This document discusses wind energy potential in Carroll County, Virginia. It provides information on turbine specifications, estimated energy production from wind turbines, and considerations for wind farm development including environmental impacts, regulations, community acceptance, and economic benefits. Specifically: 1) Turbines of 80m height could produce an estimated 5058.9 MWh of energy per turbine annually, enough to power homes in Carroll County 14 times. 2) Key factors for successful wind projects include strong wind resources, access to transmission infrastructure, willing landowners, permissible sites, and market access. 3) Development requires addressing regulations on setbacks, noise, shadow flicker, decommissioning, and impacts to wildlife, tourism, and property

1. Turbine Base
Thickness: 3-6” (varies)
Width: 50” (typical)
Max Depth: 10” (typical)
Depth of soil cover: 3” +
Minimizes impact
72 Turbines?
Annual energy = 364,240 (MW/yr), that’s enough to
power homes in Carroll County 14 times!
WIND ENERGY IN APPALACHIA’S
MOUNTAIN HERITAGE, CARROLL COUNTY, VA
WIND ENERGY POTENTIAL
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
TYPES OF WIND IN CARROLL Annual Average Wind Speed
at 80 meters
Annual Average Wind Speed
at 30 metersTransmission Line
Voltage (kV)
115-138
161
230
500
765
U.S. Department of Energy NREL 2010U.S. Department of Energy NREL 2012
The black area in the GIS map above by Appalachian
State University is the area with a wind power class 3
or higher and highly associated with forestland. 92% of
the black area is forested area. A site selected should
consider the fact that wind farms can interfere with
conservation efforts, particularly in respect to wildlife.
These constraints result in the creation of buffers. Most
localities do not have established buffer regulations or
do not make the information readily available.
Residential Scale
30 - 100’ towers
Blade diameter 10-20
2-10 kw capacity
Power 1-5 homes
Wind class 1-2+
Community Scale
80 - 120’ towers,
Blade diameter 40-60
20-100 kw capacity
Power for 10-50 homes
Wind class 3+
Electricity production for
Annual Average Wind
Speed at 50 meters
U.S. Department of Energy NREL 2003
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, LANDSCAPE PRESERVATION
STUDY: ASU AND TVA, 2009 WIND RESOURCE ASSESSMENT: SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN RIDGES
Researchers collected data at 50 m on nine ridge top sites
between 2002 and 2005. The southern Appalachian Mountains
contain an abundant and verified wind resource. Wind projects
will likely be linear along the ridge top and relatively small.
Wind speed increases 20% at nighttime & decreases 20% in
daytime. Summer power densities are five times lower than
in winter. A winter nighttime production peak matches well
with the region’s power load profile. Winter nighttime power
generation would effectively reduce peak load for Appalachia’s
common electric heating.
Bat mortality at Buffalo Mt and at the Mountaineer wind project
in nearby West Virginia was above the national average.
However, the vast majority of the mortality occurs during a
3-week period in late summer when the wind resource is very
low. Keeping the turbines off line at night during this time
should effectively mitigate this problem.
ANNUAL ENERGY: 62MWH
These wind power class 3
sites are similar to Carroll
County - estimations for
15GE1.5MWSLturbines,
along with a calculated
capacity factor.
DAY & SEASON PATTERNS
BASE LOAD HEAT REDUCTION
ONE IDENTIFIED ISSUE: BATS
Addressing concerns siting
and planning for wind energy
development requires sensitivity
to the concerns of a diverse array
of stakeholders. It also requires
attention to process as well as to
substantive issues.
The Appalachian Mountains have one of the best onshore wind resources in Eastern US. It could stimulate
market competition (lowering energy costs), diversify the energy supply, reduce greenhouse
gases and other pollutant emissions while promoting long-term economic and energy security
(Arnette & Zobel, 2011).
Setbacksareintendedtoreasonablyprotectthepublic
from the impacts of wind turbines, while allowing for
some development. Setbacks that are unjustifiably
high can unnecessarily close off territory and limit the
ability to reach renewable energy targets.
Common areas of concern include property lines,
inhabited structures, public roads, communication
lines, and electrical lines. Ordinances may allow for
setbacks to be decreased with signed agreements
from landowners.
Bladeclearance.Someordinancesspecifythatturbine
blades must come no closer to the ground than a
certain distance—for example, 30 feet—and also set
minimum distances from the blades to structures and
trees (Lantz, Flowers, Rynne, & Heller, 2011, p. 78).
HEALTH IMPACTS
HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS
SETBACKS
Taller turbines reach higher, faster winds and are
more productive and height limits affect economic
payback and power potential.
In many cases, large wind energy ordinances do
not set height restrictions on commercial turbines,
as turbines have tended to become ever taller as
technology has evolved. Height restrictions on small
turbines in urban areas should be considered.
There are claims of experiencing acute
health impacts from wind turbine noise
including internal pulsing, jitteriness,
nervousness, anxiety, nausea, chest
tightness, and tachycardia (Pierpont
2010). Aside from a limited number
of case studies, however, there is no
epidemiological evidence of such health
effects (Colby et al. 2009; CMOH 2010;
NMHRC 2010).
Moreover, it has been noted that many
of the symptoms observed in the few
case studies that exist are, in actuality,
common stress symptoms, which could
potentially be induced by annoyance or
other factors (Colby et al. 2009).
At the same time, research has shown
correlations not just between noise
annoyance and sound level but also
between noise annoyance and unrelated
factors including prior attitude toward
windturbines,thevisibilityoftheturbines,
and whether or not individuals receive
direct financial payments from a project
(Pedersen and Waye 2007; Pedersen et
al. 2009).
Development of conventional power
plants and transmission lines have
resulted in reductions in nearby
residential property values. While there
have been few detailed studies of this in
specific relation to wind energy facilities,
published work has found no evidence of
widespread reductions in property value
(Sims and Dent 2007; Sims et al. 2008;
Hoen et al. 2009). This may suggest
that industry siting and setback practices
are adequately protecting property
owners. (As a comparison, properties
near transmission lines see drops in value
within a short distance of the lines, but
the effect fades after about 100 meters)
(Lantz, Flowers, Rynne, & Heller, 2011, p.
78).
SAFTEY
Large turbines must be
designed to prevent
unauthorized climbing;
fencing of electrical
substations and other
utility structures is
also required. Some
ordinances require
operators to post
emergency contact
information at the
facility.
PROPERTY VALUES
Decommissioning. Ordinances for large wind energy
systems require developers to decommission turbines
if they are no longer being used. Ordinances may
specify when decommissioning must be commenced
relative to the end of the turbine’s useful life, as well as
the degree to which the site and any connecting roads
must be restored following removal of the turbine.
Many ordinances require financial assurance in the
form of decommissioning bonds, letters of credit, or
other guaranties to ensure that developers are held
responsible for the ultimate fate of their projects.
VISUAL APPEARANCE
Many ordinances require that large turbines be of neutral color and
nonreflective finish; that they be lighted per FAA guidelines with no
additional lighting allowed; and that signage be limited to turbine
manufacturer, facility owner or operator, and emergency contact
information.
SHADOW FLICKER
Shadow flicker is one of the more easily
resolved nuisance challenges, early
communication of this concern to project
neighbors who might be affected and how
it will be addressed is important. Most
wind farm modeling software tools have
features that facilitate communication
and mitigation of shadow flicker. (Rynne,
Flowers, Lantz, & Heller, 2011, p.47)
TOURISM
NOISE
Studies of wind turbines’ impact on tourism consistently show:
1. Wind turbines do not negatively impact tourism.
2. Wind farms frequently become tourist attractions.
3. Positive impressions of wind turbines exceed negative
reactions.
4. Public support for wind energy remains high, even in
communities surrounding wind projects, despite media
coverage that consistently overemphasizes the concerns of a
vocal minority that opposes wind power. (Groberg, 2008)
SUCCESSFUL WIND PROJECT NEEDS
1. Strong Wind Resource
2. Interconnection to the Grid
3. Market for Energy
4. Willing Landowners
5. Permissible Site
ACCESS ROADS
• Gravel surface
• Final width: ~16 feet
• Crane travel: may require 35” width (construction only)
• Maintained by Project Owner
• Routed to minimize impacts.
• Use existing roads & routes along field edges
JOBS
Permanent Jobs
• Local presence – office and workshop
• Permanent salary, including benefits and training
• ~1 technician for each 7 turbines plus supervisor & admin
Construction Jobs
• Varies with project size and construction schedule
• Includes iron workers, crane/equipment
• Operators, carpenters, masons, electricians
• Large projects (> 100 MW) can require more than 100
construction workers
1. Wind turbine sound levels assume a cluster of wind turbines
all operating at maximum sound output (wind speed > 20
mph).
2. Sound levels are lower with at lower wind speeds.
3. 45 dBA is the typical ambient sound level in rural areas when
the wind is not blowing. Ambient sound levels are higher
when the wind is blowing.
4. For reference, inside a house, the sound level from an
operating refrigerator is approximately 45 dBA.
5. Standards for acceptable sound output typically specify a level
10 to 15 dB greater than the ambient baseline. In rural settings
where typical lot sizes are quite large, noise is often measured
at the nearest habitable structure rather than at the property
line (Rynne, Flowers, Lantz, & Heller, 2011, p. 24).
6. Such regulations can also place upper bounds on the level
of noise or the change from ambient noise resulting from
wind energy facilities (Bastasch et al. 2006). Establishing
generic setbacks between turbines and property lines or
buildings may also allow for sufficient noise mitigation. Project
developers may also offer soundproofing for residences that
are particularly close to wind turbines.
7. Some allow exceptions for short-term events like storms
when ambient noise increases.
TURBINE COLLAPSE
• Extremely unlikely
• Two known failures in US (of 7,000 U.S. MW+ wind turbines)
• Impact area is within 1.0 x tip height (~400 ft)
RESIDENTIAL
SMALL WIND
Average Residential 1.8kW 10kW 20kW 50kW 100kW
Flag pole turbine turbine turbine turbine turbine
Average Residential
System Size
140’
120’
100’
80’
60’
40’
20’
UTILITY WIND
Workers maneuver one of the 15,000-pound fiberglass blades
to connect it to the hub of a wind turbine at the Bluegrass
Ridge Wind Farm. Photograph by Bob McEowen, Association of
Missouri Electric Cooperatives. King City, Mo. Associated Electric
Cooperative, Inc.
Turbines on Stetson Mountain in Maine.
(Groberg, 2008) Soil
CARROLL COUNTY, RIDGETOPS
23,714 ft23,714 ft
The Blue Ridge Parkway,
mostly federal land not
available/likely for development.
No transmission infrastructure.
11,344ft
2.14 miles
turbines ~17
9,342ft
1.7 miles
turbines ~15
16,647 ft
3.51 miles
turbines ~30
25032 ft
4.7 miles
turbines ~42 5699 ft
1.07 miles
(Unlikely due to
electrical transmission
infrastructure needed)
23679 ft
4.48 miles
turbines ~40
Too close to
roads to be
considered
Location of
the breezy
5.5 residential
turbine
ASCE 7-10 Wind Speeds
ASCE 7-10 Wind Speeds
Not considered due to
location
Total height if 80m Hub 397ft
Rated wind speed 10.5 m/s (about)
Annual energy (kwh/yr) = Rated Power (kw) x 8760 hr/yr x Capacity Factor
Annual energy (kwh/yr) =5,058,900
Annual energy (MW/yr) =5058.9 Per Turbine
}
Recall: 26,000 MW
estimated residential energy
consumption, Carroll 2010
POWER ESTIMATION
(Groberg, 2008)
(Randolph,
2008)
AccordingtothelanguagewritteninVirginiaCode§15.2-2295.1,countiesmayregulatetheheightandelevationofmountainridgeconstruction
by creating a permitting process for tall buildings and structures. The statute also provides that a permit application must be denied if it fails
to provide for adequate sewerage, water, and drainage facilities or compliance with the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Law (Va. Code § 10.1-
560, et seq.). Additionally, counties that adopt an ordinance of such kind must send a copy to the Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources.
However, counties may not overstep the specific authority (Tazewell County) provided to them by the statute. Virginia Code § 15.2-2295.1(C)
provides counties with the authority to regulate “the height and location of tall buildings or structures” (Va. Code § 15.2-2295.1(C)), and
requires denial of a permit application when it does not provide for adequate sewerage, water, or drainage facilities, or comply with the
Erosion and Sediment Law.
For counties with comprehensive zoning ordinances, the statute provides that an ordinance to regulate mountain ridge construction may
be adopted as an overlay zone on top of existing base zones. A county with no zoning ordinance, such as Carroll County (and seven other
counties in Virginia), may create a standalone ordinance in order to provide for the regulation mountaintop ridge construction, but may not
overstep the authority provided to them by the Virginia Legislature. Instead, they must follow exactly what the authoritative statute outlines.
Nowhere in the statute does it permit a county to prohibit blasting in order for construction to occur (CC Ordinance § IV(6)), require that the
structure be certified to collapse inwardly on itself in the event of a structural failure (CC Ordinance § IV(8)), or require it to not interfere with
migratory birds or animals (CC Ordinance § IV(9)).
“All of us should be involved in
ourownfuturestocreateaworld
that our children will want to live
in.” -Harry Chapin
WIND TURBINE, FANCY GAP, VA
BASICS
A LINEAR MILE OF RIDGELINE CAN SUPPORT 6-12 TURBINES
TOWER HEIGHT ~350 FEET
BLADE DIAMETER UP TO 550 FEET
WIND CLASS (SOME 3) 4+
RIDGELINES & COASTAL AREAS: MOST VIABLE LOCATIONS
ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION FOR WHOLESALE MARKET
TIES TO DISTRIBUTION & TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
DEPENDING ON THEIR SIZE
200
100
0
(m)
DIRECT LOCAL SPENDING
Landowner Payments
• From $4,000 - $7,500 /MW /year
• Variety of types (flat fee, /acre, /turbine, /MW, %royalty)
Local Construction Spending
• Approximately $60,000 /MW
• Includes concrete, steel, road material, & some lodging/meals
Operations Spending (in addition to payroll)
• Payroll (assume $35,000 /employee /year)
• Other local spending approx. $2,500 /MW /year (including
locally available parts, tools equipment, fuels, training, vehicle
& office expenses)
ICING
• Turbines shutdown
• Ice falls in an area within 1.0 x tip
height (~400 ft)
• Appropriate Safety Setbacks Effectively
Eliminate any Risk
• 1.1 x tip height to roads and non-
participant property boundaries is
typical safety setback.
ASSUMPTIONS
• “A linear mile of ridgeline can support 6-12 turbines” we’re assuming 9 that’s ~550ft between
each turbine dependent on topography. or 1.38 x turbine height setback
• The total number of possible turbines (144) is highly unlikely due to many considerations of
property ownership, setbacks and more. Therefore, we’re considering 72.
• Average annual wind speed ASCE 7-10 (m/s) (Applied Technology Council). We considered
7 (m/s) or 15.7 (mph) or 401 W/m - Average Power in Wind (assuming Rayleigh Statistics).
• Capacity Factor .385 (Calculated using 7 m/s as average wind speed)
2
}estimated residential energy
}estimated residential energy
}estimated residential energy
}estimated residential energy
FINAL PROJECT: ERICA LARGEN & ERICA HETZEL 4394 COMMUNITY RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS VIRGINIA TECH SPRING 2013
“Developing Appalachia’s
energy potential will
provide clean, safe,
affordable, locally
produced energy to
customers, create and
retain jobs, help companies
stay competitive, and keep
the Region economically
strong and moving toward
energy independence.”
(Energizing Appalachia: A Regional Blueprint for Economic and Energy Development, 2006, p.12)
Photo above taken at the Hillsville Flea Market in Carroll County on Labor Day, 2012
Map of protected mountain ridges
in proposed “Construction of Tall
Structures on Certain Ridgelines”
ordinance.
}Map of protected mountain ridges
}Map of protected mountain ridges
in proposed “Construction of Tall
}in proposed “Construction of Tall
Structures on Certain Ridgelines”}Structures on Certain Ridgelines”}Map of protected mountain ridges
}Map of protected mountain ridges
Structures on Certain Ridgelines”}Structures on Certain Ridgelines”
BLADE DROP
• Also very unlikely
• A blade should drop, not be thrown
• Any impact would be to an area within
1.0 x tip height (~400 ft)
AMY WHITE & AL PETTEWAY,
National Geographic