Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Zihan Yang
Department of Resource Analysis, Saint Marys University of Minnesota, Winona, MN
55987
Abstract
Zihan Yang. 2013. Using GIS to Determine Wind Energy Potential in Minnesota, USA. Volume 15, Papers
in Resource Analysis. 13 pp. Saint Marys University of Minnesota University Central Services Press.
Winona, MN. Retrieved (date) from http://www.gis.smumn.edu.
(Ramachandra and Shruthi, 2005). (2) Environmental constraints such
According to a report by the as wildlife conservation areas
American Wind Energy Association and bodies of water.
(AWEA, 2012b), by the end of 2012 (3) Human impact factors such as
the United States (US) wind industry major roads, noise, state
totaled 60,007 MW of cumulative parkland, and electric lines.
wind capacity (from more than 45,100
turbines). Over one fifth of the worlds Datasets for the project were
installed wind power capacity is obtained or derived from existing
located in the US (BP p.1.c., 2013). datasets and analyzed using separate
Although the US wind industry has physical, environmental, and human
already made significant strides in impact models. This rule-based model
developing electric energy from wind integrated individual outputs into one
turbines, there is still plenty of final result which identified suitable
opportunity for growth (Schrader, sites for wind turbines in Minnesota.
2012).
Minnesota ranked 3rd in the Methods
US in 2010 for percentage of
electricity derived from wind (AWEA, Database Development
2012a). This fact sent a signal to wind
energy companies that Minnesota is a The rule-based model used in this
wind-friendly state. According to study was a spatial multi-criteria model
National Wind (2012), Minnesota has a using diverse variables to represent the
total wind resource of 489,271 MW, physical, environmental, and human
and this capacity of wind power could impact factors determining wind
support nearly 25 times the amount of turbine site suitability. By using Esris
electricity Minnesota currently needs. ArcMap software, data for each of
Thus, there are many potential areas these criteria were converted from
for wind turbines. vector format to raster format and
However, the locations with the assessed using overlay analysis. All
highest wind resources are not always tools referenced in this paper are from
feasible sites for wind farms. A variety Esris ArcMap software.
of factors are decisive in the site The study area for this project
selection of wind turbine farms. In this included the entire state of Minnesota.
study, a rule-based modeling method In 2006, the Minnesota Department of
was used to evaluate and target Commerce developed maps of
suitable wind power sites. Using a Minnesota wind resources at different
similar approach as Rodman and heights, 30, 80, and 100 m above
Meentemeyer (2006), this model ground. Since the height of large wind
incorporated the following factors: turbines is generally between 50 and
80 m above ground, wind speed data at
(1) Physical criteria such as wind 80 m was used in this study (Figure 1).
resources, obstacles, and Terrain strongly affects the
terrain. performance of wind turbines;
2
therefore, a slope dataset was derived components: average annual wind
from a 30 m digital elevation model speed at 80 m height, obstacles, and
(DEM) developed by the United States terrain.
Geological Survey (USGS, 2009). The annual average wind speed
The environmental data for is useful as a predominant indicator of
Minnesota, such as wildlife wind resources. Ten meters is the
conservation areas and open water standard height for a typical
areas were obtained by the Minnesota meteorological station to measure wind
Department of Natural Resources speed. The wind speed suitability for
(MNDNR, 2013). Human impact developing wind turbines was
factors such as populated areas, major classified into four categories based on
roads, and state parkland were also wind velocity at 10 m: poor, marginal,
obtained from the MNDNR (2013). good, and excellent (Table 1)
The energy grid dataset for Minnesota (Ramachandra and Shruthi, 2005).
was obtained from the Minnesota Land
Management Information Center Table 1. Annual mean wind speed and
(2007). The data above were converted potential value of the wind energy resource at
to 30 m resolution raster datasets for 10 m height (Ramachandra and Shruthi, 2005.)
the raster overlay analysis. Annual mean wind Indicated value
speed at 10 m of wind resource
<4.5 m/s Poor
4.5-5.4 m/s Marginal
5.4-6.7 m/s Good
>6.7 m/s Excellent
5
dataset was derived from the National existing grid connections and roads is a
Gap Analysis Program (2001) Land critical element that needs to be
Cover Data. This raster dataset considered in the human impact model.
included all open water in Minnesota, Baban and Parry (2001) included a
including wetlands, lakes, and rivers. maximum distance of 10 km to the
Areas within 400 m from water bodies electric grid as a criterion in their study.
were defined as Unsuitable Area and The electric transmission lines dataset
the areas over 400 m from water was obtained from the Minnesota Land
bodies were defined as Suitable Management Information Center.
Area. Areas within 10 km of the electric grid
were regarded as Suitable Area, and
Human Impact Model the remaining areas were regarded as
Unsuitable Area. Additionally, since
In consideration of safety, visual heavy cranes and trucks carrying
pollution, and noise impact for humans, components need to be navigated to
wind turbines should be placed away the turbine sites, wind turbines should
from populated areas. HGC not be located farther than 10 km from
Engineering (2007) conducted a roads (Baban and Parry, 2001). A
summary of guidelines for the dataset including all the major roads in
maximum sound pressure level in Minnesota was obtained from the
provinces of Canada in 2007. The level MNDNR. The areas less than 10 km
between 40 and 55 dB is considered an from major roads were regarded as
ideal range for human settlement Suitable Area, and the remaining
within a distance of 500 m from wind areas were regarded as Unsuitable
turbines (HGC Engineering, 2007). Area.
Public opposition to sight of
wind turbines in recreational areas was Model Integration
taken into consideration in the human
impact model by Rodman and The performance of wind turbines can
Meentemeyer (2006). Therefore, a be influenced by every factor discussed
criterion that wind turbines be at least above; however, each factor presents
1,000 m from public parkland was an entirely different element of
included. The parkland dataset was importance to the overall suitability
converted from vector format to raster measurement.
format. Then, parkland and the areas In the physical model, there
within 1,000 m of parkland were were three components: average
defined as Unsuitable Area; the areas annual wind speed, obstacles, and
1,000 m from parkland were defined as terrain. A weighting scheme similar to
Suitable Area. the one used by Rodman and
A goal of wind energy Meentemeyer (2006) was adopted.
developers is to maximize profits for Since the availability of adequate wind
themselves and for investors (van resources is the most important
Haaren and Fthenakis, 2011). criterion for the physical model, it was
Therefore, the utilization of the assigned the value of three as its
6
weight. Because the sufficient wind between two and three (3> S 2), the
resource is the most critical criterion suitability was considered good; if
compared to the presence of obstacles, the calculated value was less than two,
the obstacle layer was assigned the the suitability was regarded as poor.
lesser weight of two (Rodman and For the environmental model
Meentemeyer, 2006). A weight of one and human impact model, a binary
was given to the terrain dataset. Terrain scoring system was applied rather than
was considered only in terms of initial a continuous system. The constraints,
turbine construction suitability and not such as wildlife conservation areas,
in regards to its impact on long-term water bodies, populated areas, roads,
operation; therefore, it was considered grid lines, and state parkland, were
less critical than the wind resource and used to further identify the locations
presence of obstacles. where wind turbines are either suitable
The datasets were reclassified or not suitable. Therefore, there was no
into several suitability categories or need to assign any score or weight for
values, as described in Tables 3-5. To these layers. For the locations where
evaluate the physical model, not only the unsuitable factors were found, the
the suitability score of each criterion cell in the resulting raster dataset was
was needed, but also the weight of set to 0; for the suitable areas, the
each criterions importance to the cell was assigned the value 1.
overall model. Thus, the equation from A composite of all three
Rodman and Meentemeyer (2006) was suitability models was also generated.
used to evaluate the physical model as If any suitable area defined by the
follows: physical model corresponded with an
area that had been recognized as
n
unsuitable according to either the
S ijWi
i
environmental or human impact model,
S n
,
then the overall suitability rating was
Wi
i
considered to be unsuitable at that
location, regardless of the score from
where n is the number of input layers, the physical model and the area was
Sij is the score for the jth class of the ith removed from the resulting map.
input layer, Wi is the weights of the ith
input layer, and S is the calculated Result
suitability factor for each grid cell
A summary of the criteria for wind
location in the model output. Each cell
turbine placement included in the
in the resulting raster dataset generated
physical model, environmental model,
using the above equation had a value
and human impact model is shown in
between one and three. If the
Table 6. The physical model
calculated value equaled three, the
encompassed the locations where there
corresponding suitability of the cell
is sufficient wind, a flat gradient, and
was classified as excellent, since it
few obstacles. According to the result
has the best performance in every
of the physical model (Figure 2), the
category. If the calculated value fell
most suitable areas are located in
7
southwestern Minnesota. Abundant areas within 10 km of major roads and
wind resources and the lack of energy lines were selected as suitable.
vegetation obstacles in southwestern Populated areas and state parkland
Minnesota were decisive were considered unsuitable due to
characteristics. Areas of excellent noise and visual impact concerns.
physical suitability (score = 3) for
large wind turbines contained
8,473,152.42 ha, good suitability
(score = 2) contained 3,429,473.22 ha,
and poor suitability (score = 1)
contained 6,870,818.97 ha.
Figure 3 indicates the result of
the environmental model. As explained
earlier, wildlife conservation areas and
open water areas were recognized as
unsuitable areas for wind facilities due
to environmental concerns and
physical constraints. These layers were
merged together to exclude any areas
that were within a certain distance of
wildlife conservation areas and open
water (Figure 4).
Considering the aspects of Figure 2. The suitability result of the physical
accessibility and economy, only the model.
Environmental Model:
1. Wildlife Conservation At least 500 m away from wildlife conservation
Areas areas
2. Open Water At least 400 m away from open water
8
wind turbines. If areas occupied by
existing wind turbines are subtracted,
the remaining potential area is
6,149,487.33 ha.
10
Retrieved spring 2013 from: ftp://ftp. lmic.state.mn.us/outgoing/
http://www.awea.org/suite/upload/A archive/transmission_lines.
WEA_USWindIndustryAnnualMarke National Gap Analysis Program. 2001.
tReport2012_ExecutiveSummary.pdf. Land Cover Dataset. Retrieved spring
Ames Laboratory. 2010. Wind 2013 from http:// gapanalysis.usgs.
Turbines on Farmland May Benefit gov/gaplandcover/.
Crops. Retrieved spring 2013 from National Wind. 2012. Minnesota Wind
https://www.ameslab.gov/news/news- Statistics. Retrieved spring 2013 from
releases/wind-turbines. http://www.nationalwind.com/minnes
Baban, S., and Parry, T. 2001. ota-wind-data/.
Developing and Applying a National Wind Coordinating
GIS-assisted Approach to Locating Collaborative (NWCC). 2010. Wind
Wind Farms in the UK. Renewable Turbine Interactions with Birds, Bats,
Energy, 24, 59-71. and their Habitats: A Summary of
BP p.l.c. 2013. Wind Power. Retrieved Research Results and Priority
May, 2013 from http://www.bp.com/ Questions. Retrieved spring 2013
sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId= from http://www1.eere.energy.gov/
9024940&contentId=7046497. wind/pdfs/birds_and_bats_fact_sheet.
Davenport, A.G. 1960. A Rationale for pdf.
the Determination of Design Wind Pipestone, Minnesota Chamber of
Velocities. Proceedings ASCE Commerce. 2013. Wind Power in
Structural Division, 86, 39-66. Pipestone County, Minnesota.
Howe Gastmeier Chapnik Limited Retrieved spring 2013 from
(HGC Engineering). 2007. Wind http://www. Pipestoneminnesota.
Turbines and Sound: Review and com/visitors/windpower/.
Best Practice Guidelines. Retrieved Ramachandra, T. V., and Shruthi, B. V.
spring 2013 from http://www.canwea. 2005. Wind Energy Potential
ca/images/uploads/File/CanWEA_Wi Mapping in Karanataka, India, Using
nd_Turbine_Sound_Study_F_Final.p GIS. Energy Conversion and
df. Management, 46, 1561- 1578.
Kimballa, J. 2010. Farming Wind Rodman, L.C., and Meentemeyer, R.L.
Versus Farming Corn for Energy. 2006. A Geographic Analysis of
Retrieved spring 2013 from Wind Turbine Placement in Northern
http://8020vision.com/2010/09/02/far California. Energy Policy, 34,
ming-wind-versus-farming-corn-for-e 2137-2149.
nergy/. Schrader, S. 2012. North American
Minnesota Department of Natural Wind Energy Growth. Green Chip
Resources (MNDNR). 2013. DNR Stocks. Retrieved spring 2013 from
Date Deli. Retrieved spring 2013 http://www.greenchips
from http://deli.dnr.state.mn.us. tocks.com/articles/north-american-wi
Minnesota Land Management nd-energy-growth/1591.
Information Center. 2007. Electric The Intergovernmental Panel on
Transmission Lines and Substations Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. IPCC
Dataset. Retrieved spring 2013 from Fourth Assessment Report: Climate
11
Change 2007. Retrieved spring 2013
from http://www.ipcc.ch/publications
_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-es.ht
ml.
United States Department of Energy.
2013. Wind Powering America:
Installed U.S. Wind Capacity and
Wind Project Locations. Retrieved
April 3 2013 from http://www.
windpowering america.gov/.
United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). 2010.
Overview of Greenhouse Gases.
Retrieved spring 2013 from http://
www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemi
ssions/gases/co2.html.
United States Geological Survey
(USGS). 2009. National Elevation
Dataset. Retrieved spring 2013 from
http://nationalmap.gov.
van Haaren, R., and Fthenakis, V. 2011.
GIS-based Wind Farm Site Selection
Using Spatial Multi-criteria Analysis
(SMCA): Evaluating the Case for
New York State. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15,
3332-3340.
Yue, C., and Wang, S. 2006. GIS-based
Evaluation of Multifarious Local
Renewable Energy Sources: A Case
Study of the Chigu Area of
Southwestern Taiwan. Energy Policy,
34, 730-42.
12
Appendix A. The Potential Suitable Areas for Building Wind Turbines in Minnesota.
13