1 Introduction

This document represents the feasibility study of the on-roof wind generation facility based on NPP and SPP towers developed by the DOE’s Office Ecology Team (OET).

The DOE has the opportunity to model the efficient use of energy and available micro-generation resources. This initiative develops a multiple gain scenario where multiple players collect several benefits in a positive feedback:

- Micro-generation promotion:

o Improves the electricity generation matrix in Alberta;

o Promotes the use of alternative and renewable sources of energy;

o Promotes energy efficiency;

o Helps reduce electricity costs;

o Helps decrease electricity cost volatility; and

o Decreases energy losses in transmission lines.

- Social:

o Helps educate citizens on Energy Efficiency and Energy Conservation;

o Increases micro-generation businesses;

o Increases employment;

o Increases community commitment and awareness of energy efficiency and use; and

o Increases Research and Development (R&D) initiatives in Alberta;

- Economics:

o Saves money in Micro-generation promotion and education;

o Reduces electricity consumption in the proposed buildings; and

o As micro-generation technology:

- Helps reducing wholesale electricity price and volatility;

- Increase the energy efficiency;

- Helps in the development of micro-generation businesses; and

- Help in job creation at all levels (research, management, maintenance, operation, administration, etc).

- Environment:

o Saves emission;

o Promotes the use of renewable and alternative sources of energy; and

o Contributes to provincial targets achievement in emissions reduction.

- DOE and GOA:

o Shows the commitment of DOE and GOA through an inspiring example; and

o Shows DOE and GOA are taking the initiative in energy efficiency, renewable and alternative energy use, and energy cost reductions that face Albertans.

2 Objectives

The objective of this analysis and comparison is to maximize the following:

1. Promote micro-generation

2. Improve energy use and conservation

3. Promotion energy efficiency

4. Promote Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions reduction

5. Promote micro-generation business development

6. Effective investment of government monies

7. Risks minimization

8. DoE and GoA commitment

9. DoE and GoA initiative

3 Micro-generation

Micro-generation is the term used to describe generation of environmentally-friendly electricity on a small scale—for individual customer use. In Alberta, micro-generation is one megawatt or less of electricity generation that is connected to the distribution system. Alberta’s Micro-generation Regulation is the set of rules that allows electricity customers to generate their own environmentally friendly electricity and receive credit for any power they don’t use and send back to the electricity grid. Appendix B presents details of micro-generation installation under this regulation.

Micro-generation use produces significant positive effects in energy use and in the electricity market:

· Increases the efficiency in the residential sector as well as energy use in rural areas.

· Increases renewable and alternatives source of energy. Micro-generation is the base of all the technologies allowed for micro-generation and all of them help in emission reduction.

· Decreases energy consumption: the so-called “second effect” produces around a 6% decrease in electricity consumption due to awareness around electricity use.

· Decreases losses in transmission lines: electricity is generated on site, eliminating the need for transmission lines (between the 6 and 8 % of the electricity generated in Power Plants is lost due transmission and distributions lines losses).

· Stabilizes and decreases the cost of the electricity: on peak hour cost of electricity has a huge impact in daily electricity price; micro-generation helps reduce on peak demand, and has a secondary effect of increasing awareness in consumption along with reducing the on peak electricity cost.

· Micro-generation business: increase the number of micro-companies offering for micro-generation technology, installation and maintenance.

· Although there is worldwide consensus in favour for the wind generation development, many voices can be heard stressing the weaknesses of wind generation technology such as increased electricity price, the need for backup because of the unpredictability of the resource, etc. This awareness does not apply for micro-generation due to the scale of the technology.

4 Wind electricity generation – State of Art

Over the years, the worldwide contribution for the development of wind technology offers a widespread technical possibility to use this technology for electricity generation. Nowadays, there are wind turbines with a capacity of a few Watts (W) to Megawatts (MW), turbines for applications in extreme weather conditions, top-roof turbines, in a hill, on-shore and off-shore, etc.

In December 2008, Canada counted with two Gigawatts (GW) of installed wind capacity [2], increasing this number by 46% per year during the period of 2004-2008. Alberta is one of the leaders in Canadian wind development with a capacity of 540 MW of installed power capacity. In addition, Alberta had one of the better wind capacity coefficients in Canada: 35% wind in 2007 and 32.4% in 2008 [2]. Finally, the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) had 81 wind projects in its queue in Alberta, representing nearly 11,714 MW [21].

If Alberta installed wind turbine in all appropriate sittings, Alberta’s maximum estimated wind capacity, at the current technical development, is 400,000 MW with an electricity production of 2,100,000 GWh/y or 7,500 PJ/y. If we compare these numbers with the annual electricity and energy consumption by sector in Alberta, the importance in the development of this technology provincially and country wide is evident.

Sector	Annual electricity consumption [GWh]	Annual energy consumption [PJ]
Residential	6,810	179
Transportation	110	405
Industrial	27,900	832
Commercial	13,500	154

Table 4.1: Annual electricity and energy consumption in Alberta for 2006 in different sectors [45]

Item
2008 Electricity Consumption [GWh]	70,000
2008 Generation Capacity [MW]	12,300

Table 4.2: Annual electricity and energy consumption in Alberta in 2008 [21]

Different publications [12], [17], [20],[26] and [28] analyse wind resources assessment models, site selection models and aerodynamic models including wake effect, leading discussions about existing performance and reliability evaluation models, various problems related to wind turbine components (blade, gearbox, generator and transformer) and the grid system development for integrating the wind energy system. In particular [17] has an extensive database of referred studies for each concern associated to wind technology.

Basically, two different types of wind turbines exist, the horizontal and vertical axis wind turbines (HAWTs and VAWTs); the horizontal axis wind turbine is the most common type. Several sub-classifications exist for them. Figures 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 show the most common turbine classification.

Castle Tower in London, should be completed in 2009.

a) Classic

b) On-roof design

c) Multiple blades

d) Integrated

Figure 4.1: HAWT turbines

Darrieus Vertical-Axis Wind Turbine

e) Helical

f) L-shaped

g) Darrieus

h) H-rotor

Figure 4.2: VAWT turbines

マグナス効果 AIR%20ROTOR%20SYSTEM%20in%20Flight%5B12%5D - Beautiful wind turbines - wind generators

i) Magnus effect

j) Floating

k) Integrated

l) Helical on-roof

Figure 4.3: Special design turbines

The first windmill was a VAWT; later HAWTs received most attention, but some scientists [32] claim that the HAWT is not obviously better than the VAWT just because it was randomly picked long ago for large-scale development.

Appendix C presents more details in the analysis of wind turbines.

5 Micro wind technology

Evidence indicates that people view small and large wind turbines the same even though they have very different characteristics [82][83]. The technology principles are the same, but both industries are different, with different boundary conditions, cost, market and goals.

Small Wind Turbines (SWT) are classified as:

· Mini wind turbines with a rated power output from 300 W up to 1000 W (1 kW);

Small wind turbines (above 1 kW and up to 30 kW), and;
Medium wind turbines (above 30 kW, up to 300 kW).

Capitalizing on the potential market in Alberta (not possible in practical point of view nowadays) would result in the installation of over 100 MW of Small Wind Turbines System and GHG emission reductions of over 250 ktGHG per year [2]. Each MW of installed wind power in Alberta today, represents an emission reduction of 2.5 ktGHG per year.

At the present, the market for SWTs in Canada is relatively small, although it has experienced some growth in the past five years [2]. A survey of retailers, distributors and manufacturers of SWTs revealed the following:

· Annual Sales. It is estimated that current annual sales of SWTs are in the range of 600 to 800 units per year. This represents roughly $3.5 million in annual sales, including $2.3 million for mini wind turbines and $1.2 million for small wind turbines.

Total Installed Capacity. There are currently between 2,200 and 2,500 SWTs installed in Canada, 90% of which fall into the mini wind turbine category. The total combined capacity of all SWTs is estimated to be between 1.8 MW and 4.5 MW. Their total annual output is roughly 7.5 GWh/y, or the amount of electricity consumed by approximately 1,100 homes in Alberta.

Appendix D shows the evolution over the time of micro-wind in North America.

5.1 Analysis of the wind available technologies

There is some concern in the use of HAWT technology for on-roof wind project. These concerns focus on the effect of the turbulence on the turbine performance, durability, control performance, maintenance cost, vibration, etc [36]. New on-roof design for HAWT removes those weaknesses (figure 3.1-b), although some projects were developed with success, the commercialization period of this technology did not occur. VAWT technology overcomes most of those weaknesses, but it adds others.

An omni-directional turbine can be situated at places where the wind is turbulent and where the wind direction changes often. For this reason, VAWTs have an advantage over HAWTs in high mountain areas, in regions with extremely strong or gusty winds and in urban areas [35][37]. Investigations indicate a clear advantage in using VAWTs at rooftops [36]. Furthermore, the VAWT is less noisy than the HAWT, which becomes even more important in urban areas [35] as well as less dangerous for birds [17].

VAWTs appear to be advantageous to the horizontal axis wind turbine in several aspects for roof applications. Reports advise of the inconvenience to install a HAWT on a building roof [36] due to high turbulence, less life of the turbines and less energy production. However, the use of VAWT in cities has increased due to the natural advantages of VAWT technology for this market sector. Around the world, multiples studies have been conducted (Ontario [39], Brampton, Canso, Kingston, Marathon, Wawa, Wolf [44], Germany [40]) and roof mounted VAWTs have been proposed as part of the energy source for the Freedom Tower in New York City [38].

The vertical rotational axis of a VAWT allows the generator to be located at the bottom of the tower. This makes installation, operation and maintenance much easier. The tower can be lighter for a VAWT since the nacelle is excluded, which reduces structural loads and problems with erecting the tower [41]. The generator design can be focused on efficiency, cost and minimising maintenance. Furthermore, the control system can also be located at ground level facilitating access.

The blades of a HAWT have to be self-supporting since they are only attached at the root. The blades of a VAWT are supported by support arms, which usually are attached to the centre of the blades. However, the support arms add extra structure and mass to the turbine. For a larger blade area, more material is used. Mass production of VAWT blades would imply low production costs since their shape makes them easy to fabricate in large numbers compared to HAWTs [41].

More discussions about the HAWT and VAWT differences are exposed in Appendix E where a summary is presented comparing HAWT and VAWT technologies.

5.2 Micro-generation promotion

Wind technology presents important characteristics in the promotion of micro-generation technologies and renewable sources of energy.

The effect in the community is extremely large at the start of the project, and it persists over time with the same intensity for several generations. The movement, and its variation, produces a double effect as it captures people’s attention to this technology.

To settle the wind turbine in the downtown of a populous city stress significantly the promotion of the technology and micro-generation as a general concept.

5.3 Efficiency

In 1919 the physicist Albert Betz showed that for a hypothetical ideal wind-energy extraction machine, the fundamental laws of conservation of mass and energy allowed no more than 16/27 (59.3%) of the kinetic energy of the wind to be captured [28][46]. This Betz' law limit can be approached by modern turbine designs which may reach 70 to 80% of this theoretical limit.

Today, the available wind energy conversion efficiency reaches about an average of around 40% in modern wind turbine types. The common value for most of installation is between 30 and 35% in wind farm and between 20 and 32 % for on-roof applications. Considering the losses due to energy operation of the turbine components, this efficiency decreases in around 4 % more [35] [36] [37]. The following table presents the average wind farms efficiency in Alberta, Canada and the World for 2007.

	Alberta	Canada	World
Wind efficiency for electricity generation [%]	32.9	32.8	34

Table 5.1: The following table presents the average wind farms efficiency in 2007 [2] [80].

Another important concept related to the efficiency of the different technologies is the called The Energy Return on Energy Investment (EROEI) index; this index shows the relationship between these two amounts of energy. Appendix F presents the EROEI for different technologies for comparison; wind technology has an EROEI between 10 and 18.

5.4 Detailed analysis and specifications

Thirty-five different turbines/technologies were taken as reference to compare and work in the selection of specifications; the companies which provide these turbines provided significant expertise, comments and discussion for the project estimation (cost, time, risk, etc.) and stakeholder network development. The summary of these turbines is presented in Appendix G.

5.4.1 Noise

Noise from wind turbines (when active) may interfere with the lives of animals beneath the wind turbines. Wind turbine noise is one of the major hindrances for the widespread use of wind energy [8][77][78]. In order to reduce wind turbine noise the source mechanisms must be known. For a modern large wind turbine, aerodynamic noise from the blades is generally considered to be the dominant noise source, provided that mechanical noise is adequately treated [11].

Due to the large number of applications (e.g. wind turbines, airplanes, helicopters, fans), the characteristics of airfoil noise have been investigated extensively in both experimental and theoretical studies. Both inflow-turbulence and self-noise mechanisms were considered and the dependence on parameters such as flow speed, angle-of-attack, radiation direction, and airfoil shape was characterized. These studies formed the basis of several semi-empirical wind turbine noise prediction models, which were validated by comparison to field measurements. Since the field results only provided the overall sound level of the turbine, the relative importance of the different mechanisms was determined mainly on the basis of the predictions. In some studies inflow-turbulence noise was regarded to be the dominant source, while others considered trailing edge noise to be dominant. In another case the turbine noise in different frequency ranges was attributed to mechanical noise, trailing edge noise, tip noise, and inflow-turbulence noise.

Figure 5.1: Noise sources in the HWAT rotor plane.

In [37] is reported a serious concern related with on-roof turbine and the noise annoyance that they present. Appendix H presents the common noise production levels.

The VAWT technology, specifically the H-rotor turbine, is expected to produce much less noise than a HAWT technology. There are two main sources for wind turbine noise; aerodynamic noise from the turbine’s blade tips and mechanical noise from the drive train components. The aerodynamic noise increases with increasing blade tip speed of the turbine. A VAWT usually has a tip speed which is approximately half the tip speed of a HAWT and it therefore produces less aerodynamic noise. Since a VAWT has the drive train components at ground level, the possible noise from these parts will not propagate as easily as when the drive train components are situated on top of the tower. The VAWTs rotate slower than a HAWT of the same size; it will therefore produce less noise than the HAWT [17][41]. The following figures show the noise levels for two different turbines; in the left side a VAWT turbine noise level is represented (OE-8) and in the right side a HAWT turbine noise level is presented (OE-1).

Figure 5.2: A specification of up to 55 decibels (dBA) allows not to be intrusive and to work under Edmonton city’s bylaw and international recommendations.

5.4.2 Visual impact

This is a subjective concept; the visual impact of wind farm is considered positive (Prince-Edward Island [2]) in some regions but negative in others (Gaspésie, Quebec [2]).

In the present project, the potential visual impact is inverted; the showcase characteristics of this project convert the visual impact into a key role in the project definition. The turbine design must harmonize in shape, colour, wide, tall, etc. with the building and lateral buildings looking for the most efficient and harmonious visual impact in the promotion of MG. The swept area (area covered by the turbine in its rotation) of the turbine should be enough to capture the attention of people.

Different studies show a detailed assessment in visual impact caused by wind farms and off-shore projects [6] [7] [8] [58]; for on-roof turbine the concerns focus on disrupting scenic of old, historical, community buildings, etc. In the downtowns of modern cities, the concern is diluted by the characteristics of the cities themselves (essentially moderns and tall buildings).

The first step in maximizing the on-roof wind positive visual impact is to map the locations from which the turbines would be visible. These locations, defined as the set of points from which an observer could see any of the turbines on a clear day, are collectively known as the viewshed. Due to the NPP and SPP height in comparison to neighbouring buildings, the turbines on-roof NPP and SPP do not offer viewshed intersections with other buildings. Taller buildings in downtown Edmonton do not need consideration because they are located as far as one kilometre away. Taller buildings in downtown area are not allowed because of Edmonton’s city airport. Appendix I presents figures that show the buildings location in real proportion size in downtown Edmonton, as well as an analysis of visual specifications.

A negative effect of wind turbine visual impact showcase is the time during the turbine is not turning; a wind turbine doesn’t turn all time. If the wind speed is slow, it doesn’t have enough energy to move the turbine. This state represents a negative effect as showcase. This minimum energy depends of multiples factors such as kind of turbine, turbine power, installation, etc; the project design must maximize the time that the turbine is spinning. The following figure shows the time in service probability as function of the wind speed in on NPP roof for the four seasons and the annual average. The figure shows that for example for a cut-in of 3 m/s the turbine will be working around of 70% of the time during the summer (17.8 hours per day) and 85% during the winter (20.4 hours per day).

Figure 5.3: Time is service probability as function of the wind speed on NPP roof.

As summary for visual impact specifications:

- A swept area between 6.3 and 125 m2;

- 10 meters maximum height;

- 1.4 meters minimum turbine height (without hub);

- The turbine colour must following Canadian Aviation Regulations; when it is possible, it should be some colour which maximizes the contrast with the white, grey and light blue colour of the sky;

- The turbine colour must following Canadian Aviation Regulations; when it is possible, the turbine must have illumination during the night fed by the same system (the light should be on when the turbine is spinning);

- It should be study the psychological effect for the population in the change of colour light if the turbine is spinning or not; and

- Cut- in 3 m/s, maximizing the time turning of the turbine.

The following figure shows the total estimation installed height for the studied turbines:

Figure 5.4: Total estimation installed height for the studied turbines

5.4.3 Avian considerations

The results of many studies [14][10][71] [72] [73] [74] suggest that:

· Wind farms kill millions of birds yearly around the world, and the high mortality of rare raptors is of particular concern; a greater kill of large birds, raptors and predators is detected in wind farms; raptors glide most of the time to save energy and they use ascending air currents which often form along slopes and ridges, where wind plants are often located for the same reason;

· Wind farms on migration routes are particularly dangerous, and it is difficult to find a wind power site away from migration routes because there is no guarantee that migration routes will not vary;

· According to the model of collision probability, the rotor speed does not make a significant difference in collision probability; the hub is the most dangerous part, and large birds (e.g. raptors) are at great risk;

· based on the field observation of squirrels’ vocalisation (i.e. anti-predator behaviour), there are behavioural differences between squirrels at the wind turbine site and those at the control site; and

· Several wind farms are erected in the way of migratory routes.

In [72], the researcher goes further and reaches a relationship between bird fatalities and power generation for different technologies. The author establishes the existence of the bird and bat fatalities associated to wind farms, but he argues that this relative concept changes when we compare the birds killed per kilowatt-hour for different electricity generation facilities. For fossil fuel power plants the author considers the bird killed in coal mining, plant operation, acid rain and mercury. For Nuclear power plants, the author considers the uranium mining and milling, and plant operation; the result is presented in the following table.

Facility	Avian mortality per GWh
Fossil fuel Power Plant	0.200
Nuclear Power Plant	0.416
Wind Farm	0.269

Table 5.2: Avian mortality by technology

The conclusion in aims to show that, instead of the problems exist in wind farms, the effect is over dimensioned. For wind farms the effect is magnified because the avian mortality occurs in a very small area. Another interesting effect, based on the register following this problem, shows that the avian fatalities are sensitive to time: birds often learn to avoid wind farms after their first few years of operation.

A special concern is the slaughter of bats; the University of Calgary has conducted studies due to the high rate of bats killed by certain turbines of southern Alberta. The study determined that the vast majority of bats found dead below turbines suffered severe injuries to their respiratory systems consistent with a sudden drop in air pressure that occurs when the animals get close to turbine blades. Several universities in Canada are studying procedures and mechanism to diminish this slaughter of bats [85].

There are not conducted important studies on slaughter of birds in on-roof wind turbine installations; due to low power capacity, low swept area in on-roof project development and absence of the main concern factors, the slaughter of birds doesn’t represent an issue for on-roof wind turbines.

In relationship with the turbine technology, the VAWT is expected to be less harmful for birds and bats, since the blades move at a slower pace and the speed of the blade has been shown to affect the risk for collision greatly [17][53].

Based on these studies, we can conclude that the expected avian mortality for the on-roof project is almost null. If some mortality occurs is more related with fatality than a strict correlation of the factors.

5.4.4 Vibration

In [60][61][62] is presented both experimental and theoretical methods to study the structural dynamic characteristics of rotor blades to avoid sympathetic vibration problem. The test revealed that the natural frequencies of flap wise vibrations are lower than that of the torsional vibrations; flap-wise vibration is the main vibration of the rotor blade.

Cyclic stresses fatigue the blade, axle and bearing; material failures were a major cause of turbine failure for many years. Because wind velocity often increases at higher altitudes, the backward force and torque on a HAWT blade peaks as it turns through the highest point in its circle. The tower hinders the airflow at the lowest point in the circle, which produces a local dip in force and torque. These effects produce a cyclic twist on the main bearings of a HAWT. The combined twist is worst in machines with an even number of blades, where one is straight up when another is straight down. To improve reliability, teetering hubs have been used which allow the main shaft to rock through a few degrees, so that the main bearings do not have to resist the torque peaks.

When a HAWT turbine turns to face the wind, the rotating blades act like a gyroscope [63][64]. As it pivots, gyroscopic precession tries to twist the turbine into a forward or backward somersault. For each blade on a wind generator's turbine, precessive force is at a minimum when the blade is horizontal and at a maximum when the blade is vertical. This cyclic twisting can quickly fatigue and crack the blade roots, hub and axle of the turbines.

VAWT vibration is originated by different physics principles due to the nature of the turbine. More blades diminish vibration problems, but also decrease the turbine efficiency.

All engines turning have an inherent vibration problem, and all consequences associated to this phenomenon. Special materials, sensors and theories to mitigate the problem have been developed for hundreds of years. All this technology and procedures are available today for simple turbines applications. However, heavy turbine associated to vibration problems could produce important and quick damage in the turbine basement.

For on-roof turbines, especial considerations should be taken to avoid vibration transmission through the building; these considerations should aim structural implications, turbine life, people welfare and efficiency; real-time monitoring, periodic maintenance and inspections are mandatory. The vibration transmission/isolation technology is extremely well known, many industries face similar problems and hundreds of instruments, software, theories and solution are available. Vibration transmission to the building represents a problem in itself, but the solution is available at all levels.

5.4.5 Ice and insects

Often the locations for wind turbines are in exposed locations where they are subject to icing of the blades. Icing of wind turbine blades can cause a variety of problems, such as complete loss of production, reduction of power due to disrupted aerodynamics, overloading due to delayed stall, increased fatigue of components due to imbalance in the ice load, and damage or harm caused by uncontrolled shedding of large ice chunks [75][76].

The insect factor has a similar effect for the wind turbine performance that icing, but it does not involve public risk. Humid regions are more affected by this phenomenon and it presents its own particularities. Insects prefer to fly in conditions of high air humidity, low wind and temperatures above about 10° Celsius. Under these circumstances, they will increasingly foul the leading edges of the blades.

Stall control is not very accurate in practical application, and many stall-controlled turbines do not meet their specifications. The power of wind turbines operating in high winds has been known to drop for no known reason, causing production losses from 25 to 50%—a phenomenon referred to as a ‘Double Stall’ or a ‘Multiple Stall’. Some researchers [76] attributed this multiple power level occurrence to the insect theory, which states that these levels correspond to different degrees of insect contamination. A low contamination level decreases the power by 8% of the design value; while at high levels it can be decreased by up to 55%. In this study a device called a ‘stall flag’ was employed a hinged flap that opens up in a separated airflow to uncover an individual reflector.

Employing a projector as a light source, they measured the separated flow from the intensity of reflected light.

The most common solution for reducing the effect of insects and air pollutants on the blades is to wait for rainfall to wash the blades. The disadvantage of this system is that the wind turbine must be stopped, so the resulting power loss will simply add to the losses created by the insects. Another blade washing technique involves pumping water up through the tower and spraying it into the wind and through the blade tip, a solution that can be implemented while the turbine is in operation.

Icing and insect problems involve a maintenance requirement for the turbines. Because the Edmonton region is could experience both problems, measures should be specify for an on-roof turbine:

- Periodic maintenance during the periods with the temperature and humidity are medium/high;

- Periodic maintenance, passive (e.g. dark colour for blades to absorb energy) and active methods de-icing and/or anti-icing.

Furthermore, problems with icing are less severe with a VAWT compared to a HAWT and less security distance is required. This is due to the lower rotational speed of a VAWT but also since an ice part that comes loose cannot get a velocity directed upwards when leaving a VAWT, as could be the case with ice parts leaving a HAWT blade.

5.4.6 Environmental considerations

Wind power consumes no fuel for continuing operation, and has no emissions directly related to electricity production. Operation does not produce carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, mercury, particulates, or any other type of air pollution, as fossil fuel power sources do. Wind power turbines consume resources in manufacturing and construction. As summary, the following table presents the estimation in average GHG emission for different technologies [81].

Technology	g/kWh
Coal	850 – 1100
Coal with CCS	85 – 220
NG Simple Cycle	550 – 680
NG Combined Cycle	400 – 520
Geothermal for Electricity	40 – 115
Biomass	-40 – 40
Wind	20 – 55
Photovoltaic	40 – 120
Solar Thermal	30 – 100
Nuclear	20 – 35
Hydro-electric	10 – 30

Table 5.3: GHG emission by technology

The GHG emission intensity for the electricity industry in Alberta was 930 g/kWh in 2006 [84]. This means that 10 kW of installed wind power in Alberta represents an emission reduction of 25.3 tGHG per year, this is comparable to:

· 5 cars off of the road, or

· 300 fluorescent tubes less, or

· 5,100 toner cartridges not used, or

· 4,500 people take the bus between St. Albert and Edmonton, or

· 1,800,000 paper cups of coffee not used, or

· 2,500,000 A4 sheets not used.

During manufacture of the wind turbine, steel, concrete, aluminum and other materials will have to be made and transported using energy-intensive processes, generally using fossil energy sources. The initial energy "pay back" is claimed by one company to be within about 9 months of operation for their offshore turbines and the British Wind Energy Association claim the average wind farm will pay back the energy used in its manufacture within 3 to 5 months of operation. However, a report to the British House of Lords in 2004 suggested a payback time of 1.1 years, taking into account factors such as plant construction and decommissioning. A shorter period for offshore facilities was given, as the higher capacity factors would more than offset the added energy costs of installation.

On-roof turbines do not have environmental concerns for site installation, another impact which that wind farms must consider.

5.4.7 Job Creation

The following table presents the estimation in rate of job creation for some technologies [56] for big scale applications; for micro-generation applications, the factor of increase is between 10 and 15.

Renewable energy	Construction & installation Ratio per [MWp]	Operation & maintenance ratio per [MWp]
Wind	1.5	0.3
Coal fired Power Plant	0.27	0.74
Biomass	0.4	1.4
NG fired Power Plant	0.25	0.7

Table 5.4: Micro-generation shows great potential as job creator

5.4.8 Wind database

The stochastic nature of wind is an important constraint for wind projects and turbine design. The majority of today’s wind turbines operate within the first 100 m of the earth’s surface. This region, which occupies the lowest portion of the planetary boundary layer (PBL), is extremely turbulent and driven by variations, which occur with the diurnal changes in the atmospheric boundary conditions. The vertical variation of temperature and wind speed with height defines the PBL behaviour characteristics. During normal daytime turbine operations, the temperature normally decreases with height, which contributes to a convectively unstable atmosphere. Under these conditions, the largest and most energetic turbulent motions are associated with convective edges or cells that are many times larger than even the largest wind turbines. The large eddies actively mix with and absorb the smaller, more compact turbulent structures that have a more direct impact on rotating wind turbine blades. These effects are increased in cities were human activity means more temperature variations. Appendix K presents more details.

Canadian Wind Energy Atlas [1] provides a database for the average wind frequency and direction for Edmonton region. The available data is for three different altitudes: 30, 50 and 80 meters. This database does not take into consideration several application factors such as wind interaction in urban areas, nozzle effect due to buildings, turbulence, interaction between obstacles and obstructions, etc. According to different publications [2][3][4], all those factors increase the wind turbulence but decrease the average wind speed in building such as NPP and SPP. Based on this conclusions the database for 50 m is taken.

Wind direction will have also variations in relationship with the working database. This variation will not be significantly affected due to the rotation capacity of each wind generation unit, but it has an effect on the work and energy required in the control orientation of the turbine.

Figure 5.5: Wind Frequency Orientation distribution for NPP location 50 m of altitude.

Figure 5.6: Wind Frequency Speed distribution for NPP location at 50 m of altitude.

Although the useful database provided by [1], the urbane zone interaction generates distortions of this frequency distribution and before to start the project measures during a period of time the real conditions on top of the building is necessary. The efficiency of the wind turbine is obtained through the composition between this wind frequency speed distribution and the power curve of each turbine. To know the real wind conditions on the roof of the building will allow selecting better turbine and its better operating conditions.

5.4.9 Power and Efficiency

One of the significant measures of the cost effectiveness of a wind turbine is its production of energy. In the design and analysis of wind turbines, the annual energy output is calculated. Calculation of annual energy output requires knowledge of the wind speed frequency distribution and the system power output of the turbine as a function of wind speed. Furthermore, every prediction of annual energy output is specific, depending on the local wind flow patterns and turbulence and the local air density [19][21].

Turbine height was found to have a significant effect on mean wind speed and power generated, while output varied considerably with wind direction. The optimum mounting position was also found to be dependent on the wind direction. If the probability of wind flowing from all directions is similar, however, turbine location was found to be unimportant provided that the turbine was located above roof height. With a strong prevailing wind direction, optimum mounting position is likely to vary.

Several factors affect the power output and efficiency in electricity generation for a turbine; the most important factor is the correct selection of the turbine for the wind conditions in the site. The wind condition is a statistic result of the study during a period of time in the exact location where the turbine will be located. For on-roof projects, this study presents a big concern that must be specially considered. Many factors affect the wind frequency distribution and intensity in cities and they change over the time.

Urban wind monitoring projects in Europe, the UK and the USA consider the future viability of roof-top turbines in urban houses, the advantages and disadvantages of the systems, and compare yield and noise from alternative models. The WINEUR project and Warwick wind trails are based on 21 building mounted turbines each, while the Massachusetts trial is based on 19 small turbines in urban locations [79]. Both the Warwick and Massachusetts projects found that urban site conditions that reduce wind speed are not the sole reason for low energy production. The accuracy of manufacturers’ power curves, losses from balance-of-system components, and losses from additional site conditions (such as very close obstacles causing turbulence and wind shear), have also been identified as major causes. The balance-of-systems and effect of turbulence/wind shear are estimated to reduce energy production by 10–15% and 15–30%, respectively. The following figure shows both typical curves for different analysed turbines and the annual wind speed frequency distribution for above NPP respectively.

Figure 5.7: typical curves for different analysed turbines and the annual wind speed frequency distribution on NPP.

The following figure shows the estimated efficiency for each turbine in Edmonton NPP in on-roof project. This efficiency takes into consideration the different loss of efficiency due to mechanical and electronic losses in transmission, conversion, insects, ice, etc. The net delivered energy by the turbine should be considered for comparison of technologies, the development of the business case and any other study or comparison.

Figure 5.8: Total energy efficiency estimation for the analysed turbines considering the on-roof application in NPP. The average value, 20.5%, is shown as the red line.

- Total efficiency higher than 20% is anticipated for efficiency specifications.

5.4.10 Costs

The overall cost for the wind turbine project is determined by the manufacturing costs, the amount of captured energy, the cost for site preparation and installation, the maintenance cost and the financing cost [40]. It is measured in $/kWh. Technical factors such as the efficiency of the turbine, the efficiency of drive train, generator and grid connection also have an important impact on the cost.

When comparing the manufacturing costs of VAWTs and HAWTs, consider that the HAWTs have been produced for a long time and are produced in large numbers. As result smarter and cheaper solutions and the large numbers produced decreases the price since parts can be mass produced. Furthermore, as the technology has matured it has been possible to scale up the HAWTs, lowering the cost per installed kW even more. No mass production of VAWTs exists.

The difference in costs between VAWTs and HAWTs for planning, producing, transporting and erecting a turbine and for operation and maintenance (O&M) is mainly governed by the different costs for producing the turbine and the costs for O&M with some exceptions; it might be easier to erect the lighter tower of a VAWT, and it might be easier to transport the shorter blades of a HAWT, whereas the curved blades for the Darrieus turbine is very difficult to transport.

The efficiency for VAWTs is expected to nearly reach efficiency values for HAWTs [40]. The design of the H-rotor is based on simplicity. By omitting a yaw system and the heavy nacelle and by having straight blades, the production costs are lowered even though the H-rotor usually has longer blades than a HAWT. For a Darrieus turbine, the blades are expensive to manufacture since they are both long and bent and sometimes twisted. The cost analysis made by Walters et al. [47] indicates that VAWTs could be cost competitive to HAWTs.

The following figure shows the range of cost per kilowatt nominal capacity:

Figure 5.9: Cost of wind project per kW of nominal capacity

5.4.11 On-roof downtown projects

Since the majority of the world’s population lives in urban areas, implementing wind turbines for electricity micro-generation for urban houses has the potential to make a significant contribution to renewable energy targets. Micro-generation at the single-building scale using roof-top wind turbines is one technology being used on urban houses increasingly in European cities and just starting in Canadian cities.

Typical roof-top turbine installations for houses are rated at 3.5 kW or less. In Alberta, a 2.5 kW nominal capacity turbine is enough to provide the consumed electricity for the average household. A study of 21 roof-top turbine installations in Europe under the WINEUR project has revealed that the reasons for installing turbines vary from educational (46%) and environmental (26%) to improving the organisational image (20%). Thirty percent of these turbines were installed in villages or country parks, while only 10% were installed in dense inner-city locations [79].

To date the low development of roof-top turbines in relationship with wind farms is related with the lower efficiency, high cost per nominal kW for the small turbines, particularities for each application, and a lack of policies that help with the development of the micro turbines market. All these barriers are being minimized over time with the introduction and development of new technology and adequate policies such as Alberta’s micro-generation regulation.

Computer simulations used to study wind flow in an urban area around an array of simple pitched-roof buildings, along with the effect of potential turbine mounting position on the turbine output, found that the behaviour of wind in a built-up area is different from that around an isolated house. For example, the speed-up effect as wind passes over the ridge of an isolated house is absent when the house is in an urban environment. Appendix L summarizes different on-roof projects around the world.

5.4.12 Decommissioning

Unlike many conventional energy generating sites, on-roof wind turbines do not require expensive decommissioning or remediation when they cease operation. Also, on-roof turbines are small turbines and their decommissioning does not require special considerations.

Decommissioning will occur if leases are not renewed at the end of the term. Full removal of all equipment and foundations and the site remediation will be completed, to the satisfaction of the landowner as stipulated in the lease agreement, and in compliance with all federal, provincial, municipal and building regulations.

6 Regulations

6.1 Public safety considerations

This section identifies potential health and safety risks to the public from the construction and operation of the Project.

Noise

With little consideration of low frequency noise standards, which vary from country to country, the inadequacy of Michigan’s wind turbine noise standard becomes apparent when reviewing general noise level standards

for community noise and wind turbine noise that have been adopted around the world. The Michigan Wind Guidelines states 55 dBA. Michigan Standards also exceed regulatory limits set in Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany and New Zealand, which have not been included here.

District type	Daytime limit [dBA]	Evening limit [dBA]	Night limit [dBA]
Rural	35	30	25
Sub-urban	40	35	30
Urban residential	45	40	35
Urban mixed	50	45	40

Table 6.1: ISO 1996-1971 Recommendations for Community Noise Limits

Icing

Icing presents an important concern due to the weather conditions for the turbine location. The lack of regulation about wind turbine icing presents more challenges for this project located in Edmonton.

Aircraft Routes

One of the major constraints for developing the on-roof project in Edmonton downtown is the aeronautical regulations due to the Edmonton City Centre Airport. NPP and SPP are in the protected zone for air traffic and the regulations introduce serious limitations in lighting, colour and maximum height.

Figure 6.1: view of Edmonton City Airport and NPP and SPP buildings

The minimum distance between NPP and the south runways of the airport is around 2,500 meters. This is the minimum required distance for many security navigation regulations. The analysis should carry on with precaution. The evaluation process has already started.

The authorization request should be completed for new structures only if:

· The structure is within six (6) kilometers of the center of an aerodrome, or two (2) kilometers of a TC radar, radio navigation or radio communication antenna; or

· The structure exceeds twenty (20) meters in height, including catenary wire crossings; or

· The structure is within fifteen (15) meters and exceeds the height of a dominant structure already in place.

Lightning

Due to the height of the turbines, there is a potential for lightning strikes. Navigation Canada provides the guidelines for lighting.

6.2 Federal Regulations

NAV Canada: http://www.navcanada.ca/NavCanada.asp?Content=ContentDefinitionFiles%5CServices%5CANSPrograms%5CLandUseProposal%5Cdefault.xml

Transport Canada: http://www.tc.gc.ca/ontarioregion/civilaviation/aerodrome/documents/ObstructionclearanceForm.PDF

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/cars/PART6/images/g621s07.gif

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/cars/Part6/Standards/Standard621.htm

Aeronautic Act: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/A-2

6.3 Provincial Regulations

Micro Generator Application - Process & Guidelines: http://www.auc.ab.ca/aucdocs/programs/MicroGen/Micro_Generator_Application_July%2018.pdf

Micro-generation Regulation: http://www.auc.ab.ca/aucdocs/programs/MicroGen/Microgen_Regulation.pdf

FAQ: http://www.auc.ab.ca/aucdocs/programs/MicroGen/micro_gen_faq.pdf

Forms: http://www.auc.ab.ca/aucdocs/programs/MicroGen/Forms.doc

Wire Service Provider: http://www.ucahelps.gov.ab.ca/9.html

Alberta Transportation: http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType329/Production/rdpapp.pdf

Hydro and Electric Energy Act: http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/documents/Acts/H16.cfm?frm_isbn=9780779730209 http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/documents/Regs/1983_409.cfm?frm_isbn=0773236775

Legal Land Description: http://www.servicealberta.gov.ab.ca

6.4 Municipal Regulations

The City of Edmonton bylaw 14600 states the following limit for noise generation:

· Daytime decibel limit – non residential:

o 75 dBA between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m

o 80 dBA lasting for a total period of time not exceeding two hours in any one day; or

o 85 dBA lasting for a total period of time not exceeding one hour in any one day.

· Overnight decibel limit – non residential:

o 60 dBA before 7 a.m. or after 10 p.m.

Based on the research done a wind turbine would not exceed these limits.

Municipal Affaires : http://municipalaffairs.gov.ab.ca/

Edmonton Airport:

http://webdocs.edmonton.ca/InfraPlan/ZoningBylaw/ZoningBylaw/Part2/Overlays/810A_(APO)_Airport_Protection_Overlay_Schedule_for_the_City_Centre_Airport.htm

6.5 Building Owner

Negotiations with the building owner should be started one the project is approved. The project adds value to the building (e.g. provide credit for LEED qualification), but studies should be carry on to the changes in static and dynamic load in the building.

7 Business cases

7.1 Scenarios

Four different scenarios are proposed for a comparative analysis:

- The first scenario is called status-quo; it represents not developing any project and to promote MG through advertisement, brochures, etc. as is the current practice.

- The second scenario is called on-roof H/VWAT (On-roof wind); it represents the development of on-roof project based on HAWT or VWAT technology on NPP and SPP buildings (preferably but not limited to).

- The third scenario is called HWAT (Ground wind), it represents the development of windmill project on river ground.

- The fourth scenario is called Solar Panel; it represents the development of on-roof project based on Solar Photovoltaic (PV) panels on NPP and SPP buildings (preferably but not limited to).

7.2 High level assessment

Researchers had studied, proposed indexes and assessed the different renewable sources of energy for electricity generation [29][30][48][49][50][51][52][53]. Some of these assessments could be applied for Alberta’s conditions in the comparison for this project. In [29] [30] the non-combustion based renewable electricity generation technologies were assessed against a range of sustainability indicators, using data obtained from the literature. The conclusion (Alberta conditions are usually worse for renewable electricity production), according to the second paper our electricity generation is:

Technology	Sustainable rankings
Technology	Sustainable rankings
Wind	13
Hydro	16
Solar	20
Geothermal	21

Table 7.1: Sustainable ranking for different technologies

The conclusion of this paper shows that wind technology has the best ranking assessment, followed by Hydro, PV and Geothermal. PV has 54% worse ranking than wind technology for our climate and location. Wind technology also shows better index in Price, GHG emission, availability and limitations, efficiency, water consumption and social impact; the only index that PV overcomes wind is in land use.

Quite often citizens, journalists, policymakers and politicians are bombarded for information showing the useful of solar technologies, geothermal for power, etc; usually, the information does not include details which adapt the technology for Alberta conditions (sun radiation intensity, grid emission, depth of resources, etc). Alberta’s conditions are significantly worse for solar technologies than the average condition studied in the assessment, and these indexes show more differences in our country.

7.3 Solar Photovoltaic

PV technology is an excellent technology, but for very specials applications today. The future appears to be better if some milestones are reached and barriers overtaken for the development of the technology. Also, today this technology needs of external conditions to see it massively used; one of the most important is the increase of fossil fuel prices.

Nowadays, PV technology looks to be very expensive and inefficient for common application in comparison to other technologies, especially in Alberta (and Canada). PV systems offer the promise of clean and plentiful energy, but they suffer a large handicap in that their cost is still much too high. Nevertheless, during the 1980s and 1990s PV cell production has been increasing on average by more than 15% per year.

Appendix M provides details of solar photovoltaic technology analysis.

7.4 Comparison of alternatives and evaluation

7.4.1 Assess Impact

All scenarios must be developed in similar and real conditions in Alberta regions, focusing on downtown buildings in big cities. The magnitude of the evaluation is:

Negative				Positive
High	Medium	Low	Neutral	Low	Medium	High
-3	-2	-1	0	1	2	3

Table 7.2: Assess impact evaluation table

Where:

- High: impact is significant and stakeholders support and preparation are critical

- Medium: manageable impact to the stakeholders

- Low: minor impact to the stakeholders

- None: stakeholders will not be impacted

Subject	Stand-by	Solar Panels	On roof Wind	Ground Wind
Energy use and conservation	0	1	2	1
Energy efficiency promotion	0	1	2	1
GHG emission reduction	0	1	2	2
DoE commitment and initiative	-1	2	3	2
Micro-business development	1	2	3	3
Show case for MG technologies	0	1	3	3
Quality investment	-3	-2	2	2
Risk	0	-1	-1	-1
Impact Score	-3	+5	+16	+13

Table 7.3: Assess impact evaluation for the different four alternatives

7.4.2 Risks Assessment

Risk assessment consideration:

· Probability of risk:

o High: highly likely to occur

o Medium: likely to occur

o Low: not likely to occur

· Impact of Risk

o High: significant impact to the project

o Medium: impact the project

o Low: impact is relatively minor to the project

o None: will not impact the project

Impact	High	3	-3	-6	-9
	Medium	2	-2	-4	-6
	Low	1	-1	-2	-3
	None	0	0	0	0
			-1	-2	-3
			Low	Medium	High
			Probability

Table 7.4: Risk assessment table

Appendix N presents the detailed risk analysis for each alternative.

Risk Impact	Stand-by	Solar Panels	On-roof Wind	Ground Wind
Total Risk	-6	-26	-18	-18

Table 7.5: Risk assessment outcome for the four different alternatives

7.4.3 Cost/Benefit Analysis

RETScreen software, by NRCan, provides a comparison tool between Solar Panel and Wind alternatives. Appendix O presents the RETScreen Finanacial analysis output.

Re-directing promotion budget	Stand-by	Solar Panels	On-roof Wind	Ground Wind
Nominal capacity [kW]	na	8	8	8
Electricity generation [MW/y]	na	8.4	17	15
Total Initial Cost	~40,000	83,764	59,499	57,720
Annual Cost	0	220	300	300
Simple Payback [y]	na	54.1	17.2	16.1
Equity Payback [y]	na	35.4	14.2	13.4

Table 7.6: RETScreen summary for the ecominic comparison of the four alterantives

As Wind Turbines and Solar Panels contribute significantly to micro-generation promotion, business cases are developed where the 75% of the micro-generation funds for Stand-by alternative are used as promotion in the other alternatives.

Re-directing promotion budget	Stand-by	Solar Panels	On-roof Wind	Ground Wind
Nominal capacity [kW]	na	8	8	8
Electricity generation [MW/y]	na	8.4	17	15
Total Initial Cost	~40,000	53,764	29,499	27,720
Annual Cost	0	220	300	300
Simple Payback [y]	na	54.1	17.2	16.1
Equity Payback [y]	na	35.4	14.2	13.4

Table 7.7: Reasignation of funding for the RETScreen summary for the ecominic comparison.

7.4.4 Comparison – Conclusions on alternative scenarios

The Assess Impact assessment shows that Wind Turbine is the better project in comparison to Solar Panels and Stand-by alternatives.

Assess Impact	Stand-by	Solar Panels	On-roof Wind	Ground Wind
Impact Score	-3	+5	+16	+13

The Risk Impact assessment shows that Stand-by alternatives has a lower risk, followed by Wind Turbine alternatives.

Assess Impact	Stand-by	Solar Panels	On-roof Wind	Ground Wind
Total Risk	-6	-26	-18	-18

Economic assessment shows that Wind turbine alternatives are abetter as business case in comparison to Solar Panels and Stand-by alternatives.

Economic assessment	Stand-by	Solar Panels	On-roof Wind	Ground Wind
Nominal capacity [kW]	na	8	8	8
Electricity generation [MW/y]	na	8.4	17	15
Total Initial Cost	~40,000	53,764	29,499	27,720
Annual Cost	0	220	300	300
Simple Payback [y]	na	54.1	17.2	16.1
Equity Payback [y]	na	35.4	14.2	13.4

In conclusion, the development of wind projects presents enormous advantages to Stand-by and Solar Panel alternatives; on-roof wind project presents a small advantage in comparison with ground wind project.

8 On-roof Wind Project

8.1 Alternatives

The project could be divided in mains stages:

	Write RFP
	↓
	Send the RFP to pre-selected companies
	↓
	Evaluate proposals
	↓
	Select the company to develop the project
	↓
	Sign agreement
	↓
Measure weather conditions in the buildings		Start with the development of the project and construction of parts

	↓
	Installation
	↓
	SAT- Commissioning
	↓
	Decommissioning

Figure 8.1: milestones in the development of the project

Four development alternatives for the project could be implemented:

1. DoE: the project is managed and supervised by DoE. Staff in the DoE manage and supervise each of the tasks described above.

2. Eng: the project supervised by DoE by contracting an engineering company. The company manages and supervises each of the tasks above. Staff in the DoE supervises the engineering firm.

3. Com: the project is supervised by DoE under pre-agreement with a turbine builder or its representing company. Agreement with a specialized company to develop the last four tasks above. Staff in the DoE selects and supervises the company.

4. Par: the project is supervised by DoE under pre-agreement with a turbine builder or its representing company. Staff in the DoE supervises the company. The company will recover part of the investment by the saved energy during the lifetime of the project. The capital expenditure will be minimal for the GoA.

All alternatives present an opportunity for the company which develops the project to promote their products and solution; this advantage is not analysed in the business case and it is part of the foreseen negotiations with the company providing the technology.

8.2 Assess Impact

The comparison for the three alternatives is:

Subject	DoE	Eng	Com	Part
Wrote RFP	0	1	2	2
sent the RFP to pre-selected companies	1	0	2	2
signed of agreement	2	2	3	3
Measured weather conditions in the buildings	0	0	2	2
Project development	1	2	3	3
Installation	1	2	3	3
SAT- Commissioning	0	0	1	2
Project time	0	1	3	3
Government investment	0	0	2	3
Continue efficiency	1	1	2	3
Decommissioning	0	0	0	0
Total	+6	+9	+23	+26

Table 8.1: Assess impact outcomes for the four alternatives developing the on-roof project

8.3 Risk Assessment

The risk assessment details could be seeing in Appendix Q. The summary is presented here:

	DoE	Eng	Com	Part
Total Risk	-43	-37	-26	-18

Table 8.2: Risk impact outcomes for the four alternatives developing the on-roof project

8.4 Business cases

Appendix R presents the business cases without consideration of the induced business development and cost of manpower for the DoE.

The following analysis considers several issues:

· Cost of manpower, administrative and professional, for the GoA in the development, supervision, administration and inspection of the project;

· The revenue generated by the promotion of the technology across the province. One of the most important goals for this project is micro-generation promotion in Alberta. This promotion stimulates the development of projects, which generate revenue for the government in two ways: corporate income tax and personal income tax through workers.

Considering:

· VAWT cost turbine (HAWT has a capital cost 5 to 15% lower)

· Nominal Capacity: 6 kW

· Turbines: 2, one on each building

· Net Efficiency: 20%

· Cost of the project: 8,570 $/kW

· Maintenance cost: 800 $/y (DoE and Eng); 400 $/y (Com) and 250 $/y (Part)

· Inflation: 2.3%/y

· Increase COE : 2.3%/y

· Rate of Return: 9%

· Final COE : 0.12 $/kW

· Life time: 25 years

· Decommissioning: $7500 plus $1250/kW

· Incenting the development of 10 micro-generation projects per year:

Technology	Cost [$/kW]	Emission [Kg/MWh]	Efficiency [%]	Job Creation [jobs/MWp]
Technology	Cost [$/kW]	Emission [Kg/MWh]	Efficiency [%]	Installation	Maintenance
Wind	7,000	40	25	1.5	0.3
Solar	11,000	60	10	5.9	3.0
Other	12,000	150	30	0.4	1.2

· Job creation factor for micro-generation applications: 12.5

· Induced application per year: 3.9 (8% of the total micro-generation applications)

· Nominal Capacity induced applications: 4.25 kW (average capacity installed up to day)

· Income TAX Recovery: 2.13%

· Provincial Personal Income Tax: 6.07%

· Average worker salary: 50,000 $/y

Appendix R presents the detailed calculations for the business case (CO2 savings are not considered); as summary:

PV values [$]	DoE	Eng	Com	Part
Maintenance cost	(10,000)	(10,000)	(5,000)	(3,000)
Capital Expenditure	(103,000)	(153,000)	(103,000)	(73,000)
GoA Manpower cost	(73,000)	(43,000)	(34,000)	(34,000)
Decommissioning	(4,000)	(4,000)	(4,000)	(4,000)
Energy saving	30,000	30,000	30,000	0
Tax Recovery	178,000	178,000	178,000	178,000
CO2 saving	3,000	3,000	3,000	3,000
Project PV	18,000	(2,000)	62,000	64,000

Table 8.3: Business cases summary for the four wind on-roof project development alternatives

8.4.1 Emission, Economy Stimulation, Saved Energy and Job Creation

The development of an on-roof project has several additional gains for the GoA. Because of the promotion and incentive in the application of micro-generation technology, new developments will be induced; these developments create business, jobs and help to increase the micro-generation benefits (more electricity, less emissions, more efficiency, etc.).

Under the developed business case, the induced benefit for this project over 20 years is:

	1	2	3	4	5	6	…..	20
Saved emission [tGHG]	42	41	40	40	39	38	…..	21
Accumulated saved emission [tGHG]	42	84	124	164	203	241	…..	650
Saved energy [MWh]	47	47	47	47	47	47	…..	47
Accumulated saved energy [MWh]	51	102	153	203	254	305	…..	1,015
Created Jobs	1.1	1.4	1.8	2.1	2.4	2.8	…..	7.5
Generated business [M$]	0.28	0.18	0.18	0.19	0.19	0.20	…..	0.27

Table 8.4: Summary of energy and emission to save by micro-generation technologies

For the micro-generation business the benefit for this project over 20 years is:

	1	2	3	4	5	6	…..	20
Saved emission [ktGHG]	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	…..	0.8
Accumulated saved emission [ktGHG]	1.0	2.0	2.9	3.9	4.9	5.9	…..	18.3
Saved energy [GWh]	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.2	1.2	1.2	…..	1.7
Accumulated saved energy [GWh]	1.2	2.4	3.6	4.9	6.2	7.5	…..	29.6
Created Jobs	46	61	77	93	109	126	…..	407
Generated business [M$]	6.4	6.5	6.7	6.8	7.0	7.1	…..	9.8

Table 8.5: Summary of energy and emission to save associated to this on-roof project

8.5 On-roof project schedules

Appendix S presents the details in the project schedules. The summary is shown in the following table.

	DoE	Eng	Com	Part
Time [business days]	476	479	396	396

Table 8.6: schedule for the development of the on-roof wind project for the four different alternatives

9 RECOMENDATIONS

We recommend that the Department of Energy choose Alternative On-roof wind project. The project reaches all the goals for the Office Ecology Team in the promotion of micro-generation technology in Alberta giving the GoA the initiative and commitment in the development of renewable source of energy and energy efficiency.

In addition, the developed business case shows that the project is profitable for the GoA, recovering the investment through the incentive of business development, personal income tax and business taxes.

For the four alternatives considered in the development of the project, we recommend Alternative 4 “Partner”, which means to evaluate and negotiate with a pre-qualified company the development of the project. This approach represents the most efficient way to develop the project with a minimum capital expenditure, minimum maintenance cost, minimum risk and maximum efficiency over the time. Alternative 3 “Com” presents a slight risk in comparison with Alternative 4, but it is considered the second best option.

The funding breakdown based on 2 turbines, with 6 kW nominal capacity for each one, remains:

6 kW turbine	Year 0	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3	…..	Year 20
Capital Expenditure	64,000
GoA Manpower	34,000	250	250	250		250
Payment for Energy saving		2,520	2,580	2,640	…..	3,890

Table 9.1: GoA funding break down

And the financial outcomes

6 kW turbine	Outcomes
Project Present Value [$] over the 25 of the project life [$]	66,000
Project Simple Payback [years]	14

Figure 9.1: Total capital expenditure and project present value as function of the kW installed (two identical turbines).

Figure 9.2: Annual savings for wind electricity generation is represented in the yearly money paid by the GoA. The different curves represent different nominal wind turbine capacities.

The global technical recommended specifications are, but not limited to:

Item	Specification	Unit
Turbine - first option	VAWT
Alternative	HAWT
Nominal capacity	3 to 8	kW
Cut-in	3	m/s
Net efficiency	≥ 20	%
Noise	≤ 50	dBA
Weight	≤ 500	Kg
Height	≥ 2; ≤ 10	m
Swept area	≥ 6.3; ≤ 125	m2
Vibration	Continue monitoring; vibration damper according to building specification
Foundation	Insulating
Slaughter of bird	NA
Anti-icing equipment	Yes
Insects	NA
Interconnection	On-grid
SCADA system	Current, historic and trend data for inverter variables, vibration sensors, etc.

Table 9.2: Minimal specification for the turbines

At least nine analysed turbines could reach these specifications (OE-5, OE-7, OE-8, OE-21. OE-22, OE-24, OE-26, OE-27, OE-29); this number could increase due to continued improvements in the development of micro-turbines as well as new available turbines in the market.

Works consulted

[1] Canadian Wind Energy Atlas [online], http://www.windatlas.ca/en/index.php (web site consulted on December 23, 2008)

[2] Canadian Wind Energy Association [online], http://www.canwea.ca/ (web site consulted on December 22, 2008) and monthly newsletters.

[3] Hughes, M. et al, Influence of Tower Shadow and Wind Turbulence on the Performance of Power System Stabilizers for DFIG-Based Wind Farms, IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, Vol 23, N. 2, June 2008, pp. 519-528

[4] Bekele, G et al, Wind energy potential assessment at four typical locations in Ethiopia, Applied Energy Journal (2009) pp. 388–396

[5] Tanaka, S et al, Wind effects on noise propagation for complicated geographical and road configurations, Applied Acoustics Journal (2008) pp.1038–1043

[6] Tsoutsos, T et al, Visual impact evaluation of a wind park in a Greek island, Applied Energy Journal (2009) 546–553

[7] Ladenburg, J. Visual impact assessment of offshore wind farms and prior experience, Applied Energy Journal (2009) 380–387

[8] Pedersen, E. et al,The impact of visual factors on noise annoyance among people living in the vicinity of wind turbines, Journal of Environmental Psychology (2008) 379–389

[9] Benitez, L et al, The economics of wind power with energy storage, Energy Economics Journal, 2007

[10] Bright, J et al, Map of bird sensitivities to wind farms in Scotland: A tool to aid planning and conservation, Biological Conservation (2008) pp. 2342-2356

[11] Oerlemans, S, et al, Location and quantification of noise sources on a wind turbine, Journal of Sound and Vibration (2007) pp. 869–883

[12] Eriksson, S. et al, Evaluation of different turbine concepts for wind power, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (2008) pp. 1419–1434

[13] Filios, A. et al, Broadband noise radiation analysis for an HAWT rotor, Renewable Energy Journal (2007) pp. 1497–1510

[14] Kikuchi, R., Adverse impacts of wind power generation on collision behaviour of birds and anti-predator behaviour of squirrels, Journal for Nature Conservation (2008) pp. 44—55

[15] Brown, M. et al, Experimental and Model-Computed Area-Averaged Vertical Profiles of Wind Speed for Evaluation of Mesoscale urban Canopy Schemes. American Meteorological Society. (http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/105229.pdf) (web site consulted on December 29, 2008)

[16] WINEUR - Wind energy integration in the urban environment, European Commission under Intelligent Energy – European programme (http://www.bwea.com/pdf/small/wineur.pdf), (web site consulted on December 29, 2008)

[17] Herbert, G.M. et al, “A review of wind energy technologies” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews Journal, (2007) pp. 1117–1145

[18] Wood DH. Determination of the optimum tower height for a small wind turbine. Int J REE 2001;3(2):356–9.

[19] Burton T, Sharpe D, Jenkins N, Bossanyi E. Wind energy handbook. New York: Wiley; 2001. p. 531–3.

[20] Eriksson, S. et al, Evaluation of different turbine concepts for wind power, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews Journal, 2008, pp. 1419–1434

[21] Calgary Herald, December 17, 2008

[22] Ontario Power Authority, [online] http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/sop/Page.asp?PageID=122&ContentID=4045 (page consulted on December 18, 2008)

[23] Ontario Power Authority, [online] http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/sop/Page.asp?PageID=122&ContentID=4022&SiteNodeID=250 (page consulted on December 18, 2008)

[24] Malcolm DJ. Modal response of 3-bladed wind turbines. J Sol Energy Eng 2002;124:364–71.

[25] Ackermann, T. et al, An assessment on seasonal analysis of wind energy characteristics and wind turbine characteristics, Energy Conversion and Management Journal (2005), pp. 1848–1867

[26] Ackermann, T. et al, An overview of wind energy-status 2002, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews Journal (2002) pp. 67–128

[27] Sanchez, I. Short-term prediction of wind energy production, International Journal of Forecasting 22 (2006) pp. 43– 56

[28] Ozgener, O., A small wind turbine system (SWTS) application and its performance analysis, Energy Conversion and Management Journal (2006) pp. 1326–1337

[29] Kaldelli, J. et al, Comparing wind and photovoltaic stand-alone power systems used for the electrification, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (2007) pp. 57–77

[30] Evans, A. et al, Assessment of sustainability indicators for renewable energy technologies, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, RSER-558; 7 p.

[31] Anon.2. Technical Sheet of THERMIE Project Renewables Wind Energy (RWE-8). Contract no: WE/00010/91/DE. Project end date: 31/08/1994. OPET Sweden, Drottninggatan 50, 111 21 Stockholm, Sweden

[32] Charlier RH. A, ‘‘sleeper’’ awakes: tidal current power, Renew Sustainable Energy Rev 2003, pp 515–29

[33] Manwell JF, et al Wind energy explained, 1st ed. Amherst, USA: Wiley; 2002

[34] Muljadi E, et al, Control strategy for variable-speed, stall-regulated wind turbines. National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1989; NREL/CP-500-24311-UC Category: 1211

[35] Riegler H. HAWT versus VAWT: small VAWTs find a clear niche. Refocus 2003;4(4):44–6.

[36] Mertens S. The energy yield of roof mounted wind turbines. Wind Eng 2003;27(6):507–18.

[37] Encraft, Warwick Wind Trials Report 2009 - www.encraft.co.uk

[38] Knight J. Urban wind power: breezing into town. Nature 2004;430(6995):12–3.

[39] SWT Pilot Program – Hamilton, [online] http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/F5FF1B05-3F55-4686-A521-7DE581C43926/0/Aug09PW06093.pdf (page consulted on January 6, 2009)

[40] Neuhäuser, [online] http://www.neuhaeuser.com/windenergie/video/STROM_AUS_WIND_dsl2.wmv (page consulted on December 18, 2008)

[41] C. Brothers. Vertical axis wind turbines for cold climate applications. Montreal, Canada. Renewable Energy Technologies in Cold Climates ’98 International Conference.

[42] TMA, [online] http://www.tmawind.com/ (web site consulted on January 15, 2009)

[43] Cleanfield Energy, [online] http://www.cleanfieldenergy.com/ (web site consulted on November 24, 2008)

[44] Federation of Canadian Municipalities, [on line] http://gmf.fcm.ca (web site consulted on February 4, 2009)

[45] Statistic Canada, [on line] http://www.statcan.gc.ca/ (web site consulted till March 2009)

[46] National Renewable Energy Laboratory, [on line] http://www.nrel.gov/wind (web site consulted till March 2009)

[47] WhalePower, [on line] http://www.whalepower.com/ (web site consulted on February 2009)

[48] National Research Council of the National Academies, Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects, May 2007, 278 p.

[49] Xing, Y. et al, A framework model for assessing sustainability impacts of urban development, Accounting Forum (2008) ACCFOR-154; 16 p.

[50] Marull J. et al, A Land Suitability Index for Strategic Environmental Assessment in metropolitan areas, Landscape and Urban Planning, 2007, pp. 200–212

[51] Kumar Singh R. et al, An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies, Ecological Indicators, 2009, pp. 1 8 9 – 2 1 2

[52] Karavanas, A. et al, Evaluation of the implementation of best available techniques in IPPC context an environmental performance indicators approach, Journal of Cleaner Production, 2008, 7 p.

[53] Moles, R. et al, Practical appraisal of sustainable development—Methodologies for sustainability measurement at settlement level, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 2008, pp. 144–165

[54] PV Resources, [on line] http://www.pvresources.com (web site consulted on February 22, 2009)

[55] Climate Change Central – Alberta Solar Municipal Showcase, [on line] http://www.lassothesun.ca/ (web site consulted on February 21, 2009)

[56] WorldWatch Institute – Green Jobs Initiative, Green Jobs: Toward Sustainable Work in a Low-Carbon World, Preliminary Report, December 2007

[57] U.S. Department of Commerce – National Technical Information Service, Determination of Effects of Atmospheric Contamination of Photovoltaic Cells in Concentrating Systems, 1986

[58] Arons, S., Energy Yield and Visual Impact Studies of the Berlin Wind Project, Williams College, Williamstown, Massachusetts, 12 May 2004

[59] Sagan, C., Dragons of Eden, Ballantine Books; Reprint edition (1986), ISBN-10: 0345346297, 288 pp

[60] Mroz, A. et al, Full-scale measurements and numerical evaluation of wind-induced vibration of a 63-story reinforced concrete tall building, Computers and Structures Journal (2008) pp. 217–226

[61] Larsen, J. et al, Non-linear dynamics of wind turbine wings, International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics (2006), pp. 629 – 643

[62] Sun, D. et al, Application of the k–w turbulence model for a wind- induced vibration study of 2D bluff bodies, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, article in press (2008)

[63] Fisher, O. Wind-excited vibrations—Solution by passive dynamic vibration absorbers of different types, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics (2007) pp. 1028–1039

[64] Larsen, J. et al, Nonlinear parametric instability of wind turbine wings, Journal of Sound and Vibration (2007) pp. 64–82

[65] Guerard, K. et al, The processing of spatial information in short-term memory: Insights from eye tracking the path length effect, Acta Psychologica (2009) article in press

[66] Reyes, M. et al, Effects of cognitive load presence and duration on driver eye movements and event detection performance, Transportation Research Part F 11 (2008) pp. 391–402

[67] Näsäsen, R. et al, Effect of stimulus contrast on performance and eye movements in visual search, Vision Research (2001) pp. 1817–1824

[68] Rayner, K. et al, Eye movements during information processing tasks: Individual differences and cultural effects, Vision Research (2007) pp. 2714–2726

[69] Jarozka, H. et al, In the eyes of the beholder: How experts and novices interpret dynamic stimuli, Learning and Instruction (2009) article in press

[70] Muggleton, N. et al, Human frontal eye fields and target switching, Cortex (2009), doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2009.01.011

[71] Masden, E. et al. Cumulative impact assessments and bird/wind farm interactions: Developing a conceptual framework, Environmental Impact Assessment Review (2009), Article in Press (EIR-05606)

[72] Sovacool, B. Contextualizing avian mortality: A preliminary appraisal of bird and bat fatalities from wind, fossil-fuel, and nuclear electricity, Energy Policy Journal 37 (2009) pp. 2241–2248.

[73] Kikuch, R. Adverse impacts of wind power generation on collision behaviour of birds and anti-predator behaviour of squirrels, Journal for Nature Conservation 16 (2008) pp. 44-55.

[74] Desholm, M. Avian sensitivity to mortality: Prioritising migratory bird species for assessment at proposed wind farms, Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) 2672–2679

[75] Dalili, N., et al, A review of surface engineering issues critical to wind turbine performance, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13 (2009) pp. 428–438

[76] Homola, M. et al, Ice sensors for wind turbines, Cold Regions Science and Technology Journal 46 (2006) pp. 125–131

[77] van den Berg, G. Effects of the wind profile at night on wind turbine sound, Journal of Sound and Vibration 277 (2004) pp. 955-970

[78] The Telegraph, UK, [on line], http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5364965/Wind-turbines-killed-goats-by-depriving-them-of-sleep.html, (web site consulted on May 22, 2009)

[79] Mithraratne, N. Roof-top wind turbines for microgeneration in urban houses in New Zealand, Energy and Buildings Journal (2009) Article in Press, 6 pp.

[80] ERCB, [on line], www.ercb.ca, (web site consulted on December 22, 2008)

[81] Canadian Nuclear Association, [on line], http://www.cna.ca, (web site consulted in December, 2007)

[82] Srebotnjak, T., The role of environmental statisticians in environmental policy: the case of performance measurement, Environmental Science & Policy Journal (2007) pp. 405–418

[83] Espinosa, A. et al, A complexity approach to sustainability – Stafford Beer revisited, European Journal of Operational Research (2008) pp. 636–651

[84] Environment Canada, [on line], http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/inventory_report/2006_report/ta9_10_eng.cfm, (web site consulted in December, 2008)

[85] Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, WIND TURBINES and BATS: Bat Ecology Background Information and Literature Review of Impacts, December 2006, 61 p.

[86] PricewaterhouseCoopers, [on line] http://www.pwc.com, (web site consulted in December, 2008)

[87] Government of Alberta, Finance and Enterprise, [on line] http://www.finance.alberta.ca/calc-script/tax_calc.html, (web site consulted in February, 2009)

[88] Government of Alberta, Finance and Enterprise, [on line] http://www.albertacanada.com/documents/SP-EH_highlightsABEconomy.pdf, (web site consulted in September, 2009)

[89] Government of Alberta, Finance and Enterprise, [on line] http://www.gov.ab.ca/acn/200609/20516CBB2A361-DA7B-09CD-E760C8C6970EC294.html, (web site consulted in October, 2009)

[90] Government of Alberta, Finance and Enterprise, [on line] http://www.finance.alberta.ca/publications/tax_rebates/rates/hist1.html, (web site consulted in October, 2009)

[91] Howell-Mayhew Engineering, Inc., [on line] http://www.hme.ca/cv/Howell-Mayhew%20Engineering%20Solar%20PV%20Profile.pdf , (web site consulted in December, 2009)

Appendix A – Network development

The list of developed stakeholders in the process of development of this feasibility project is shown in the Table A.1.

Company/Agency	Contact
Energreen systems	Josh Taschuk
AeroVironment	Lisa Mandel
Wind Simplicity Inc	Niki Koulouris
Wind Simplicity Inc	Sharolyn Vettese
Wind Simplicity Inc	Alfred Mathieu
Trimline	Harold Verburg
Raigatta Energy Inc.	Guy Spence
Windmission Co.	Claus Nybroe
Solacity Inc.	Rob Beckers
Free Breeze Energy Systems Ltd.	John Hogg
Terralta Inc.	Chris Brooks
Howell-Mayhew Engineering	Gordon Howell
Cleanfield Energy	Brad Davis
Transportation Canada	Marc Turgeon
Transportation Canada	Tom Lowrey
Transportation Canada	Eduard Alf
Transportation Canada	Kathie Keeley
Navigation Canada	Jean Seguin
Edmonton Airports Authority	Rob Hough
Transportation Canada	Micheline Powell
Transportation Canada	Davis Kim
Transportation Canada	Christine Lodge
Transportation Canada	Didrik Strand
City of Hamilton	Geoff Lupton
City of Calgary	Michael Kehoe
City of Edmonton	Shannon Mickelson

Table A.1: Stakeholders summary

Appendix B – Micro-generation growth in Alberta

The Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) reports the monthly increase in micro-generation application in Alberta under the new micro-generation regulation. The report includes only those sites that have a meter installed and with generation data starts flowing.

Sites with generation data flowing	Jan	Feb	Mar	April	May	June
Micro-Generation Sites in operation during the month:	24	5	11	12	3	8
Capacity installed (kW) during the month	88	13	97	37	23	21
Accumulated capacity installed [kW]	88	101	198	235	258	279
Accumulated site	24	29	40	52	55	63
Capacity per site [kW]	3.7	3.5	4.9	4.5	4.7	4.4
Average sites per month without January		5	8	9.3	7.8	7.8

Approved sites	Jan	Feb	Mar	April	May	June
Accumulated MG sites as of the month end	41	46	57	69	72	80
Accumulated installed capacity (kW) as of the month end	149	162	259	296	319	340
Accumulated capacity installed [kW]	149	312	572	867	1186	1526
Accumulated site	41	87	144	213	285	365
Capacity per site [kW]	3.6	3.6	4.0	4.1	4.2	4.2
Average sites per month	41	44	48	53	57	61

Table B.1: Micro-generation development in Alberta up to June 2009 under the new regulation

Appendix C – Summary of areas to consider for wind generation turbines

As summary of the concern areas which are being developed constantly are:

Wind turbine aerodynamics

Aerodynamics is a science and study of physical laws of the behaviour of objects in airflow and the forces that are produced by airflows. There are significant interactions with universities, industries and foreign researchers in the area of fundamental aerodynamics.

Wake effect

To determine how the lift of an aerofoil actually developed it is essential to study the wake effect. This depends of each project and on roof project has particularities to take in consideration.

Performance and reliability of wind turbines

The performance of a wind turbine depends on the power coefficient, CP, which states how much of the power in the wind that is absorbed by the wind turbine. For a HAWT, the CP value is usually between 0.30 and 0.40; for VAWT, the efficiency is comparable with the best modern HAWTs. Important progress in material and aerodynamic research has been made since then, which could increase the performance.

Gearbox

The gearbox is necessary in wind turbines to translate the variable rotation speed to a constant generation frequency. The gearbox generate was a source of failures and defects in many wind turbines. In [12] is presented procedures for designing compact spur gear sets with the objective of minimizing the gear size. Various dynamic rating factors were investigated and evaluated.

Generator

The electrical system of the wind turbine includes all components for converting mechanical energy into electrical power. This system consumes energy which usually is not taken in consideration, but it could modify the resultants in the technology evaluation.

Blade

The development of special purpose aerofoil for HAWT began in 1984. New aerofoils have been developed to meet the specific demands of wind turbine. This has resulted in a greater efficiency of energy capture. Many researchers had developed different techniques for design, testing, fatigue strength analysis of wind turbine blades have been reviewed in the following literature.

Loads

As part of the design process, a wind turbine must be analyzed for aerodynamic, gravitational, inertia loads and operational loads. Researchers had developed various mathematical models for the calculation of structural loads and material stresses [12].

Tower

In [31] is determined the optimum tower height using power law and by algorithmic law. The optimum height increases as the wind shear increases for village and suburban terrain.

Design

There are several aspects of the methods currently used for the design calculation of the wind turbine performance and loading. The different types of analysis and methods for the design of wind turbine systems have been reviewed for the purpose of this report. In high speed winds, the blades and gearboxes of conventional turbines cannot cope with the strain, and they have to be shut down. Some design reach to be operative with wind speeds as high as 110 km/h.

Eurowind Developments, a British consortium, believes VAWTs could be the best design for giant offshore turbines, so giant such as 10 MW. Today's largest horizontal-axis turbines produce around 5 MW, and are proving difficult to scale up. Each blade has to be more than 60 metres long, and the bigger the blade, the greater the stress it experiences as it turns: the blade's own weight compresses it at the top of the cycle and stretches it at the bottom. As a result, blades must be made and transported in one piece, which is expensive. Reinforcing the blade to enable it to withstand these forces further increases cost and reduces efficiency. The blades of a VAWT, in contrast, do not have to undergo this repeated stretching and compression. Nor does their cross-section vary from top to bottom, which makes them cheaper to manufacture than windmill blades, the shape of which must be painstakingly engineered. VAWT blades can also be made in pieces and joined together on site. So vertical-axis designs should enable wind turbines to be scaled up more easily, resulting in cheaper electricity, even for VAWT designs of similar efficiency to conventional turbines.

Appendix D – History and Potential of micro-wind turbines in North America

Respondents indicated that the most active current markets for SWTs are in four areas: battery charging, on-grid residential, farms & commercial and northern communities. Each is distinct in terms of SWT preference, decision-making factors and geographic activity. Renewable energy is abundant and its technologies are well established to provide complete security of energy supply. Among renewable energy sources, wind energy plays an important role. From the late 1800s to the early 1900s, thousands of US farmers and ranchers used windmills to pump water, grind grain, charge batteries and provide power for radios, lights and washing machines. The use of windmills to provide electric power died out in the early 1930s when the Rural Electrification Administration made cheap electricity generated at centralized power stations available to farms and ranches across the country.

Today, many reasons are spiralling upwards and weak electrical grids make power to remote farms and ranches less reliable than in the past. Researchers estimate that 50% of the United States has enough wind resources for small turbine development and 60% of US homes are located in those wind resource areas. Using small wind turbines, farmers, ranchers and homeowners can reduce their utility bills, stabilize their electricity supplies, increase the efficiency of the energy use, increase the friendly energy production and contribute to the country energy supply.

Market research indicates that a number of opportunities exist for promotion of the small wind industry in Alberta. There is an opportunity to develop the industry sector in the 20 kW to 50 kW range where Alberta and Canada already have a slight competitive advantage. A focus on developing farm markets would be of direct benefit to the Canadian manufacturers and the development of small business [2].

Support for a SWT manufacturing industry helps to retain investment in Alberta, promote job creation and assist in local economic development.

As the SWT markets grow and mature, turbine prices are expected to fall and turbine effectiveness and reliability to increase.

Drawing on U.S. experience, it appears that a SWT promotional strategy would require incentives in four areas: market development, policy development, technology development and education and awareness-raising.

Appendix E – HAWT Vs VAWT

Many small differences characterize both kind of turbines HAWT and VAWT; in this appendix are exposed the most important differences.

HAWTs can have problems with tower interference caused by the tower shadow. This problem is not as big for upwind turbines as for downwind turbines. The tower shadow affects the turbine dynamics, gives power fluctuations and increases noise generation [38]. VAWTs do not experience tower interference as the distance between blades and tower is much larger.

The blade of a HAWT is subject to a gravity-induced reversing stress at the root of the blade, which is not the case for VAWT blades. This is believed to be the main limitation for increasing the size for HAWTs. The blades of a HAWT are also subject to periodical loads due to the wind shear. These loads could cause fatigue of the blades. The blades of the H-rotor are subject to large bending moments due to the centripetal acceleration. This effect decreases as the turbine size increases since the centripetal acceleration decreases with increasing turbine radius, assuming a constant blade speed [17][38].

HAWTs have relatively constant torque. VAWTs have an inherent torque ripple. The torque ripple is caused by the continuously changing angle of attack between the blades and the apparent wind. The torque ripple can affect the fatigue life of the drive train components as well as the output power quality. By increasing the number of blades to three or more, the torque ripple is decreased substantially [41].

HAWTs are self-starting at a low wind speed. VAWTs have poor starting torque due to the blade stall condition at high angles of wind attack. The H-rotor has better self-starting ability between VAWTs. For a grid connected turbine, the grid can be used to start the turbine by using the generator as a motor and therefore the self-starting is not a major issue. However, there are examples of self-starting VAWTs [17].

Wind turbines that rotate about a vertical axis, rather than the usual horizontal one, could have a number of benefits. Divers companies [40][42][43] have developed VAWT technology with a notable increase in general performance such as low noise, rate of rotation, efficiency (between 43-45%), etc. For HAWT technology, the improvement is less evident, but the effort continues worldwide such as the Canadian whale tubercle blade design [47].

The following table presents the summary comparison between HAWT and VAWT technologies.

Subject	VAWT	HAWT
Blade profile	Simple	Complicated
Yaw mechanism	No need	Need
Pitch mechanism	Yes	Yes
Tower	Yes	Yes
Guy wires	Optional	No
Noise	low	High
Blade area	moderate	Small
Generator position	On ground	On top of tower
Blade load	moderate	High
Self starting	No	Yes
Tower interference	Small	Large
Foundation	moderate	Extensive
Overall structure	Simple	Complicated
Work with turbulence	Yes	moderate
On roof applications	Yes	Special designs

Table E.1: Comparison between HAWT and VAWT technologies

Appendix F – EROEI for different technologies

This table presents the different value for the EROEI index; the index shows a low value for technologies based on biomass and solar photovoltaic. In Canada, weather and radiation availabilities stress more this low index for these technologies.

	Technology		Description		EROEI
	Hydropower				11.2
	Wind		Large on-shore development		12 to 30
			Small development		10 to 18
	Geothermal		Hot dry rock		1.9 to 13
Oil and gas (domestic wellhead)		1940's		>100
		1970's		8 to 27
Coal (mine mouth)		1950's		80
		1970's		50
Oil shale				1 to 13.3
Ethanol (sugar cane)				1 to 1.7
Ethanol (corn)				1.3
Ethanol (corn residues)				1 to 1.8
Methanol (wood)				2.6
	Solar		Power satellite		2
			Power tower		4.2
			Photovoltaic large development		4 to 10
			Photovoltaic small development		1.7 to 5
Solar space heat (fossil backup)		Flat-plate collector		1.9
		Concentrating collector		1.6

Table F.1: EROEI index for different technologies

Appendix G – Analysed wind turbines

ID	Model	Builder	Type	Sub-type	Power [kW]
OE-1	BWC Excel	Bergey WindPower	HAWT	3 blades	10
OE-2	Enercon 12	Enercon	HAWT	3 blades	30
OE-3	PG 20/25	Energy PGE	HAWT	3 blades	25
OE-4	PG 20/35	Energy PGE	HAWT	3 blades	35
OE-5	Scirocco ES	EotTec	HAWT	2 blades	6
OE-6	Vergnet GEV	Vergnet	HAWT	2 blades	20
OE-7	WES 5 Tulipo	Wind Energy Solution Canada	HAWT	2 blades	2.5
OE-8	V 3.5	Cleanfield Energy	VAWT	H-Rotor	3.5
OE-9	3	Wind Simplicity	HAWT	8 blades	3
OE-10	7	Wind Simplicity	HAWT	8 blades	7
OE-11	23	Wind Simplicity	HAWT	8 blades	23
OE-12	AJT-30	Aero Joule	HAWT	42 blades	3
OE-13	AJT-45	Aero Joule	HAWT	48 blades	4.5
OE-14	AJT-100	Aero Joule	HAWT	48 blades	10
OE-15	AJT-200	Aero Joule	HAWT	54 blades	20
OE-16	ERD 1	Énergie Ressource Développement	VAWT	L-shaped	5
OE-17	ERD 4	Énergie Ressource Développement	VAWT	L-shaped	1.5
OE-18	ERD 5	Énergie Ressource Développement	VAWT	L-shaped
OE-19	WS-75W	Windside	VAWT	Helical	7.5
OE-20	WS-30W	Windside	VAWT	Helical	3
OE-21	WS-4W	Windside	VAWT	Helical	0.4
OE-22	6	Eoltec	HAWT	2 blades	6
OE-23	25	Eoltec	HAWT	2 blades	25
OE-24	AR-1000	Vaigunth	HAWT	3 blades	1
OE-25	AR-5000	Vaigunth	HAWT	3 blades	5
OE-26	AT5-1	Iskrawind			5
OE-27	Whisper 500	Southwest Windpower	HAWT	2 blades	3
OE-28	Model 31-20	Jacobs Wind Systems	HAWT	3 blades	20
OE-29	ARE110	Abundant Renewable Energy	HAWT	3 blades	2.5
OE-30	are442	Abundant Renewable Energy	HAWT	3 blades	10
OE-31	S322	Helix Wind	VAWT	Helical	2.5
OE-32	s595	Helix Wind	VAWT	Helical	5
OE-33	AVX1000	Aero Environment	HAWT	5 blades	1
OE-34	1Kw	Neuhäuser	VAWT	H-Rotor	1
OE-35	10kW	Neuhäuser	VAWT	H-Rotor	10

Table G.1: Summary of the studied turbines

Appendix H – Noise

The sources of aerodynamic noise can be divided into low-frequency noise, inflow turbulence noise, and airfoil self-noise. Low-frequency noise is caused by the aerodynamic interaction between the tower and the blades, and is considered to be of little importance for turbines with an upwind configuration (i.e. with the rotor upstream of the tower). Inflow-turbulence noise is caused by the interaction of upstream atmospheric turbulence with the leading edge of the blade, and depends on the atmospheric conditions. Airfoil self-noise is the noise produced by the blade in an undisturbed inflow, and is caused by the interaction between the turbulent boundary layer and the trailing edge of the blade. Self-noise can be tonal or broadband in character, and may be caused by several mechanisms, such as turbulent-boundary-layer-trailing-edge noise (subsequently denoted as trailing edge noise), trailing edge bluntness noise, or blade tip noise. Both inflow turbulence noise and airfoil self-noise can contribute to the overall sound level of a wind turbine, but the relative importance of the different mechanisms is not clear yet, and may depend on the specifications of the turbine.

Sound Source	dBA	Response Criteria
Limit of amplified speech	130	Painfully loud
Jet takeoff (200 feet)	120	Threshold of feeling and pain
Shout (0.5 feet)	100	Very annoying
Heavy truck / Pneumatic drill (50 feet)	90	Hearing damage (8 hour exposure)
Passenger train / Helicopter (500 feet)	80	Annoying
Freeway traffic	70	Intrusive
Air conditioning unit (20 feet)	60
Normal speech (15 feet)	50	Quiet
Soft whisper (15 feet)	30	Very quiet
Broadcasting studio	20
	10	Just audible
	0	Threshold of hearing

Table H.1: Common Noise Production Levels

Appendix I – NPP, SPP and Downtown Edmonton

The following figures show the buildings location in real proportion size in downtown Edmonton.

Figure I.1: Downtown Edmonton

The following four figures show four different points of view:

Figure I.2: NPP and SPP buildings south east view

Figure I.3: NPP and SPP buildings south view

Figure I.4: NPP and SPP buildings south west view

Figure I.5: NPP and SPP buildings west view

Figure I.6: NPP and SPP buildings north-west view

Figure I.7: NPP and SPP buildings north view

Figure I.8: NPP and SPP buildings north east view

Figure I.9: NPP ground view

The technical specifications for the minimum and maximum tallness of the turbines over the buildings will be given by the possibility of appreciation without difficulty the turbines and their movement for a radius of 2,000 meters. This will allow appreciating the turbines in downtown area and both sides of Saskatchewan River near to downtown.

Figure I.10: area viewshed for the turbines

In a picture observation, the human visualization aptitude is characterized by the colour and the brightness of each dot. The focus on a very small part of the picture at any one time; the field of view is quite limited [59][65][66][67][68] [69][70]. The peak processing rate of visual input information for human brain is about 5,000 bits per second. Anything smaller than this, it is too small for the average person to see it. The instantaneous field of view is around 2 degrees on a side. Thus the little square picture that a person can see at any given moment contains about 2,500 picture elements, corresponding to the wirephoto dots. Therefore, the human eye can resolve about 0.04 degrees. The movement of the object require at least twice the minimum human eye resolution; thus, the minimum size should be 1.4 meters.

2,000 m

Figure I.11: The hub height under the turbine is negligible this specification.

The maximum size specification is most subjective for the visual impact specification. It is related to the feeling of huge and potentially dangerous structure; a relationship around 25% of the building height appears to be a reasonable specification. Thus, with a NPP height of 50 meters, the maximum height of the turbine specification is around 12.5 meters. The hub height under the turbine must be specified by performance conditions. Other constraints for the height specification which is described better later is the regulatory specification for Transportation Canada, it specify an limit of around 60 meters above sea level. As conclusion, 10 meters is the maximum height over the building.

For showing visual impact near to NPP building, if we suppose:

- 1.4 meters as the minimum turbine height above the building (without hub)

- 10 meters as the maximum complete turbine height above the building

- turbine swept area of 78.5 m2 (5 meter of radio for a HAWT)

- as maximum, hub installed at 7 m of the building edge

Figure I.12: Minimum distance to perceive the turbine

the minimum d distance to perceive the turbine is between 15 and 20 metres.

In this example, both specifications produce a visual of the wind turbine between 15 and 3,000 metres of NPP and SPP building without problems for the average person.

Appendix J – Icing

Two main types of atmospheric ice accumulation are traditionally defined, in-cloud icing and precipitation icing. Icing can be detected either directly or indirectly. The direct methods detect some property change caused by the accretion of ice. These include mass, reflective properties, electrical or thermal conductivity, dielectric coefficient and inductance. The indirect methods are based upon detecting the weather conditions that lead to icing, such as humidity and temperature, or detecting the effects of icing, such as a reduction in power production. More than 25 methods were developed to detect icing in wind turbines.

Ice thrown from rotating blades poses a serious safety issue, particularly when the wind power plant site borders public sites, buildings, housing, power lines, roads and shipping routes. Ice throw has been studied using both theoretical models and collected experimental data. These studies have prompted a recommendation that for sites with a high probability of icing, the distance between the turbine and the nearest object should adhere to the following equation—with the effect of slopes taken into account for mountainous sites:

d = 1.5 * ( D + H )

where d is the projected distance ice can be thrown, D is the diameter of the rotor and H is the height of the nacelle. This equation should be considered a rough estimate, but it provides a general idea of the area at risk.

In recent years, extensive research has been undertaken to identify and model ice prevention methods. Most of these methods are taken from the aviation industry and can be classified in two categories: active and passive. Passive methods rely on the physical properties of the blade to prevent ice accumulation while active methods rely on an external system applied to the blade. Active methods includes electrical (direct and indirect resistance heating, microwave, etc), thermal, chemical and pneumatic techniques. Methods of deicing the blades have been shown to work effectively.

Two types of systems can be employed to prevent icing—specifically de-icing and antiicing. The former removes the ice from the surface after its formation, while the latter prevents the initiation of icing. These systems can be either passive or active.

The disadvantages using heating methods are:

- Leading edge heating elements will not help de-icing when active stall-controlled turbines are at a standstill (e.g. during icing conditions combined with low-wind speeds).

- Positioning the heating elements at the leading edge can also cause potential structural issues with the blades.

- The electrical heating elements can attract lightning strikes at an exposed site.

- The airfoil contour must be kept free from waviness to avoid unnecessary disturbances of the laminar flow around the leading edge during ice-free conditions.

- For blade cavity forced warm air thermal systems, the efficiency of the system wanes as turbine blades increase in size; shell structures become thicker and thermal resistance rises.

- Should one blade heater fail, a significant mass imbalance may be imposed on the rotor as each blade may have different icing loads.

- In some cases, the run-back water on the blade during icing and blade heating can freeze after it passes the heated area.

- Current anti-icing technology consumes electricity. The break-even cost of such a heating system depends on how much energy production is lost due to icing and the price of electricity. Current claims suggest that the power requirement ranges between 6 and 12% of the output for smaller commercial scale turbines.

Appendix K – Wind, buildings and turbulence

Another source of turbulence is the wind interaction with diver obstacles, such as buildings, trees, cars, etc. the effect of the turbulence decrease the time life of the turbines, and add a risk factor in the blade design for the support of charges. The turbulence is related with lose of efficiency in the wind turbine and require a hard work for the generator face to constant rotation speed variation of the turbine. The following figures illustrate these effects.

Figure K.1: Wind-obstacle interaction for the turbulence formation and wind speed variation

Figure K.2: Neighbourliness consideration in the wind profile modification

In [37] is shown the difficulties associate to on-roof wind project and turbulence, wind gust for building cooperation, etc. This report provides an interesting source of experience, advice and studies in the wind profile modification for building interaction.

Figure K.3: NPP and SPP show a relatively clean wind interaction with the neighbourhood buildings.

Wind condition in an area is considered in a statistic analysis, and it is shown through the probability density function; in [25] is shown the study of seasonal variations of the wind characteristics and wind turbine characteristics in several regions. In [27] is shown a statistical forecasting system for the short-term prediction of the wind energy production.

Appendix L – On-roof wind project around the world

Thousands of projects are developed every day based on micro wind turbines around the world. Nowadays, wind turbine projects in down-town buildings are being very common; several projects have been proposed. Local weather conditions, regulations and support for technology in development lead the used technology. In Canada, yearly are installed between 600 and 700 SWT and we have between 2,000 and 2,500 SWT generating electricity today [2]. The following figures show projects around the world:


9 kW HAWT – Londres, UK	20 kW VAWT – UK		40 kW VAWT – Munich, Germany

3.5 kW VAWT – Virginia - USA	3.5 kW VAWT – Hamilton, Canada		3.5 kW VAWT – Ireland

4.5 kW HAWT – Argentina	3 1kW HAWT - USA		VAWT – Canada

9 kW HAWT – London, UK	18 1 kW HAWT - USA		1.5 kW VAWT – Hong Kong

5 x 3.5 kW VAWT – Kenora, ON		4 kW VAWT – Grande Prairie, AB

2 x 3.5 kW VAWT – Mohawk College, ON	3.5 kW VAWT – Edmonton, AB		6 kW HAWT – Germany

Figure L.1: Examples of on-roof turbines around the world

Appendix M – Solar Photovoltaic (PV) analysis

M.1 Technology – stat of art

The largest and more modern PV power plant based on solar photovoltaic technology completed in Spain (Parque Fotovoltaico Olmedilla de Alarcon), in September 2008, with a 60 MW DC peak power. The world wide capacity installed is around 3 GWp with an average capacity factor of around 19%, which means around 5 TW[1]. Certainly, Spain solar radiation conditions do not apply in Alberta, where we receive between 3 and 8 times less solar radiation than this site in Spain.

The PV technology has been developed for the last 30 years. According to National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the technology will continue evolving.

Figure M.1: PV cost evolution

Researchers are working in other kind of technology to catch the solar radiation. Next solar technologies generation appears to be less expensive as well as more efficient. Technologies such as Antennas, Nano-technology and Solar Dish appear to be found the way to evolve in that direction.

M.2 Cost analysis

This higher cost of solar panel is demonstrated in several jurisdictions through the subsidy that each technology receives to promote their use. Therefore Ontario Power Authority (OPA) subsidizes for micro-generation range solar panel with 42 cents/kWh [23] and wind technology with 11.04 cents/kWh [24]. On March 12, 2009, OPA published the intention to encourage the development of RE through feed-on tariff scheme. OPA proposed a tariff of 80.2 cents/kWh for rooftop Solar PV below 10 kW (71.3 cents/kWh between 10 and 100 kW). For wind, OPA proposed 14.4 cents/kWh.

The analysis presented in the following figure was developed by the Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI). It shows the cost of electricity generation by technology in Canada. Solar PV has a range between 15 and 80 cents/kWh; wind has a range between 8.5 and 10.5 cents/kWh.

Figure M.2: Cost of the electricity by technology in Canada

M.3 Analysis of the technology in Alberta

The use of PV technology in AB is related with three different lines:

· The use due to specific constraints where other technology is not possible to apply. Most use for the industry;

· The use in housing, more related with individual initiatives; and

· Showcases, led by government agencies or companies (Climate Change Central is leading the showcases in communities [55] in Alberta).

The following table summarizes both technologies in Alberta, Canada and the world [2][54].

		Alberta	Canada	World
Installed Capacity [MW]	PV	negligible ¹	~0.31	3,000
Installed Capacity [MW]	Wind	540	2,370	121,000
Generation [GWh/y]	PV	negligible ¹	0.038	5,000
Generation [GWh/y]	Wind	1,561	6,810	360,000
Largest Power Plant [MW]	PV	negligible ¹	0.11 ²	60 ³
Largest Power Plant [MW]	Wind	81.4 ⁴	189 ⁵	735 ⁶
Efficiency [%]	PV	12⁷	14	19
Efficiency [%]	Wind	32.9	32.8	34

Table M.1: Wind and PV technology development in Alberta, Canada and the World

¹ 0.0134 MW appear to be the largest PV project in AB. Climate Change Central [55] developed showcase in central-south Alberta based on up to 2 kW solar panels

² In Canada, does not exist Solar Photovoltaic Plants. The largest installation is a building on-roof Federal Government building project, 0.108 MW, in Charlottetown, PEI. (First Light project, 19 MW, is located in Ontario. Construction is anticipated to be completed by the end of 2009)

³ Parque Fotovoltaico Olmedilla de Alarcon, Spain

⁴ Taber Wind Farm

⁵ Prince Wind Farm, ON

⁶ Horse Hollow, Texas, USA

⁷ Climate Change Central –Alberta Solar Municipal Showcase [55]

The following table shows the ratio between Wind and PV technology:

	Alberta	Canada	World
Ratio Wind/PV Installed Capacity	> 6,000	77	40
Ratio Wind/PV Generation [GWh/y]	> 6,000	179	72
Ratio Wind/PV Largest Power Plant [MW]	~ 6,000	1890	12
Ratio Wind/PV Efficiency [%]	2.7	2.3	1.8

Table M.2: Summary of wind and PV technology development in Alberta, Canada and the World

It shows how Wind technology advantages PV technology instead of lower years of development. In Canada and Alberta this advantage is significantly higher than the rest of the world; the reason is simple: the availability of “fuel source” as well as the weather condition and the state of the technology. As summary, Canada is the 11^th world wide country in wind installed capacity, but is not between the 30 first countries in solar photovoltaic. Canadian latitude helps to understand the reason.

M.3.1 Visual impact

The visual impact is a subjective concept, some concepts could appears pleasant for the sight, other not at all.

Figure M.3: Visual impact of PV technology

There is not a public concern about the visual impact of PV technology: the bigger PV power plants are in deserts and there is not a massive use of PV in cities.

Also, for small applications, the beauty or not of a PV application stay confine at the place where it is developed without a big community impact.

M.3.2 Efficiency

The largest and more modern power plant based on solar photovoltaic technology completed in Spain, in September 2008, with a 60 MW DC peak power. This plant produces 85 GWh/y which represent 16% of capacity factor.

In Canada and Alberta, the efficiency of the current technology is between 9 and 12% [55], one of the lower efficiency in available renewable technologies. The following figures help to understand why in other jurisdiction this technology has more possibilities. The difference between these other jurisdictions and Alberta are huge, they receive between 3 and 8 more solar radiation than we receive in AB. Medias and opportunist businessmen do believe that in Alberta and Canada we can develop under same conditions the PV technology.

File:Solar land area.png

Figure M.4: Solar radiation distribution around the world

World solar radiation; it is shown the feeble condition to apply this technology in Canada

Figure M.5: Canada and Alberta solar radiation distribution

In addition, in Canada, PV technology is more inefficient when more energy is necessary, during winter, stressing its inefficiency.

M.3.3 Energy Balance

In the south of the United Stated a solar panel should work for three year to recover the energy invested in its production. In Alberta/Canada this period rises up to 6 years. Other technologies, such as wind or coal power plants, need to work for between 6 and 12 month to recover the energy invested.

The index is added in the following table. PV has an EROEI between 1.7 and 5 in USA; in Alberta/Canada has an EROEI between 0.9 and 2.5. Wind technology has an EROEI between 10 and 18. Appendix F presents the EROEI for different technologies.

M.3.4 Job creation

The following table shows the estimation in rate of job creation for some technologies [56] for big scale applications; for micro-generation the factor of increase is between 10 and 15.

Renewable energy	Construction & installation Ratio per [MWp]	Operation & maintenance ratio per [MWp]
Wind	1.5	0.3
Solar— Photovoltaic	5.9	3.0

Table M.3: Summary of job creation rations for wind and PV technologies

It shows the potential of both technologies as job creators as well as the relationship with cost maintenance between them.

M.3.5 Environmental cost

PV consumes no fuel for continuing operation, and has no emissions directly related to electricity production. Operation does not produce carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, mercury, particulates, or any other type of air pollution, as fossil fuel power sources do. PV panel consume resources in manufacturing and construction. During manufacture of the panel, steel, concrete, aluminum and other materials will have to be made and transported using energy-intensive processes, generally using fossil energy sources. The initial carbon dioxide emissions "pay back" is claimed by one company to be within about 3 years of operation.

In addition, studies [57] show the noxious effect in the atmospheric contamination on PV cells in concentrating systems. However, cell panels manufacturing involve the release of Nitrogen Trifluoride (NF3) to the atmosphere. This gas is not taking in consideration in the analysis of GHG emission by the different technologies instead of to be 17,000 times for powerful than CO2 as GHG.

The following table presents the estimation in GHG emission for each technology

Technology	g/kWh
Photovoltaic	40 – 120
Solar Thermal	30 – 100
Wind	20 – 55

Table M.4: GHG emission for different technologies in Alberta according to RETScreen software

RETScreen V.4 software, by NRCan, takes around 40 g/kWh of GHG emission for technologies, wind and PV.

M.3.6 Micro-generation promotion

Solar photovoltaic presents few characteristics in the promotion of micro-generation technologies and renewable sources of energy. The community effect is huge at the start of the project, but then become part of the down-town scenario or landscape and this effect is reduced quickly in the time. An example of that is the solar panel installed on-roof of the legislature building. It required a huge investment, it continues working, but few people know that it exists and it doesn’t contribute in micro-generation or renewable source of energy promotion.

Figure M.6 shows a 13 kW building-integrated grid-dependent PV system on the roof of EPCOR's 23-storey headquarters, Edmonton (1996-2001) [91]. Figure M.7 shows the PV system installed in the Alberta Legislature in 2003. These figures show the failure of PV technology in the promotion of micro-generation as well as expensive and inefficient projects.

Figure M.6: EPCOR headquarters PV installation [91]

Figure M.7: PV project in the Alberta Legislature

Appendix N – Risk analysis for the comparative alternatives

	Stand-by
Subject	Impact	Probability	Risk
Cost variation	None	Low	0
Inefficiency perception	None	Low	0
Bad technology perception (costly, noise, bird, icing, etc)	None	Low	0
Environment non care	Medium	Medium	-4
MG promotion failure	Low	Medium	-2
Weather database failure	None	Low	0
Regulations	None	Low	0

	Solar Panel
Subject	Impact	Probability	Risk
Cost variation	Low	Medium	-2
Inefficiency perception	High	Medium	-6
Bad technology perception (costly, noise, bird, icing, etc)	High	Medium	-6
Environment non care	High	Medium	-6
MG promotion failure	High	Low	-3
Weather database failure	Medium	Low	-2
Regulations	Low	Low	-1

	Wind VAWT
Subject	Impact	Probability	Risk
Cost variation	Low	Medium	-2
Inefficiency perception	High	Low	-3
Bad technology perception (costly, noise, bird, icing, etc)	High	Low	-3
Environment non care	High	Low	-3
MG promotion failure	High	Low	-3
Weather database failure	High	Low	-3
Regulations	Low	Low	-1

	Wind Ground
Subject	Impact	Probability	Risk
Cost variation	Low	Medium	-2
Inefficiency perception	High	Low	-3
Bad technology perception (costly, noise, bird, icing, etc)	High	Low	-3
Environment non care	High	Low	-3
MG promotion failure	High	Low	-3
Weather database failure	High	Low	-3
Regulations	Low	Low	-1

Table N.1: Risk analysis details for the four alternatives

Appendix O – RETScreen Financial Analysis comparison Wind Vs. Solar Panel

The following figures shows the business cases for Wind on-roof wind turbine and solar panels alternatives

Figure O.1: Financial Analysis - Solar Panel project

Figure O.2: Financial Analysis – Wind Project

Appendix P – Business case with different ROR and manpower considerations

Case 1

The comparison considering ROR = 0%, non GoA Manpower, 13c$/kWh and 20 year project:

PV values	DoE	Eng	Com	Part
Maintenance	(26,629)	(26,629)	(13,315)	(8,322)
Capital Expenditure	(89,424)	(139,424)	(89,424)	(7,310)
Energy saving	82,114	82,114	82,114	0
Project PV	(33,940)	(83,939)	(20,625)	(15,632)

Table P.1: On-roof wind project, business case 1

Case 2

The comparison considering ROR = 9%, non GoA Manpower, 13c$/kWh and 20 year project:

PV values	DoE	Eng	Com	Part
Maintenance	(10,350)	(10,350)	(5,175)	(3,234)
Capital Expenditure	(89,424)	(139,424)	(89,424)	(51,070)
Energy saving	38,354	38,354	38,354	0
Project PV	(61,420)	(111,420)	(56,245)	(54,304)

Table P.2: On-roof wind project, business case 2

Case 3

The comparison considering ROR = 9%, considering GoA Manpower, 13c$/kWh and 20 year project:

PV values	DoE	Eng	Com	Part
Maintenance	(10,350)	(10,350)	(5,175)	(3,234)
Capital Expenditure	(89,424)	(139,424)	(89,424)	(51,070)
GoA Manpower	(72,500)	(42,500)	(34,167)	(34,167)
Energy saving	38,354	38,354	38,354	0
Project PV	(133,920)	(153,920)	(90,412)	(88,471)

Table P.3: On-roof wind project, business case 3

Appendix Q – Risk assessment for the four on-roof project alternatives

	DoE
Subject	Impact	Probability	Risk
Errors in the specifications	Medium	Medium	-4
Cost variation	Medium	Low	-2
Delay in the project	Medium	Medium	-4
Efficiency deterioration	Medium	Medium	-4
Warranty	None	None	0
Changes in Law	Medium	None	0
Site Conditions	Medium	Low	-2
Project Revenue	Low	Low	-1
Cost	Low	Medium	-2
Limitation of Liability	Low	Low	-1
Termination Rights	Low	Low	-1
Environmental Impact	Low	Low	-1
Design	High	Medium	-6
Real Property Value	Medium	Low	-2
Operations	Medium	Medium	-4
Acts of God	Low	Low	-1
Performance	Medium	Medium	-4
Authorities and Permits	Low	Low	-1
Insurance	Low	Low	-1
Design Control	Medium	Low	-2

	Eng
Subject	Impact	Probability	Risk
Errors in the specifications	Medium	Low	-2
Cost variation	Medium	Low	-2
Delay in the project	Medium	Medium	-4
Efficiency deterioration	Medium	Medium	-4
Warranty	None	None	0
Changes in Law	Medium	None	0
Site Conditions	Low	Low	-1
Project Revenue	Medium	Low	-2
Cost	Medium	Medium	-4
Limitation of Liability	Low	Low	-1
Termination Rights	Low	Low	-1
Environmental Impact	Low	Low	-1
Design	Medium	Low	-2
Real Property Value	Medium	Low	-2
Operations	Medium	Low	-2
Acts of God	Low	Low	-1
Performance	Medium	Medium	-4
Authorities and Permits	Low	Low	-1
Insurance	Low	Low	-1
Design Control	Medium	Low	-2

	Com
Subject	Impact	Probability	Risk
Errors in the specifications	Low	Low	-1
Cost variation	Low	Low	-1
Delay in the project	Medium	Low	-2
Efficiency deterioration	Medium	Medium	-4
Warranty	None	None	0
Changes in Law	Medium	None	0
Site Conditions	Low	Low	-1
Project Revenue	Medium	Low	-2
Cost	Medium	Low	-2
Limitation of Liability	Low	Low	-1
Termination Rights	Low	Low	-1
Environmental Impact	Low	Low	-1
Design	Low	Low	-1
Real Property Value	Low	Low	-1
Operations	Medium	Low	-2
Acts of God	Low	Low	-1
Performance	Medium	Low	-2
Authorities and Permits	Low	Low	-1
Insurance	Low	Low	-1
Design Control	Low	Low	-1

	Part
Subject	Impact	Probability	Risk
Errors in the specifications	Low	Low	-1
Cost variation	Low	Low	-1
Delay in the project	Medium	Low	-2
Efficiency deterioration	Low	Low	-1
Warranty	None	None	0
Changes in Law	Medium	None	0
Site Conditions	Low	Low	-1
Project Revenue	Low	None	0
Cost	Low	Low	-1
Limitation of Liability	Low	Low	-1
Termination Rights	Low	Low	-1
Environmental Impact	Low	Low	-1
Design	Low	Low	-1
Real Property Value	Low	Low	-1
Operations	Low	Low	-1
Acts of God	Low	Low	-1
Performance	Low	Low	-1
Authorities and Permits	Low	Low	-1
Insurance	Low	Low	-1
Design Control	Low	Low	-1

Table Q.1: Risk analysis details for the four in-roof wind alternatives

Appendix R – Business cases for the four on-roof alternatives

The initial and fixed cost estimation are:

	Initial cost [$]	GoA Manpower [$]	Turbine cost [$]	Maintenance [$/y]	Decommissioning [$]
DoE	0	72,500	96,667	800	15,000
Eng	75,000	42,500	96,667	800	15,000
Com	0	34,167	96,667	400	15,000
Part	0	34,167	96,667	250	15,000

Table R.1: Wind project cost estimations

Initial cost includes the cost of contract an engineering company for the development of the project. GoA manpower includes the cost of GoA personnel in the development of the project including administrative costs. It does not include cost associated with work hours spent out of the development of the project such as commission meetings. Decommissioning is the estimated cost of decommissioning at the end of the project.

The saved money in electricity generation is 2,523 $/y the first year; the present value for the life time of the project is:

Year	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	….	25
Energy saving [$]		2,523	2,581	2,640	2,701	2,763	2,827	….	4,354
Present value [$]		2,523	2,368	2,222	2,086	1,957	1,837	….	550
Add of PV [$]	32,640

Table R.2: Energy and money saved over the time

And the recovery money through taxes:

Year	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	….	25
Income Tax [$]		5,741	3,771	3,857	3,946	4,037	4,130	….	6,362
Provincial Personal Income Tax [$]		3,298	4,328	5,359	6,389	7,420	8,450	….	28,028
Total Tax [$]		9,039	8,099	9,216	10,335	11,456	12,580	….	34,390
PV Tax Recovery [$]		9,039	7,430	7,757	7,981	8,116	8,176	….	4,347
Add of PV taxes [$]	171,452

Table R.3: Money recovered over the time

Income Tax recovery is based on the average of company tax recovery by the GoA. The estimation is very complex; companies in Canada are subject to 49 different taxes and other 18 payments to the governments at federal, provincial and municipal level [86] [88] [89] [90]. The calculus includes the estimation of growth in the micro-generation businesses based on the current and forecasted trend.

The Personal Income Tax recovery is based on the average recovery for an average family in Alberta. Finance and Enterprise minister provide this information as well as a calculator for any estimation [87]. And each case:

DoE
Year	0	1	2	3	4	5	….	25
PV Maintenance [$]	-10,350	-800	-751	-705	-661	-621	….	-175
Capital Expenditure [$]	-96,667
GoA Manpower [$]	-72,500
Decommissioning [$]	-4,218
Energy saving [$]	32,640
Tax recovery [$]	171,452
CO2 claim [$]	2,722
Project PV [$]	20,357
Project Simple Payback [y]	21

Table R.4: Summary of the business case for the DoE alternative

Eng
Year	0	1	2	3	4	5	….	25
PV Maintenance [$]	-10,350	-800	-751	-705	-661	-621	….	-175
Capital Expenditure [$]	-171,667
GoA Manpower [$]	-42,500
Decommissioning [$]	-4,218
Energy saving [$]	32,640
Tax recovery [$]	171,452
CO2 claim [$]	2,722
Project PV [$]	-24,643
Project Simple Payback [y]	> project life

Table R.5: Summary of the business case for the Eng alternative

Com
Year	0	1	2	3	4	5	….	25
PV Maintenance [$]	-5,175	-400	-375	-352	-331	-310	….	-87
Capital Expenditure [$]	-96,667
GoA Manpower [$]	-34,167
Decommissioning [$]	-4,218
Energy saving [$]	32,640
Tax recovery [$]	171,452
CO2 claim [$]	2,722
Project PV [$]	63,866
Project Simple Payback [y]	14.5

Table R.6: Summary of the business case for the Com alternative

Part
Year	0	1	2	3	4	5	….	25
PV Maintenance [$]	-$3,234	-250	-235	-220	-207	-194	….	-55
Capital Expenditure [$]	-$64,027
GoA Manpower [$]	-34,167
Decommissioning [$]	-4,218
Energy saving [$]	0
Tax recovery [$]	171,452
CO2 claim [$]	2,722
Project PV [$]	65,806
Project Simple Payback [y]	14

Table R.7: Summary of the business case for the Part alternative

Appendix S – Schedules

Figure S.1: GoA alternative, it takes around 476 business days to be completed.

Figure S.2: Eng alternative, it takes around 479 business days to be completed.

Figure S.3: Com and Part alternatives, they take around 396 business days to be completed.

[1] The largest world Wind power plant is in Texas (Horse Hollow) with a nominal capacity of 735 MW. The world wide capacity Wind installation is 121 GW with an average capacity factor of 34%, which means around 360 TW.

Acronyms

Preface