: while the angles of the triangles thereby created will be exactly the same as those stated in the preceding explanation, the lengths of the triangles" sides will not. Since the hexagon measures 43 feet across from edge-to-edge, we know that the middle of the hexagon lies precisely 43/2 feet away from the middle of an edge (e.g., it would form a line perfectly perpendicular to the edge if one were to draw a line from the center of the hexagon). This means that the length of the side Opposite the 60 degree angle in our right triangle measures exactly 43/2 feet in length. It also means that the length of the Adjacent side is now unknown, and we may use the earlier referenced trig formula to solve for the unknown: specifically, Tan (60) = (43/2)/Adjacent. In short, this would mean that the length of the Adjacent side = (43/2)/Tan (60), or 12.413 feet in length We then repeat the calculation with the different values for side-length... The area of each right triangle would thus be (1/2) × (43/2) × (12.413) = 133.44 square feet Each equilateral triangle equals 266.88 square feet The surface area of each hexagon would thereby equal 1,601.277 square feet. When multiplied by 30 units, the total surface area would come in at 48,038.31 square feet Given that each hexagonal shaped hole is 6 feet in depth, he total volume for the entire project would then be 288,229.86 cubic feet
154. See Renewable Energy Access, "Germany Inaugurates 5MW Wind Turbine Prototype", available at http://renewable energyaccess.com/ren/news/ story?id=21962 (accessed Feb. 25, 2006) (hub height 120 metres, or 394 feet, plus blade length of 61.5 metres, or roughly 175 feet).
155. For specifics on the 5MW turbine built by the German company, REpower Systems, see www.repower.de/fileadmin/download/produkte/RE_PP_5M_uk.pdf (accessed Feb. 25, 2006).
156. See Paul Gipe, Wind Energy Comes of Age 252 (1995)(most frequently mentioned objection to wind energy is the aesthetic impact on the rural vista.).
157. See Jennifer Peter, "They Call the Wind Pariah", Assoc. Press (12 August 2003).
158. See also Jennifer Peter, "Celebrities Protest Vast Wind Farm Proposed off Massachusetts Coast", Assoc. Press (12 August 2003), available at www.enn.com/news/2003-08-12/s_7414.asp (accessed 31 December 2003).
159. See Paul Gipe, Wind Power, above note 124 at 274-75.
160. For a legal dispute involving such, see On the Application of Ecogen Developments Ltd v. Secretary of State for Trade & Industry [2001] EWHC Admin. 1139 CO/2144/2001 available at www.ecogen.co.uk/kielder/ permissionjudgement.shtml, (accessed 8 February 2006).
161. See generally, UK Dept of Trade & Industry, Renewables, available at www.dti.gov.uk/renewables/renew_3.5.1.7.htm (accessed 8 February 2006) (discussing risks to aircraft).
162. See e.g., Herbert J. Sutherland and Paul S. Veers, "Fatigue Case Study and Reliability Analyses for Wind Turbines", Wind Energy Tech., Sandia National Labs (Albuquerque, NM, 1995), available at www.sandia.gov/wind/asme/ASME95pxxx.pdf (accessed 8 February 2006);
163. H.J. Sutherland & N.D. Kelley, Fatigue Damage Estimate Comparisons from Northern European and U.S. Wind Farm Loading Environments, available at www.sandia.gov/wind/other/AWEA3-95A.pdf (accessed 8 February 2006).
164. See Country Guardian, What's Wrong with Windfarms, above note 126 at Sec. J.
165. See ibid.