Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 13

Using GIS to Determine Wind Energy Potential in Minnesota, USA

Zihan Yang
Department of Resource Analysis, Saint Marys University of Minnesota, Winona, MN
55987

Keywords: GIS, Wind Energy, Terrain Elevation, Multi-Criteria, Spatial Analysis

Abstract

Wind power is an alternative to fossil fuels. It is plentiful, renewable, widely


distributed, clean, produces no greenhouse gas emissions during operation and uses
relatively little land. Recent studies indicate that Minnesota has plentiful wind energy
potential including the possibility to use wind to generate 25 times the electricity
Minnesota used in 2010 (American Wind Energy Association, 2012a). This study
evaluates the potential wind energy resources in Minnesota by analyzing technical,
environmental, and political criteria for developing local renewable wind energy
resources. The approach assesses suitable locations for exploring wind turbines energy
sources with the aid of a geographic information system. The study considers local wind
conditions and other restrictions such as terrain, land use, environment, and human
activities. The model identifies areas that have an excellent suitability for future wind
turbine placement in Minnesota. When it compares to the approximate estimations based
solely on analysis of wind speed, this rule-based model may provide a more accurate
method to evaluate wind energy in Minnesota.

Introduction contributing cause of global warming


is the emission of greenhouse gases (in
The issue of global warming is particular carbon dioxide), mainly
becoming a potential severe challenge generated by fossil fuel combustion
that nations around the world would be (United States Environmental
wise to confront. The Protection Agency, 2010).
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate The negative effects of fossil
Change (IPCC) indicated during the fuel combustion on the environment, in
twenty-first century the average global addition to limited fossil fuel supply,
surface temperature will likely rise have forced many countries to explore
between 1.1 and 2.9 C (2 to 5.2 F) and change to environmentally friendly
according to their lowest emissions renewable alternatives in order to meet
scenario and between 2.4 and 6.4 C increasing energy demands. Currently,
(4.3 to 11.5 F) according to their wind energy is one of the fastest
highest emissions scenario (IPCC, developing renewable energy
2007). Scientists have confirmed that a technologies around the world

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

Since the hub height of a


modern wind turbine is greater than 50
m and the available wind speed data
was measured at 80 m above ground,
the wind speed classification at 10 m
was converted to the wind speed at 80
m in order to provide a uniform
standard for analysis. The following
formula developed by Davenport
(1960) was used to extrapolate wind
speed at different heights:
Figure 1. Minnesota average annual wind
speed at 80 m height.
VZ Z
(1)
Model Development VG ZG

Physical Model VZ = the known mean wind speed at


height Z in the study area (m/s)
The physical model incorporated three VG = the mean wind speed at height ZG,
3
which needs to be extrapolated wind flow and decrease the efficiency
(m/s) Table 3. Annual mean wind speed and
Z = the height for which the wind potential value of the wind energy resource at
speed VZ is computed (m) 80 m above ground in Minnesota.
Z G = the height at which VG is first Annual mean wind Indicated value
observed in the same terrain speed at 80 m of wind resource
<6.03 m/s Poor (1)
= an empirical exponent, which
6.03-7.24 m/s Good (2)
depends on the roughness of the >7.24 m/s Excellent (3)
surface.
of wind power generation. Since wind
According to the available turbines sites are best located away
wind data in this research, formula (1) from highly populated areas (described
was adapted as the following equation later), obstructions such as buildings
(2), which estimated wind speed in the are unlikely obstacles. The presence of
same terrain for 80 m height. trees is recognized as an obstacle in
open areas. Wind turbine suitability
80
0.14 decreases as the density of trees
VZ = V 10 (2) increase (Rodman and Meentemeyer,
10
2006). For this model, a forest layer
was derived from the National Gap
By using equation (2), the new Analysis Program (2001) Land Cover
wind classification at 80 m height was Data. Forest densities were determined
developed (Table 2). from vegetation types at a given
location. If the attribute table of the
Table 2. Annual mean wind speed and vegetation dataset showed the land was
potential value of the wind energy resource at occupied by trees in the study area, it
80 m height. was defined as a high density forest. If
Annual mean wind Indicated value the attribute table showed there were
speed at 80 m of wind resource no trees in the study area, it was
<6.03 m/s Poor defined as no forest.
6.03-7.24 m/s Marginal The no forest class was
7.24-8.98 m/s Good further divided into two subclasses.
>8.98 m/s Excellent These were Shrub Land and
Grassland and Agricultural
However, the range of wind Vegetation. The Ames Laboratory
speed values published by the (2010) reported wind turbines help
Minnesota Department of Commerce channel beneficial breezes over nearby
(4.92 m/s to 8.86 m/s) was narrower plants. This can keep the crops cooler
than the resulting suitability and drier, which helps them fend off
classification. Therefore, the wind fungal infestations. Meanwhile, the
speed criterion at 80 m above ground ability of crops to absorb carbon
was modified as displayed in Table 3. dioxide (CO2) from the air and soil can
Tall obstacles can obstruct be improved by wind turbines (Ames
4
Laboratory, 2010). Also, agricultural Environmental Model
producers can generate additional
revenue by using their land to generate Two general types of local impacts to
wind energy (Rodman and birds have been demonstrated at
Meentemeyer, 2006). Therefore, existing wind facilities: (1) direct
agricultural land was considered more mortality from collisions and (2)
suitable than general shrub land and indirect impacts from avoidance of an
grassland (Table 4). area, habitat disruption and behavioral
effects (National Wind Coordinating
Table 4. Land obstacles and corresponding Collaborative (NWCC), 2010). Only
suitability score. direct mortality has been shown in bat
Obstacles Suitability populations (NWCC, 2010). Strategic
High Density Forest Poor (1) placement of turbines away from
Shrub Land & Good (2) important breeding grounds and high
Grassland population areas can reduce their
Agricultural Vegetation Excellent (3) environmental impact (van Haaren and
Fthenakis, 2011). Therefore, to prevent
Construction of turbines on birds or bats from being killed by wind
slopes greater than 10% is difficult turbines, wind facilities need to be
because the turbine components are established as least 500 m from
generally large and heavy. If the slope wildlife conservation areas or areas of
is too steep, it limits the accessibility known high use (Yue and Wang, 2006).
of the cranes needed to lift such heavy The wildlife conservation area dataset
equipment (van Haaren and Fthenakis, was obtained from the MNDNR (2013).
2011). Rodman and Meentemeyer After converting the data format from
(2006) classified the degree of slope vector to raster, a raster dataset
further by dividing slope into several depicting distance from wildlife
suitability classes (Table 5). This conservation areas was developed.
classification was adapted for the Then, the areas less than 500 m from
model used in this study. wildlife conservation areas were
designated as Unsuitable Area and
Table 5. The slope degree intervals and the areas farther than 500 m from
corresponding suitability score (Rodman and wildlife conservation areas as
Meentemeyer, 2006). Suitable Area.
Slope Suitability Although there are no strict
Unsuitable (NA) regulations that dictate the appropriate
>30 distance to water bodies, Baban and
Poor (1) Parry (2001) noted guidelines from 60
16-30 local authorities in the United
Good (2) Kingdom by means of a survey and
7-16 determined a representative distance of
Excellent (3) 400 m to water bodies was
0-7 recommended (van Haaren and
Fthenakis, 2011). The water body

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.

Table 6. Summary of wind farm location criteria.


Objective Criteria
Physical Model:
1. Wind Speed Greater than 7.24 m/s at 80 m height
2. Obstacle Should be located in low vegetation area
3. Terrain Slope Should not be located in areas with steep slopes

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

Human Impact Model:


1. Populated Area 500 m away from nearest populated area
2. Road Should not be located greater than 10 km from road
3. Grid Line Should not be located greater than 10 km from grid
4. State Parkland Should be located 1,000 m away from parkland

8
wind turbines. If areas occupied by
existing wind turbines are subtracted,
the remaining potential area is
6,149,487.33 ha.

Figure 3. The suitable areas defined by the


environmental model.

Combining the three models


resulted in areas of suitable areas
amassing 6,176,487.33 ha. This area Figure 4. The suitable areas defined by the
only includes locations deemed to have human impact model.
excellent suitability (Appendix A).
According to a study
Discussion announced by the United States
Department of Energy (2013), at the
The amount of remaining wind energy end of 2012 the installed capacity for
resources can be estimated using the wind power in Minnesota was 2,986
model and mathematical deduction. MW, with wind power accounting for
Kimballa (2010) indicated a typical 14.3% of the electricity generated in
wind farm consists of approximately the state. Therefore, this model
15 wind turbines per 1,000 acres. By predicts that Minnesota has a potential
converting the acres to hectares, a large capacity of 680,088 MW from wind
turbine usually occupies 27 ha. The power. If this amount of energy is
Pipestone, Minnesota Chamber of developed, the fossil fuel power
Commerce (2013) has compiled data generation industry in Minnesota could
suggesting there are approximately be drastically reduced.
1,000 existing wind turbines in There are four large clustered
Minnesota. wind farms in Minnesota. By
If the area occupied by one comparing the results of this research
wind turbine is 27 ha, 1,000 wind with the existing wind farm locations
turbines will cover 27,000 ha. The shown in Appendix A, all existing
suitability model concluded there are wind farm locations fall within areas
6,176,487.33 ha areas suitable to build the model deemed suitable. In addition,
9
these four wind farms (Buffalo Ridge Dakota and the southern portion that
Wind Farm, Fenton Wind Farm, borders Iowa also has a high suitability
Nobles Wind Farm, and Bent Tree for building wind turbines. The final
Wind Farm) are generally distributed model was verified by comparing the
in the south and southwest portions of results to existing wind farm locations
Minnesota. The western and in Minnesota.
mid-western areas of Minnesota also
have vast potential for building wind Acknowledgements
turbines, especially the areas bordering
North Dakota. Moreover, the I am indebted to the many people who
overwhelming land use in these areas have assisted me in the writing of this
is farmland. Therefore, placing wind paper. First, I would like to express my
turbines there would neither jeopardize heartfelt gratitude to my instructor, Ms.
the ecological environment nor Greta Bernatz, for her warm-hearted
severely impact human life. encouragement and valuable advice,
especially for her patient instruction
Conclusion and guidance every time I came across
a problem. Without her help, I could
The development of wind energy is not have completed this graduate
one of the most important tasks for the project. I would like to express my
future, not only because greenhouse gratitude to Ms. Nancy K. Rader who
gas emissions will likely continue to works for the Minnesota Geospatial
impact global warming, but also Information Office. As a GIS data
because fossil fuels, the most widely coordinator, she provided access to
used energy source are limited in much of the necessary data. I also want
abundance. to thank Ms. Melissa Gordon who
Wind, an alternative energy helped me review my graduate paper
source, is clean and widely distributed and correct grammar. Finally, I would
around the world. This research like to express thanks to my family and
evaluated the suitability of building my friend Yabing Gao for their
wind turbines in Minnesota. By valuable encouragement and spiritual
integrating the corresponding criteria, support.
three models related to physical,
environmental, and human impact References
constraints were created. By using
spatial analysis in a geographic American Wind Energy Association
information system, the models were (AWEA). 2012a. Fourth Quarter
combined to produce a final result of 2012 Market Report. Retrieved
potential wind farm locations spring 2013 from http://www.awea.
(Appendix A). The suitable areas for org/learnabout/publications/upload/4
building wind turbines were generally Q-11-Minnesota.pdf.
aggregated in the southwest portion of American Wind Energy Association
Minnesota. Additionally, the part of (AWEA). 2012b. AWEA U.S. Wind
western Minnesota that borders North Industry Annual Market Report.

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

Вам также может понравиться