That would be me

From Asheville's C-T.com (Lawmakers spar ...):

Senate Democrats from Western North Carolina sparred over whether windmills should be allowed to line ridge tops. ...

The regulations ... would ban windmills except those shorter than 100 feet and used only to power a single home.“We don't want commercial developments on top of our mountains,” [Sen. Martin Nesbitt, of Asheville] said. “They bring with them roads, transmission lines and everything else that totally destroys the mountains.”

Environmental groups told senators just 5 percent of North Carolina's ridges could be topped with windmills, since the vast majority are on protected state and federal lands. But those few sites offer the chance to generate enough energy to power more than 400,000 homes, they said.

Something has been nagging me about this one since I first heard about it. I wondered if anyone has ever conducted any research on this issue?*

Answer: Yes! (Green vs. Green):

Proponents of wind power note that wind is a green energy source. Yet locating electrical generating windmills has become difficult in some localities because of potential negative externalities. We address why the NIMBY syndrome may arise when choosing site locations by addressing the perceived property rights of a viewshed, the role of compensation in a NIMBY impasse, and how concerns for the environment might lessen the compensation required. We use a willingness to accept framework to measure the compensation required to allow wind generation windmills to be built in the mountains of North Carolina. We find that individuals who perceive wind energy as a clean source of power require less compensation. Those who retire to the mountains or individuals who have ancestors from Watauga County require more compensation to accept windmills in their viewshed. ...

We asked this question ...

Suppose, to generate Green electricity, windmill generators are to be built on four ridge tops throughout Watauga County. To compensate individuals in the county for accepting windmills, electric utility bills would be reduced by $[randomly assigned bid] each month per household. Suppose that this proposal, approving the electrical payment reduction and allowing electrical windmills to be built, is on the next election ballot. How would you vote on this proposal?

... and find that the willingness to accept compensation to allow wind turbines on ridge lines is $23 per household per year. In Watauga County, the cost of lost views adds up to $426,400 per year.

In the absence of a real analysis, "someone" should develop a quick and dirty estimate of the benefits of wind turbines on on four ridge lines. How much power would that produce? Our local wind turbine produces enough power for about 10-15 homes. If the annual power bill is about $1200, then the annual benefits of 1 turbine, in terms of reduced energy costs, are $12,000 to $18,000. Suppose there are 10 turbines on each of the four ridge lines in the case study above. Then, the annual benefits are about $480,000 to $560,000. Ignoring, climate change and other nonmarket effects, the benefits of wind turbines might be worth the cost (given these assumptions).

*Note: You wouldn't blame me too much for forgetting if you knew how minor my contribution was on this paper. Let's see, I am one of 3 authors so if I contributed a third then that would be only 33%. We'll leave the contribution analysis right there.

Update: Here is a comment I received at the Energy Collective:

"If the annual power bill is about $1200, then the annual benefits of 1 turbine, in terms of reduced energy costs, are $12,000 to $18,000."

Corrected version:

If the annual power bill is about $1200, then the annual value of the output of 1 turbine, is about $12,000 to $18,000, assuming that the value of 25% capacity factor power is equal to the value of power from a "four nines" grid. The value of this power would also be its "annual benefits" if and only if the installed cost of the turbines equalled zero and they did not require maintenance.

The actual annual cost of the turbine output, interestingly, is not discussed here.

My reply:

"The actual annual cost of the turbine output, interestingly, is not discussed here."

I was trying to get some "quick and dirty" numbers out there (note the first line of the last paragraph) and then hope that someone would provide a snarky correction.

Thanks!