Augenbraun 1

JJ Augenbraun Geosciences 206 Professor Dethier and Ms. Boyd May 13, 2009

Small Scale Wind Turbines at Williams College

Figure 1. Rendering of Morley Science Center with an ARE 442 wind turbine installed.

Augenbraun 2

Introduction

As of 2007, the world population consumes approximately 400 quadrillion British

Thermal Units (Btu) per year. Despite having only roughly 6% of the world population, the

United States uses about 25% of the world’s energy resources, consuming approximately 101.5

quadrillion Btu per year. In the United States, this energy comes from a variety of sources

including petroleum, natural gas, nuclear electric power, coal, and renewable energy sources.

Renewable energy accounts for about 7% of total energy consumption in the United States. Of

that 7%, only 5% comes from wind energy (Figure 2, “Renewable Energy Trends,” 2009).

However, wind energy is currently the fastest growing renewable energy source in terms of

installed capacity. In 2008, the wind industry added over 8,000 MW of capacity throughout the

world, while in the United States 40% of new electric generation capacity came in the form of

wind energy.

Although the majority of wind capacity comes from industrially scale wind projects, the

United States’ market for small wind turbines, defined as turbines with a capacity of 100 kW or

Figure 2. The role of renewable energy consumption in the United States’ energy supply for 2007.

Augenbraun 3

less, grew rapidly in 2008. In 2008, the installation of more than 10,000 small wind turbines

resulted in an addition of over 17 MW of domestic generation capacity and a 78% growth rate

over the previous year. The small wind industry foresees thirty-fold growth over the next five

years with an estimated total United States installed capacity jumping from the current 80 MW to

1,700 MW by 2014 (Stimmel, 2009). Many of these small wind turbines are being installed in

residential settings, but some larger institutions are also experimenting with using wind energy

from small wind turbines. For example, Yale University recently installed ten 1 kW wind

turbines on the University’s engineering building (Figure 3). These wind turbines built by

AeroVironment can produce electricity in wind speeds as low as 3.1 m/s (“Micro-Wind,” 2009).

In 2005, the University of Vermont installed a 10 kW wind turbine as part of the Vermont

Department of Public Service Wind Development Program (Figure 4). At the time of installation,

the wind turbine was expected to generate approximately 3,000-5,000 kWh of electricity per year

(Wakefield, 2005). In addition, Middlebury College installed an identical 10 kW wind turbine

under the same Vermont program. At Middlebury College, the wind turbine has been providing

approximately 25% of the electricity used at the College’s recycling facility (“Wind Power”). As

Figure 3. The micro-wind turbines at Yale University.

Figure 4. The 10 kW turbine at the University of Vermont.

Augenbraun 4

these installations demonstrate, under the proper circumstances, installing a wind turbine in a

college setting is definitely possible and feasible.

Even though small scale wind energy constitutes such a small total installed capacity, it is

still equivalent to removing 13,300 cars from the roads or displacing 76,000 tons of carbon

dioxide per year. Once installed, a wind turbine produces no greenhouse gas emissions except

those associated with the occasional maintenance and repair requirements of the turbine

(Stimmel, 2009). Situated in the proper windy location, a wind turbine can provide clean, zero-

emission electricity. In 2007, Williams College adopted a goal to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions by 10% below the College’s 1990-1991 levels by 2020 (Schapiro, 2007). In light of

this goal and the clean nature of wind energy, this report explores the possibility of employing

small scale wind turbines at Williams College to reduce the College’s dependency on fossil fuels

for daily electricity consumption. Local wind data will be analyzed to determine the practicality

of installing small wind turbines on College owned buildings and property.

Data

Overview

Data were collected by an anemometer

located in the northwest corner of the top of

Morley Science Center between November 25,

2003 and November 24, 2004 (Figure 5).

Measurements were taken from an anemometer

at a height of 4.27 meters above the roof’s surface. The meteorological tower supported several

anemometers and weathervanes, so data were used from the highest anemometer to reduce the

Figure 5. The installation of the meteorological tower in late 2003.

Augenbraun 5

error of estimating winds at greater heights. A typical small wind turbine is mounted on a tower

that allows it to operate at heights in excess of 4.27 meters. Therefore, part of this report focuses

on estimating the wind speeds at common tower heights such as 5, 10, 15, and 25 meters.

Data Analysis

Data were collected every ten minutes and then averaged to obtain daily averages for the

366 days of the measurement period. I used the daily averages to estimate wind speeds at heights

of 5, 10, 15, and 25 meters above the surface of the roof. Estimates are based on the following

wind shear formula (“Roughness and Wind Shear,” 2003):

v = vref * ln ( z / zo ) / ln ( zref / zo) (1)

In this formula, v is the wind speed estimate at a height z meters above ground level. vref is the

known wind speed at a known height zref. Finally, zo is the roughness length in the current wind

direction. For the roof of Morley Science Center, I used a roughness length of 0.40 meters based

on the definition of rough and uneven terrain provided in the Danish Wind Industry

Association’s reference manual (“Wind Energy Reference,” 2003). Since we have wind speed

data at 4.27 meters, these values were inputted into Equation 1 to estimate the wind speed at the

desired height of 5, 10, 15, or 25 meters. For example, using the daily average wind speed on

November 25, 2003 of 1.8 m/s results in the following calculation for the wind speed at 25

meters:

v = 1.75 m/s * ln ( 25 m / 0.40 m ) / ln ( 4.27 m / 0.40 m ) = 3.06 m/s (2)

The rest of the estimated wind speeds were calculated in a similar manner (Appendix A). Table 1

summarizes the yearly averages, minimums, and maximums of the various height estimates.

Augenbraun 6

5 Meters 10 Meters 15 Meters 25 Meters Minimum Daily Average (m/s)

0.54 0.68 0.77 0.88

Maximum Daily Average (m/s)

6.29 8.02 8.88 10.31

Yearly Average (m/s)

2.20 2.81 3.16 3.61

After estimating the wind speeds at various heights, I sorted the wind speeds from lowest to

highest. After sorting, I grouped the wind speeds by 0.50 m/s increments (Table 2).

Daily Avg. Wind Speed

(m/s)

5 meters

10 Meters

15 Meters

25 Meters

0.0-0.5 0 0 0 0 0.5-1.0 35 15 11 4 1.0-1.5 80 47 33 21 1.5-2.0 81 65 48 43 2.0-2.5 51 62 61 53 2.5-3.0 43 45 55 41 3.0-3.5 23 35 34 49 3.5-4.0 20 27 31 31 4.0-4.5 17 18 22 27 4.5-5.0 10 17 17 22 5.0-5.5 3 14 13 18 5.5-6.0 1 12 18 10 6.0-6.5 2 4 8 12 6.5-7.0 0 3 6 13 7.0-7.5 0 1 5 9 7.5-8.0 0 1 2 4 8.0-8.5 0 0 0 5 8.5-9.0 0 0 1 1 9.0-9.5 0 0 1 1 9.5-10.0 0 0 0 0 10.0-10.5 0 0 0 2

Table 2. Frequency of wind speeds in 0.50 m/s increments at various heights.

Table 1. Yearly averages, minimums and maximums at different heights above roof.

Augenbraun 7

I then plotted this data on a graph that shows how wind speed increases with height (Figure 6).

As expected, higher frequencies of higher daily average wind speeds are observed at higher

heights.

Once I grouped the wind speeds, I used these groupings to calculate potential power

production of a wind turbine on the roof of Morley Science Center. I used power curves from the

various turbine manufacturers to calculate the expected yearly energy production of the wind

turbines examined in this study. By comparing the number of days at a certain wind speed

interval (usually 0.50 or 1.0 m/s intervals) with the power produced at that speed, daily and

yearly energy production can be estimated.

The electricity production calculations for the Eoltec Scirocco serve as a good example of

this process. Eoltec provides a detailed power curve for the Scirocco making it relatively easy to

estimate the energy produced (Figure 7). Along with a power curve, the manufacturer provides a

table of the electricity production at various wind speeds in 1.0 m/s ranges (Table 3, “Eoltec

Figure 6. A graph of daily average wind speeds grouped by 0.50 m/s intervals. As the height increases, so does the frequency of higher daily average wind speeds.

Augenbraun 8

Figure 7. The power curve of the Eoltec Scirocco wind turbine.

Scirocco,” 2009). Therefore, I

grouped the data for each wind speed

into 1.0 m/s intervals starting at 2.5 to

3.5 m/s (note: a wind speed of 3.50

m/s is counted in the 3.5 to 4.5 m/s

interval). Any measurements less than

2.5 m/s are below the turbine’s cutoff

speed so no electricity would be

produced. After determining the

number of days in each group of wind

speeds, I multiplied that number by 24 to convert to hours. I then multiplied the number of hours

by the predicted power production of the corresponding bracket of wind speeds to get kilowatt-

hours of electricity. Summing the kilowatt-hours gave the total electricity produced for the year

(Table 3).

Wind Speed (m/s) Power (kW) Days Hours kWh 2.5-3.5 0.14 88 2112 295.68 3.5-4.5 0.34 54 1296 440.64 4.5-5.5 0.67 29 696 466.32 5.5-6.5 1.16 27 648 751.68 6.5-7.5 1.81 11 264 477.84 7.5-8.5 2.71 2 48 130.08 8.5-9.5 3.82 2 48 183.36

9.5-10.5 5.00 0 0 0 10.5-11.5 5.70 0 0 0 11.5-12.5 6.00 0 0 0

Total days 213 Total kWh Produced 2745.6 Overall, there were 213 days with high enough wind speed averages to produce some electricity.

These 213 days resulted in the production of approximately 2750 kWh of electricity.

Table 3. Calculation of yearly energy production of the Eoltec Scirocco.

Augenbraun 9

Assessing the Validity of Using Daily Averages

Since wind power is related to the cube of the wind speed, a small variation in wind

speed can have a large effect on power. Because of this relationship, the smaller the time interval

over which the average wind speed is calculated, the more accurate the final electricity

production estimates. Therefore, I decided to assess the validity of my estimates by comparing

the energy production between April 21, 2004 and April 27, 2004 based on daily averages to an

estimate based on the ten minute average wind speed. To perform this comparison, I used

estimated wind speed at the 15 meter height with the Eoltec Scirocco’s power curve (Appendix

B). Using the same techniques to estimate the energy production as explained in the previous

section, I found that the daily averages gave an estimate of 49 kWh (Table 4) while the ten

minute averages gave an estimate of 128 kWh (Table 5).

Wind Speed (m/s) Power (kW) Days Hours kWh 3.5-4.5 0.34 5 120 16.80 4.5-5.5 0.67 0 0 0 5.5-6.5 1.16 2 48 32.16

Total days 7 Total kWh Produced 48.96

Wind Speed (m/s) Power (kW) 10 Minute Intervals Hours kWh 2.5-3.5 0.14 122 20.33 2.85 3.5-4.5 0.34 142 23.67 8.05 4.5-5.5 0.67 112 18.67 12.51 5.5-6.5 1.16 78 13.00 15.08 6.5-7.5 1.81 64 10.67 19.31 7.5-8.5 2.71 52 8.67 23.49 8.5-9.5 3.82 35 5.83 22.28

9.5-10.5 5.00 19 3.17 15.83 10.5-11.5 5.70 7 1.17 6.65 11.5-12.5 6.00 2 0.33 2.00

Total days 213 Total kWh Produced 128.04

Table 4. Calculation of energy production of the Eoltec Scirocco for the week of 4/21/2004 to 4/27/2004 using daily averages.

Table 5. Calculation of energy production of the Eoltec Scirocco for the week of 4/21/2004 to 4/27/2004 using ten minute averages.

Augenbraun 10

Figure 8. The Eoltec Scirocco wind turbine, an example of the HAWT design.

Figure 9. The Windspire wind turbine, an example of vertical axis design.

As expected, the ten minute averages gave a significantly higher estimate of wind energy

production than did the daily averages. This finding reinforces the importance of using as small

intervals as possible for calculating the energy produced by a turbine. However, analyzing an

entire year’s worth of ten minute data in the manual manner described would be exceedingly

time-consuming so I decided to continue using the daily averages due to practical considerations.

If this week in April is any indication, the actual energy produced by a wind turbine would likely

be two to three times higher than the amount calculated using daily averages.

Wind Turbine Options

Small wind turbines are classified into three

categories: micro, mini, and small. Micro wind turbines

have blade diameters of about 0.50 to 1.25 meters. Mini

turbines have blade diameters of 1.25 to 2.75 meters, and

small wind turbines have blade diameters of 2.75 to 8.00

meters (Gipe, 2004). Since energy production is directly

related to blade diameter (along with many other factors

including location, height, and turbine efficiency), longer

blades generally produce more electricity. There are numerous varieties of small wind

turbines on the market. Most turbines are of the horizontal axis wind turbine (HAWT)

design (Figure 8). An alternative design, vertical axis wind turbines (Figure 9), was heavily

studied in the 1970s and 1980s but could never produce electricity as cost-effectively as

could HAWTs. The basic technology behind wind turbines has not changed much since the

late 1970s, but efficiency, reliability, noise production, and cost effectiveness have vastly

Augenbraun 11

improved. Modern wind turbines last longer, produce more electricity, and generate less noise

than older models (Manwell, McGowan, and Rogers, 2002).

I explored a wide variety of wind turbines for this project. A main criterion during my

investigation was to find wind turbines with low cut-in speeds. A low-cut in speed is essential so

the wind turbine can take advantage of the generally low wind speeds in the Purple Valley. I

eventually settled on six possible options: the Eoltec Scirocco (“Eoltec Scirocco,” 2009), the

ARE 110 and ARE 442 (“ARE Wind,” 2008), the Bergey Excel-S (“Bergey,” 2009), the

ReDriven FD6.4-5000 (“ReDriven,” 2008), and the Windspire (“Windspire,” 2009). All of these

wind turbines (except the Windspire) have cut-in speeds of approximately 2.0 to 3.0 m/s. In

addition, all of these turbines are relatively light and can be roof-mounted on most existing

structures. Furthermore, these wind turbines can connect directly into a building’s electricity

supply to avoid the issue of having to store the power in batteries. I projected annual electricity

production at 15 meters (a common height for small wind turbines) above the roof for these six

devices based on the manufacturers’ power curves (Appendix B). In some cases, a detailed

power curve was not available so monthly estimated production figures based on different wind

speeds were used. A summary of the key statistics for each turbine is presented in Table 6.

Device Eoltec Scirocco

ARE 110 ARE 442 Bergey Excel-S

Windspire ReDriven FD6.4-5000

Type Horizontal

(2 blades)

Horizontal

(3 blades)

Horizontal

(3 blades)

Horizontal

(3 blades)

Vertical axis

Horizontal (3 blades)

Cut-in speed 2.7 m/s 2.5 m/s 2.5 m/s 3.1 m/s 4.0 m/s 2.0 m/s

Rotor diameter 5.6 m 3.6 m 7.2 m 6.7 m .6 m Not listed

Weight (with tower) 202 kg 143 kg 612 kg 1400 kg 283 kg Not listed

Table 6. Summary of six wind turbines and their projected annual electricity production at a height of 15 meters above the roof of the Morley Science Center.

Augenbraun 12

Figure 10. An array of MotorWind turbines.

Projected annual electricity at 15 m

2746 kWh 1380 kWh 7800 kWh 2880 kWh 300 kWh 3651 kWh

Rated Power 6 kW at 11.5 m/s

2.5 kW at 11 m/s

10 kW at 10 m/s

10 kW at 13.8 m/s

1.2 kW at 5.4 m/s

5 kW at 10 m/s

In general, the estimates did not come close to the expected annual electricity production

based on the rated power of the turbines. This result was expected because the rated powers are

for wind speeds much higher than the averages recorded on the roof of Morley Science Center.

Most wind turbines do not produce much electricity at low wind speeds and this drawback is

reflected in the projected electricity amounts. The ARE 442 and the ReDriven FD6.4-5000

turbines had the two highest net capacity factors of about 8.5% each. It is interesting to note that

this is approximately the same factor as that of the solar panels on the roof of Morley Science

Center (Johns, 2008). Based on this information, the ReDriven and ARE 442 turbines appear to

be the most suitable turbines for the College to consider installing.

Although the previously discussed wind turbines are all from the small wind category of

small wind turbines, the College recently installed some MotorWind micro-wind category

turbines on the heating plant. MotorWave produces these

MotorWind turbines that can be installed in large arrays that will

start producing electricity in 1.0 m/s winds (Figure 10).

Unfortunately, each turbine does not produce much electricity

with a set of sixty producing about 0.72 kWh over a whole day

in 4.0 m/s winds. In addition, some sort of battery system is required to store the electricity

produced as it cannot be directly fed into the building’s electrical grid. Furthermore, the

company recommends winds of at least 4.0 m/s to make the turbines economically viable

(“Motorwind,” 2009). Although the turbines are relatively inexpensive, they do not make sense

for Williams College to install on a larger scale than the few on the heating plant.

Augenbraun 13

Cost Analysis

After calculating projected annual electricity production at 15 meters height, I calculated

the price and payback periods. All calculations were based on a delivery cost of $0.13 per

kilowatt-hour of electricity. Prices quoted include the turbine, tower, inverter, and wiring. To

account for engineering and installation costs, I doubled the price calculated for the components

based on an estimate suggested by the Director of the Zilkha Center for Environmental

Initiatives, Ms. Stephanie Boyd. Dividing this cost by the total amount of money saved on

electricity annually gave an estimated payback period (Table 7).

Device Eoltec Scirocco

ARE 110 ARE 442 Bergey Excel-S Windspire ReDriven FD6.4-5000

Projected annual electricity at 15 m

2746 kWh 1380 kWh 7800 kWh 2880 kWh 300 kWh 3651 kWh

Cost of Turbine and Parts

$35,000 $16,300 $43,250 $41,000 $6,500 $24,000

Total Installed Cost $70,000 $32,600 $86,500 $82,000 $13,000 $48,000

Total Payback Period

196 years 182 years 85 years 219 years 333 years 101 years

Cost After Incentives $56,383 $25,965 $57,400 $67,740 N/A $33,448

Payback Period (with incentives)

158 years 145 years 56.5 years 181 years N/A 70.5 years

Payback Period (with 2.5 times electricity production and adjusted incentives)

54 years

52 years

18 years

63 years

N/A

23.5 years

Table 7. Costs of the wind turbines and estimated payback periods based on different scenarios. Rebates were calculated using the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative rebate calculator (“Commonwealth Wind”, 2009).

Augenbraun 14

The total payback periods are extremely long, but do not take into account certain

incentives and rebates available for small scale wind projects. The Micro Wind Initiative

sponsored by the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative provides a hybrid rebate structure.

The first part of the rebate is based on the system’s rated capacity, while the second part of the

rebate is based on the number of kilowatt-hours produced during the first year of operation

(“Commonwealth Wind,” 2009). The federal government also offers a tax credit for small wind

projects worth 30% of the project’s cost (“Federal Incentives,” 2009). Unfortunately, since

Williams College is a tax-exempt institution, this credit does not benefit the College. After

factoring these incentives into the calculations, the payback periods become more reasonable.

Payback periods are further reduced by assuming that 2.5 times more electricity will be produced

than suggested by the daily averages based on the analysis using ten minute averages.

Furthermore, since the installed cost is a rough estimate, actual payback periods may be shorter

than indicated in the table. Increased electricity costs over the course of a turbine’s service period

make the return on investment even more attractive.

Conclusions

Wind power is a valuable source of energy, but turbines must be placed in appropriate

sites to capture the maximum amount of energy possible. The Purple Valley is not very

conducive to wind energy with its generally low average wind speeds throughout the year.

However, certain small scale wind turbines do prove cost effective after taking into account

incentives offered by the state of Massachusetts. Based on initial analysis of daily average wind

speeds at a height of 15 meters above Morley Science Center’s roof, wind turbines do not seem

economically viable for Williams College. However, I still recommend the installation of either

Augenbraun 15

the ARE 442 or ReDriven 5 kW turbine on Morley Science Center. By taking into account the

fact that daily averages vastly underestimate energy production (by an order of two to three

times), the payback period of these two wind turbines drop into a much more reasonable range of

about 20 years. These two types of turbines had the shortest payback periods while also having a

good record of reliability. This approximately 20 year payback period is actually better than that

of the solar panels that the College has previously installed.

Since Williams College is a leading institution in the education field, it should also try to

be a leader in sustainability. As such, the College should not evaluate the installation of a wind

turbine from a purely economic point of view. The College should take into account the public

relations boost as well as the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions associated with the

installation of a wind turbine. A wind turbine can also provide valuable educational opportunities

for students at the College. For example, reliable wind speed measurements and power

production numbers can be recorded from a wind turbine on Morley Science Center. Other

colleges across the country have undertaken wind turbine projects; it is now time for Williams

College to install one of its own.

Convincing the administration to install a wind turbine constitutes the largest hurdle of

this project. Given the current economic situation and declining endowment, College

administrators will likely be reluctant to fund a project with a twenty year payback horizon.

Hopefully, the administration will eventually agree to such a project given the College’s

commitment to reducing carbon emissions and the reasons previously discussed. Once the

College decides to install a wind turbine, going forward with the installation will be relatively

straightforward. A structural engineering survey will be necessary to determine which roofs on

campus can support the weight of a wind turbine. Then, the College will need to seek permits

Augenbraun 16

from Williamstown pursuant to Subsection G of Article 7 of the Williamstown Zoning Bylaws

(“Zoning Bylaws,” 2008). Finally, a contractor (or possibly members of the College’s Facilities

department) will be used to install the wind turbine. Once monitoring equipment and wiring are

installed, the turbine will be ready to produce energy.

This report focused on the roof of Morley Science Center because data was collected on

that roof. Morley Science Center’s roof is approximately the same height as many other flat roofs

on campus. Therefore, we can reasonably assume that similar wind conditions exist above the

roofs of such buildings as the Paresky Center, buildings in the Greylock Quad, and Sawyer

Library. As a result, a small wind turbine could be added to the top of any of these buildings and

be expected to have a payback period similar to one installed on Morley Science Center. Any of

these buildings would serve as good candidates for a wind turbine, but Thompson Chapel would

truly be the best candidate. The top of the Chapel is several stories taller than any surrounding

buildings and well above any turbulence created by surrounding trees. A wind turbine on top of

the Chapel would likely experience much higher winds than those recorded on Morley Science

Center. In addition, a turbine on the top of the Chapel would have much greater visibility and

send a strong message about the College’s commitment to sustainability.

Overall, I strongly recommend the installation of a small wind turbine, specifically an

ARE 442 or ReDriven FD6.4-5000, on a campus building. The ideal location would be on top of

Thompson Chapel, but a more realistic location would be the roof of Morley Science Center or

Paresky Center. Given the estimated wind speeds and some reasonable assumptions, the College

can expect to regain its investment in approximately 20 to 25 years. In addition, installing a small

scale wind turbine on the campus could provide the motivation for eventually developing a large

Augenbraun 17

scale wind project on Berlin Mountain. It is time for Williams College to start capturing the

energy of the wind.

Works Cited “ARE Wind Turbines.” Abundant Renewable Energy. 2008. Abundant Renewable Energy, LLC. 19 May 2009. <http://www.abundantre.com/ARE_Wind_Turbines.htn>. “Bergey Small Wind Turbines.” Bergey Windpower Co. 2009. Bergey Windpower Co. 19 May

2009. <http://www.bergey.com/>.

“Commonwealth Wind Incentive Program.” Massachusetts Technology Collaborative. 2009. Massachusetts Technology Collaborative. 16 May 2009. <http://www.masstech.org/

renewableenergy/commonwealth_wind/micro_wind.html>. “Eoltec Scirocco.” Solacity Inc. 2009. Solacity Inc. 18 May 2009. <http://www.solacity.com/

Scirocco.htm>. “Federal Incentives/Policies for Renewables and Efficiency.” Database of State Incentives for

Renewables and Efficiency. 19 February 2009. N.C. State University. 18 May 2009. <www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=US37F&re=1&ee=1>.

Gipe, Paul. Wind Power: Renewable Energy for Home, Farm, and Business. White River

Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing Company, 2004.

Johns, Amy. “Solar Electricity: Our Installations.” Sustainability at Williams. 2008. Williams College. 18 May 2009. <http://www.williams.edu/resources/sustainability/

solar/solar.php>. Manwell, J.F., McGowan, J.G., and A.L. Rogers. Wind Energy Explained: Theory, Design and

Application. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2003. “Micro-Wind at the Becton Center.” Yale Office of Sustainability. 2009. Yale University. 16 May 2009. <http://www.yale.edu/sustainability/bectonmicrowind.html>. “MotorWind.” MotorWave. 21 April 2009. MotorWave Ltd. 19 May 2009. <http://www.motorwavegroup.com/new/motorwind/index.html>. “ReDriven 5kW Turbine.” ReDriven: Eco-Friendly Power. 2008. ReDriven Power Inc. 19 May

Augenbraun 18

2009. <http://www.redriven.net/index.html>. “Renewable Energy Trends in Consumption and Electricity: 2007 Edition.” Energy Information

Administration: Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government. April 2009. U.S. Department of Energy. 16 May 2009. <http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/ page/trends/rentrends.html>.

“Roughness and Wind Shear.” Danish Wind Industry Association. 1 June 2003. Danish Wind Industry Association. 18 May 2009. <www.windpower.org/en/tour/wres/shear.htm>. Schapiro, Morton. “Letters from the President and Trustees.” Williams College. 24 January 2007. Williams College. 16 May 2009. <http://www.williams.edu/admin/

president/letters/070124_CAC.php>. Stimmel, Ron. “AWEA Small Wind Turbine Global Market Study: Year Ending 2008.” Small

Wind. 2009. American Wind Energy Association. 16 May 2009. <http://www.awea.org/ smallwind/pdf/09_AWEA_Small_Wind_Global_Market_Study.pdf>.

Wakefield, Jeffrey. “New UVM Wind Turbine to Serve Educational, Research Purposes.” University Communications: University of Vermont. 7 October 2005. University of Vermont. 16 May 2009. <http://www.uvm.edu/~uvmpr/?Page=News&storyID=6725>. “Wind Energy Reference Manual Part 1: Wind Energy Concepts”. Danish Wind Industry

Association. 1 June 2003. Danish Wind Industry Association. 18 May 2009. <http://www.windpower.org/en/stat/unitsw.htm#roughness>.

“Wind Power.” Middlebury: Sustainability Integration Office. Middlebury College. 16 May 2009. <http://www.middlebury.edu/administration/enviro/initiatives/

energy/Wind+Power+at+Recycling+Center.htm>. “Windspire.” Windspire Turbine. 2009. Mariah Power. 18 May 2009. <http://windspire.info/

windspire-overview.aspx>.

“Zoning Bylaws: Town of Williamstown, MA.” Code of Williamstown. 20 May 2008. Town of Williamstown. 17 May 2009. <http://s230494718.onlinehome.us/wp- content/uploads/2008/03/Code-of-Williamstown.pdf>.

Augenbraun 19

Image Credits Figure 2: “The Role of Renewable Energy Consumption in the Nation’s Energy Supply.” Energy

Information Administration: Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government. April 2009. U.S. Department of Energy. 18 May 2009. <http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/ solar.renewables/page/trends/highlight1.html>.

Figure 3: “Micro-Wind at the Becton Center.” Yale Office of Sustainability. 2009. Yale University. 16 May 2009. <http://www.yale.edu/sustainability/bectonmicrowind.html>. Figure 4: Wakefield, Jeffrey. “New UVM Wind Turbine to Serve Educational, Research Purposes.” University Communications: University of Vermont. 7 October 2005. University of Vermont. 16 May 2009. <http://www.uvm.edu/~uvmpr/?Page=News&storyID=6725>. Figure 5: Image provided by Professor David Dethier of Williams College Geosciences Department. Figures 7 and 8: “Eoltec Scirocco.” Solacity Inc. 2009. Solacity Inc. 18 May 2009. <http://www.solacity.com/

Scirocco.htm>. Figure 9: “Windspire.” Windspire Turbine. 2009. Mariah Power. 18 May 2009. <http://windspire.info/

windspire-overview.aspx>. Figure 10: “MotorWind.” MotorWave. 21 April 2009. MotorWave Ltd. 19 May 2009. <http://www.motorwavegroup.com/new/motorwind/index.html>. Figure B1: “Eoltec Scirocco.” Solacity Inc. 2009. Solacity Inc. 18 May 2009. <http://www.solacity.com/

Scirocco.htm>. Figure B2: “Bergey Small Wind Turbines.” Bergey Windpower Co. 2009. Bergey Windpower Co. 19 May

2009. <http://www.bergey.com/>.

Augenbraun 20

Figure B3: “ARE Wind Turbines.” Abundant Renewable Energy. 2008. Abundant Renewable Energy, LLC. 19 May 2009. <http://www.abundantre.com/ARE_Wind_Turbines.htn>. Figure B4: “ReDriven 5kW Turbine.” ReDriven: Eco-Friendly Power. 2008. ReDriven Power Inc. 19 May

2009. <http://www.redriven.net/index.html>. Figure B5: “Windspire.” Windspire Turbine. 2009. Mariah Power. 18 May 2009. <http://windspire.info/

windspire-overview.aspx>. Appendix A: Recorded and Estimated Wind Speeds on top of Morley Science Center

Date

Anem 1 Day Avg

Wind Speed (m/s)

Est. Speed at 5 m

Est. Speed

at 10 m

Est. Speed at 15

m

Est. Speed at 25

m Date

Anem 1 Day Avg

Wind Speed (m/s)

Est. Speed at 5 m

Est. Speed

at 10 m

Est. Speed at 15

m

Est. Speed at 25

m

11/25/2003 1.75 1.87 2.38 2.68 3.06 5/26/2004 3.14 3.35 4.27 4.81 5.48 11/26/2003 1.00 1.06 1.36 1.53 1.74 5/27/2004 1.02 1.09 1.38 1.56 1.78 11/27/2003 1.52 1.62 2.07 2.33 2.66 5/28/2004 2.23 2.38 3.03 3.41 3.89 11/28/2003 2.91 3.10 3.96 4.45 5.08 5/29/2004 3.59 3.83 4.88 5.50 6.27 11/29/2003 5.90 6.29 8.02 9.03 10.31 5/30/2004 2.01 2.14 2.73 3.07 3.51 11/30/2003 1.92 2.05 2.61 2.94 3.36 5/31/2004 1.87 1.99 2.54 2.86 3.26 12/1/2003 3.78 4.03 5.14 5.79 6.61 6/1/2004 2.63 2.81 3.57 4.03 4.59 12/2/2003 4.37 4.66 5.94 6.69 7.63 6/2/2004 1.73 1.85 2.35 2.65 3.02 12/3/2003 2.16 2.31 2.94 3.31 3.78 6/3/2004 1.78 1.89 2.41 2.72 3.10 12/4/2003 1.71 1.83 2.33 2.62 2.99 6/4/2004 1.31 1.40 1.79 2.01 2.29 12/5/2003 0.96 1.02 1.30 1.47 1.67 6/5/2004 1.93 2.06 2.63 2.96 3.38 12/6/2003 2.65 2.82 3.60 4.05 4.62 6/6/2004 1.60 1.71 2.18 2.46 2.80 12/7/2003 4.38 4.68 5.96 6.71 7.65 6/7/2004 1.18 1.26 1.61 1.81 2.07 12/8/2003 2.81 3.00 3.82 4.30 4.91 6/8/2004 1.45 1.55 1.98 2.23 2.54 12/9/2003 0.54 0.58 0.73 0.83 0.94 6/9/2004 1.62 1.73 2.20 2.48 2.83

12/10/2003 3.04 3.24 4.13 4.66 5.31 6/10/2004 1.47 1.57 1.99 2.25 2.56 12/11/2003 4.46 4.76 6.06 6.83 7.79 6/11/2004 1.61 1.71 2.18 2.46 2.81 12/12/2003 4.35 4.64 5.91 6.66 7.60 6/12/2004 1.32 1.40 1.79 2.01 2.30 12/13/2003 3.40 3.63 4.62 5.20 5.94 6/13/2004 2.61 2.78 3.54 3.99 4.55 12/14/2003 2.67 2.85 3.63 4.09 4.66 6/14/2004 2.28 2.43 3.09 3.48 3.97 12/15/2003 4.26 4.54 5.79 6.52 7.44 6/15/2004 2.60 2.77 3.54 3.98 4.54 12/16/2003 1.75 1.86 2.38 2.67 3.05 6/16/2004 1.08 1.16 1.47 1.66 1.89 12/17/2003 2.31 2.47 3.14 3.54 4.04 6/17/2004 0.50 0.54 0.68 0.77 0.88 12/18/2003 4.24 4.52 5.76 6.49 7.40 6/18/2004 1.05 1.12 1.43 1.61 1.83 12/19/2003 1.28 1.37 1.74 1.96 2.24 6/19/2004 3.90 4.16 5.31 5.97 6.82 12/20/2003 1.33 1.42 1.81 2.04 2.33 6/20/2004 2.53 2.70 3.44 3.87 4.42 12/21/2003 0.96 1.02 1.30 1.47 1.67 6/21/2004 1.48 1.58 2.02 2.27 2.59 12/22/2003 0.62 0.66 0.85 0.95 1.09 6/22/2004 1.73 1.85 2.36 2.65 3.03 12/23/2003 1.96 2.09 2.67 3.01 3.43 6/23/2004 2.14 2.28 2.91 3.28 3.74 12/24/2003 2.93 3.13 3.98 4.49 5.12 6/24/2004 2.03 2.16 2.75 3.10 3.54 12/25/2003 2.32 2.48 3.16 3.56 4.06 6/25/2004 1.67 1.79 2.28 2.56 2.92 12/26/2003 3.73 3.98 5.07 5.71 6.51 6/26/2004 2.25 2.40 3.05 3.44 3.92 12/27/2003 1.96 2.09 2.66 3.00 3.42 6/27/2004 2.02 2.15 2.74 3.09 3.53 12/28/2003 0.62 0.66 0.84 0.95 1.08 6/28/2004 1.42 1.52 1.93 2.18 2.48 12/29/2003 1.12 1.19 1.52 1.71 1.95 6/29/2004 1.31 1.40 1.78 2.00 2.29 12/30/2003 4.16 4.44 5.66 6.37 7.27 6/30/2004 1.61 1.72 2.19 2.46 2.81 12/31/2003 3.61 3.85 4.91 5.53 6.30 7/1/2004 1.45 1.55 1.97 2.22 2.53

1/1/2004 3.39 3.61 4.60 5.18 5.91 7/2/2004 1.76 1.87 2.39 2.69 3.07

Augenbraun 21

1/2/2004 1.27 1.35 1.72 1.94 2.21 7/3/2004 1.34 1.42 1.82 2.04 2.33 1/3/2004 1.95 2.08 2.65 2.99 3.41 7/4/2004 1.81 1.93 2.47 2.78 3.17 1/4/2004 1.34 1.43 1.82 2.05 2.33 7/5/2004 1.94 2.06 2.63 2.96 3.38 1/5/2004 2.55 2.72 3.46 3.90 4.45 7/6/2004 1.93 2.06 2.62 2.95 3.37 1/6/2004 4.06 4.33 5.52 6.21 7.09 7/7/2004 1.35 1.44 1.84 2.07 2.36 1/7/2004 4.06 4.33 5.52 6.21 7.09 7/8/2004 1.71 1.82 2.32 2.61 2.98 1/8/2004 2.38 2.54 3.24 3.65 4.16 7/9/2004 2.60 2.77 3.53 3.98 4.54 1/9/2004 2.28 2.44 3.10 3.49 3.99 7/10/2004 0.92 0.98 1.25 1.41 1.61

1/10/2004 1.61 1.72 2.19 2.47 2.81 7/11/2004 1.09 1.16 1.48 1.67 1.90 1/11/2004 1.48 1.58 2.01 2.27 2.59 7/12/2004 2.28 2.44 3.11 3.50 3.99 1/12/2004 1.36 1.45 1.84 2.07 2.37 7/13/2004 2.12 2.27 2.89 3.25 3.71 1/13/2004 3.66 3.90 4.97 5.60 6.39 7/14/2004 2.46 2.63 3.35 3.77 4.30 1/14/2004 2.12 2.26 2.88 3.24 3.70 7/15/2004 1.50 1.60 2.04 2.30 2.62 1/15/2004 3.34 3.56 4.54 5.11 5.83 7/16/2004 1.34 1.43 1.82 2.05 2.34 1/16/2004 5.16 5.51 7.02 7.90 9.02 7/17/2004 1.07 1.14 1.45 1.64 1.87 1/17/2004 1.62 1.73 2.21 2.48 2.83 7/18/2004 0.94 1.00 1.28 1.44 1.64 1/18/2004 2.02 2.15 2.74 3.09 3.52 7/19/2004 0.59 0.63 0.81 0.91 1.04 1/19/2004 4.19 4.47 5.70 6.42 7.32 7/20/2004 1.00 1.07 1.36 1.54 1.75 1/20/2004 3.76 4.01 5.11 5.75 6.56 7/21/2004 0.95 1.01 1.29 1.45 1.65 1/21/2004 1.61 1.72 2.19 2.46 2.81 7/22/2004 1.78 1.90 2.43 2.73 3.12 1/22/2004 2.98 3.18 4.05 4.56 5.20 7/23/2004 2.08 2.22 2.83 3.19 3.64 1/23/2004 3.85 4.11 5.24 5.90 6.73 7/24/2004 2.33 2.48 3.16 3.56 4.06 1/24/2004 2.91 3.11 3.96 4.46 5.09 7/25/2004 0.98 1.04 1.33 1.50 1.71 1/25/2004 2.01 2.15 2.74 3.08 3.52 7/26/2004 0.93 0.99 1.26 1.42 1.62 1/26/2004 1.11 1.18 1.51 1.70 1.93 7/27/2004 0.94 1.00 1.28 1.44 1.64 1/27/2004 1.07 1.14 1.45 1.64 1.87 7/28/2004 1.33 1.42 1.81 2.04 2.32 1/28/2004 2.78 2.96 3.78 4.25 4.85 7/29/2004 0.96 1.03 1.31 1.47 1.68 1/29/2004 4.80 5.12 6.52 7.34 8.38 7/30/2004 1.80 1.92 2.44 2.75 3.14 1/30/2004 2.70 2.88 3.67 4.14 4.72 7/31/2004 2.97 3.17 4.04 4.55 5.19 1/31/2004 3.97 4.24 5.40 6.08 6.94 8/1/2004 1.01 1.08 1.37 1.54 1.76 2/1/2004 1.78 1.89 2.41 2.72 3.10 8/2/2004 0.88 0.94 1.20 1.35 1.54 2/2/2004 0.71 0.75 0.96 1.08 1.23 8/3/2004 1.10 1.17 1.49 1.68 1.92 2/3/2004 1.86 1.99 2.53 2.85 3.25 8/4/2004 1.08 1.15 1.47 1.65 1.89 2/4/2004 5.80 6.19 7.89 8.88 10.13 8/5/2004 1.35 1.44 1.84 2.07 2.36 2/5/2004 3.01 3.21 4.09 4.61 5.26 8/6/2004 1.46 1.56 1.99 2.24 2.55 2/6/2004 2.46 2.63 3.35 3.77 4.30 8/7/2004 1.42 1.51 1.93 2.17 2.48 2/7/2004 3.14 3.35 4.27 4.81 5.48 8/8/2004 1.42 1.51 1.93 2.17 2.47 2/8/2004 3.34 3.57 4.55 5.12 5.84 8/9/2004 1.13 1.21 1.54 1.73 1.98 2/9/2004 1.52 1.63 2.07 2.33 2.66 8/10/2004 2.08 2.21 2.82 3.18 3.62

2/10/2004 1.92 2.05 2.61 2.94 3.35 8/11/2004 2.95 3.15 4.02 4.52 5.16 2/11/2004 4.66 4.97 6.34 7.14 8.14 8/12/2004 1.29 1.37 1.75 1.97 2.24 2/12/2004 0.68 0.73 0.93 1.04 1.19 8/13/2004 1.36 1.45 1.84 2.08 2.37 2/13/2004 2.61 2.78 3.54 3.99 4.55 8/14/2004 0.93 0.99 1.26 1.42 1.62 2/14/2004 2.63 2.81 3.58 4.03 4.60 8/15/2004 1.62 1.73 2.20 2.48 2.83 2/15/2004 2.75 2.93 3.74 4.21 4.80 8/16/2004 1.09 1.17 1.49 1.68 1.91 2/16/2004 1.15 1.23 1.56 1.76 2.01 8/17/2004 0.76 0.81 1.03 1.16 1.33 2/17/2004 1.48 1.58 2.02 2.27 2.59 8/18/2004 1.72 1.84 2.34 2.64 3.01 2/18/2004 1.46 1.55 1.98 2.23 2.54 8/19/2004 1.79 1.91 2.44 2.75 3.13 2/19/2004 1.61 1.72 2.19 2.46 2.81 8/20/2004 1.11 1.18 1.50 1.69 1.93 2/20/2004 1.22 1.30 1.66 1.87 2.13 8/21/2004 1.38 1.47 1.88 2.11 2.41 2/21/2004 3.03 3.23 4.11 4.63 5.29 8/22/2004 0.84 0.90 1.15 1.29 1.47 2/22/2004 4.80 5.12 6.52 7.35 8.38 8/23/2004 1.21 1.29 1.64 1.85 2.11 2/23/2004 1.56 1.66 2.12 2.39 2.72 8/24/2004 1.19 1.26 1.61 1.81 2.07 2/24/2004 1.40 1.49 1.90 2.14 2.44 8/25/2004 1.42 1.52 1.94 2.18 2.49 2/25/2004 2.26 2.41 3.07 3.46 3.95 8/26/2004 1.96 2.09 2.67 3.00 3.43 2/26/2004 1.96 2.09 2.67 3.01 3.43 8/27/2004 1.35 1.44 1.83 2.06 2.36 2/27/2004 1.81 1.94 2.47 2.78 3.17 8/28/2004 0.75 0.80 1.02 1.15 1.31 2/28/2004 1.26 1.35 1.72 1.94 2.21 8/29/2004 1.87 1.99 2.54 2.86 3.26

Augenbraun 22

2/29/2004 1.41 1.50 1.91 2.16 2.46 8/30/2004 1.40 1.50 1.91 2.15 2.45 3/1/2004 1.02 1.09 1.38 1.56 1.78 8/31/2004 1.71 1.83 2.33 2.62 2.99 3/2/2004 3.16 3.37 4.29 4.83 5.52 9/1/2004 1.37 1.47 1.87 2.10 2.40 3/3/2004 4.15 4.42 5.64 6.35 7.24 9/2/2004 1.06 1.13 1.44 1.62 1.85 3/4/2004 0.61 0.65 0.83 0.94 1.07 9/3/2004 0.98 1.04 1.33 1.50 1.71 3/5/2004 2.53 2.70 3.44 3.87 4.42 9/4/2004 1.00 1.06 1.35 1.53 1.74 3/6/2004 3.53 3.76 4.79 5.40 6.16 9/5/2004 3.47 3.70 4.72 5.31 6.06 3/7/2004 2.75 2.93 3.74 4.21 4.80 9/6/2004 1.70 1.81 2.31 2.60 2.96 3/8/2004 1.60 1.70 2.17 2.44 2.79 9/7/2004 2.01 2.15 2.74 3.08 3.52 3/9/2004 0.56 0.60 0.76 0.86 0.98 9/8/2004 0.88 0.94 1.20 1.35 1.54

3/10/2004 1.13 1.21 1.54 1.73 1.97 9/9/2004 3.02 3.22 4.11 4.62 5.27 3/11/2004 1.15 1.23 1.56 1.76 2.01 9/10/2004 2.71 2.89 3.68 4.14 4.72 3/12/2004 2.79 2.98 3.79 4.27 4.87 9/11/2004 0.73 0.77 0.99 1.11 1.27 3/13/2004 3.61 3.85 4.91 5.53 6.31 9/12/2004 0.91 0.97 1.24 1.40 1.59 3/14/2004 2.52 2.68 3.42 3.85 4.39 9/13/2004 1.28 1.36 1.74 1.96 2.23 3/15/2004 3.83 4.08 5.20 5.85 6.68 9/14/2004 1.29 1.37 1.75 1.97 2.25 3/16/2004 1.40 1.50 1.91 2.15 2.45 9/15/2004 1.28 1.37 1.74 1.96 2.24 3/17/2004 1.91 2.04 2.60 2.93 3.34 9/16/2004 0.98 1.05 1.34 1.51 1.72 3/18/2004 1.86 1.98 2.53 2.85 3.25 9/17/2004 0.75 0.80 1.02 1.15 1.31 3/19/2004 1.31 1.40 1.78 2.01 2.29 9/18/2004 1.86 1.98 2.52 2.84 3.24 3/20/2004 2.49 2.65 3.38 3.81 4.35 9/19/2004 2.44 2.60 3.31 3.73 4.25 3/21/2004 3.60 3.84 4.89 5.51 6.29 9/20/2004 1.23 1.31 1.67 1.88 2.15 3/22/2004 3.89 4.15 5.29 5.96 6.80 9/21/2004 0.76 0.81 1.03 1.17 1.33 3/23/2004 2.63 2.81 3.58 4.03 4.60 9/22/2004 1.14 1.21 1.55 1.74 1.99 3/24/2004 1.82 1.94 2.47 2.79 3.18 9/23/2004 1.30 1.38 1.76 1.99 2.27 3/25/2004 2.66 2.83 3.61 4.07 4.64 9/24/2004 0.58 0.62 0.79 0.89 1.02 3/26/2004 2.36 2.52 3.21 3.62 4.13 9/25/2004 1.26 1.34 1.71 1.93 2.20 3/27/2004 2.40 2.56 3.26 3.67 4.19 9/26/2004 1.34 1.43 1.82 2.05 2.34 3/28/2004 2.17 2.32 2.95 3.33 3.79 9/27/2004 0.95 1.01 1.29 1.45 1.65 3/29/2004 3.22 3.44 4.38 4.93 5.62 9/28/2004 0.63 0.67 0.85 0.96 1.09 3/30/2004 3.56 3.80 4.84 5.45 6.22 9/29/2004 1.72 1.84 2.34 2.64 3.01 3/31/2004 2.70 2.88 3.67 4.14 4.72 9/30/2004 0.74 0.79 1.00 1.13 1.29 4/1/2004 3.76 4.01 5.11 5.75 6.56 10/1/2004 0.61 0.65 0.83 0.94 1.07 4/2/2004 3.02 3.23 4.11 4.63 5.28 10/2/2004 2.35 2.50 3.19 3.59 4.10 4/3/2004 0.98 1.04 1.33 1.49 1.71 10/3/2004 1.01 1.08 1.37 1.54 1.76 4/4/2004 1.51 1.62 2.06 2.32 2.64 10/4/2004 1.85 1.97 2.51 2.83 3.23 4/5/2004 5.08 5.42 6.91 7.78 8.88 10/5/2004 1.85 1.97 2.51 2.83 3.23 4/6/2004 4.62 4.93 6.29 7.08 8.08 10/6/2004 0.91 0.97 1.24 1.40 1.59 4/7/2004 1.56 1.67 2.12 2.39 2.73 10/7/2004 0.78 0.84 1.06 1.20 1.37 4/8/2004 1.20 1.28 1.64 1.84 2.10 10/8/2004 0.77 0.82 1.05 1.18 1.35 4/9/2004 2.58 2.75 3.51 3.95 4.50 10/9/2004 2.68 2.86 3.65 4.11 4.68

4/10/2004 3.04 3.25 4.14 4.66 5.32 10/10/2004 2.33 2.49 3.17 3.57 4.08 4/11/2004 1.51 1.61 2.06 2.32 2.64 10/11/2004 3.72 3.97 5.06 5.69 6.50 4/12/2004 1.76 1.87 2.39 2.69 3.07 10/12/2004 2.81 3.00 3.82 4.30 4.91 4/13/2004 4.28 4.57 5.82 6.56 7.48 10/13/2004 0.85 0.91 1.15 1.30 1.48 4/14/2004 2.46 2.62 3.34 3.76 4.29 10/14/2004 1.13 1.21 1.54 1.73 1.97 4/15/2004 3.68 3.92 5.00 5.63 6.42 10/15/2004 1.83 1.95 2.49 2.80 3.20 4/16/2004 2.01 2.14 2.73 3.07 3.51 10/16/2004 1.80 1.92 2.45 2.76 3.14 4/17/2004 1.68 1.80 2.29 2.58 2.94 10/17/2004 1.77 1.89 2.41 2.71 3.10 4/18/2004 1.77 1.89 2.41 2.71 3.09 10/18/2004 2.06 2.19 2.79 3.15 3.59 4/19/2004 3.86 4.12 5.25 5.91 6.74 10/19/2004 0.92 0.98 1.25 1.41 1.60 4/20/2004 2.98 3.18 4.06 4.57 5.21 10/20/2004 1.81 1.93 2.46 2.77 3.17 4/21/2004 4.18 4.46 5.68 6.40 7.30 10/21/2004 1.56 1.66 2.11 2.38 2.72 4/22/2004 2.16 2.30 2.93 3.30 3.77 10/22/2004 1.16 1.24 1.58 1.78 2.03 4/23/2004 1.74 1.86 2.37 2.66 3.04 10/23/2004 1.35 1.44 1.84 2.07 2.36 4/24/2004 3.76 4.01 5.11 5.75 6.56 10/24/2004 1.50 1.60 2.04 2.30 2.62 4/25/2004 1.73 1.84 2.35 2.64 3.02 10/25/2004 0.55 0.58 0.74 0.84 0.95 4/26/2004 1.94 2.07 2.63 2.97 3.38 10/26/2004 1.64 1.75 2.23 2.51 2.86

Augenbraun 23

4/27/2004 2.08 2.22 2.83 3.19 3.64 10/27/2004 1.20 1.28 1.63 1.84 2.10 4/28/2004 3.77 4.02 5.12 5.77 6.58 10/28/2004 0.84 0.89 1.14 1.28 1.46 4/29/2004 2.27 2.42 3.08 3.47 3.96 10/29/2004 0.68 0.72 0.92 1.04 1.18 4/30/2004 2.45 2.61 3.33 3.75 4.28 10/30/2004 2.57 2.74 3.49 3.93 4.48 5/1/2004 2.46 2.63 3.35 3.77 4.30 10/31/2004 3.27 3.49 4.45 5.01 5.72 5/2/2004 3.43 3.66 4.66 5.25 5.99 11/1/2004 2.94 3.13 3.99 4.49 5.13 5/3/2004 1.80 1.92 2.45 2.76 3.15 11/2/2004 2.14 2.28 2.91 3.28 3.74 5/4/2004 3.58 3.82 4.87 5.49 6.26 11/3/2004 4.63 4.94 6.30 7.09 8.09 5/5/2004 1.23 1.31 1.67 1.88 2.14 11/4/2004 1.55 1.65 2.11 2.37 2.71 5/6/2004 1.17 1.25 1.59 1.79 2.04 11/5/2004 3.73 3.98 5.07 5.71 6.51 5/7/2004 3.53 3.76 4.80 5.40 6.16 11/6/2004 2.82 3.01 3.84 4.32 4.93 5/8/2004 1.15 1.23 1.57 1.77 2.02 11/7/2004 2.42 2.59 3.30 3.71 4.23 5/9/2004 1.70 1.81 2.31 2.60 2.97 11/8/2004 3.06 3.27 4.17 4.69 5.35

5/10/2004 2.28 2.43 3.09 3.48 3.97 11/9/2004 1.96 2.10 2.67 3.01 3.43 5/11/2004 1.89 2.02 2.57 2.89 3.30 11/10/2004 1.79 1.90 2.43 2.73 3.12 5/12/2004 1.38 1.48 1.88 2.12 2.42 11/11/2004 2.13 2.27 2.89 3.26 3.72 5/13/2004 2.54 2.71 3.45 3.88 4.43 11/12/2004 1.46 1.55 1.98 2.23 2.55 5/14/2004 2.73 2.91 3.71 4.17 4.76 11/13/2004 3.12 3.33 4.24 4.77 5.45 5/15/2004 1.85 1.97 2.51 2.83 3.23 11/14/2004 2.11 2.25 2.86 3.22 3.68 5/16/2004 1.43 1.53 1.95 2.19 2.50 11/15/2004 2.05 2.19 2.79 3.14 3.58 5/17/2004 1.55 1.65 2.10 2.37 2.70 11/16/2004 1.71 1.82 2.32 2.61 2.98 5/18/2004 3.27 3.49 4.44 5.00 5.71 11/17/2004 0.97 1.04 1.32 1.49 1.70 5/19/2004 2.46 2.63 3.35 3.77 4.30 11/18/2004 1.21 1.29 1.64 1.85 2.11 5/20/2004 2.41 2.57 3.27 3.68 4.20 11/19/2004 1.82 1.94 2.47 2.78 3.17 5/21/2004 1.38 1.47 1.87 2.11 2.41 11/20/2004 1.42 1.51 1.93 2.17 2.48 5/22/2004 3.33 3.55 4.52 5.09 5.81 11/21/2004 1.93 2.06 2.63 2.96 3.38 5/23/2004 2.51 2.68 3.42 3.85 4.39 11/22/2004 1.50 1.60 2.05 2.30 2.63 5/24/2004 2.44 2.60 3.31 3.73 4.26 11/23/2004 1.57 1.68 2.14 2.41 2.75 5/25/2004 2.10 2.24 2.86 3.22 3.67 11/24/2004 2.25 2.40 3.05 3.44 3.92

Augenbraun 24

Figure B1. The power curve of the Eoltec Scirocco wind turbine.

Appendix B: Wind Turbine Power Curves

Augenbraun 25

Figure B2. The power curve of the Bergey Excel-S wind turbine.

Figure B3. The power curves of the ARE 110 and ARE 442.

Augenbraun 26

Figure B4. The power curve of the ReDriven 5kW turbine.

Figure B5. The power curve of the Windspire.

Augenbraun 27