IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Investment cost and view damage cost of siting an offshore wind farm: A spatial analysis of Lake Michigan

Listed author(s):
  • Chiang, Amy C.
  • Keoleian, Gregory A.
  • Moore, Michael R.
  • Kelly, Jarod C.
Registered author(s):

    Investment and view damage costs are important determinants in siting locations for offshore wind farms (OWF) in the Lake Michigan region. This study is limited to the Michigan state boundary for the OWF sites and viewshed impacts. Investment cost depends on the depth and distance to shore of the farm. View damage cost depends on household density and consumer willingness to pay to avoid the visual disamenity of wind turbines. Both these costs are dependent on the geographic location and are summed to create an aggregate cost. Using ArcGIS, the OWF siting locations were mapped, with spatial analysis revealing the northern region of the lake at the minimum aggregate cost. The view damage cost contributes at most 68%, but on average 7%, to the aggregate cost. The aggregate levelized cost of energy (LCOE) ranges from 183 to 368 $/MWh (average of 256 $/MWh). The view damage LCOE contribution to the aggregate LCOE is 3% on average and 46% at most. View damage impact is the dominating factor only around a small shoreline region (due to large impacted populations). A series of maps are presented that highlight the investment and view damage tradeoffs which can inform OWF siting in Lake Michigan.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148116303779
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Renewable Energy.

    Volume (Year): 96 (2016)
    Issue (Month): PA ()
    Pages: 966-976

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:renene:v:96:y:2016:i:pa:p:966-976
    DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2016.04.075
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/renewable-energy

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as
    in new window


    1. Jeremy Firestone & Willett Kempton & Meredith Blaydes Lilley & Kateryna Samoteskul, 2012. "Public acceptance of offshore wind power: does perceived fairness of process matter?," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(10), pages 1387-1402, April.
    2. Jeremy Firestone & Willett Kempton & Meredith Blaydes Lilley & Kateryna Samoteskul, 2012. "Public acceptance of offshore wind power across regions and through time," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(10), pages 1369-1386, April.
    3. Latinopoulos, D. & Kechagia, K., 2015. "A GIS-based multi-criteria evaluation for wind farm site selection. A regional scale application in Greece," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 550-560.
    4. Martin L. Weitzman, 2001. "Gamma Discounting," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(1), pages 260-271, March.
    5. Andrew D. Krueger & George R. Parsons & Jeremy Firestone, 2011. "Valuing the Visual Disamenity of Offshore Wind Power Projects at Varying Distances from the Shore: An Application on the Delaware Shoreline," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(2), pages 268-283.
    6. Landry, Craig E. & Allen, Tom & Cherry, Todd & Whitehead, John C., 2012. "Wind turbines and coastal recreation demand," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 93-111.
    7. Fernando Porté-Agel & Yu-Ting Wu & Chang-Hung Chen, 2013. "A Numerical Study of the Effects of Wind Direction on Turbine Wakes and Power Losses in a Large Wind Farm," Energies, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 6(10), pages 1-17, October.
    8. Andrew D. Krueger & George R. Parsons & Jeremy Firestone, 2011. "Valuing the Visual Disamenity of Offshore Wind Projects at Varying Distances from the Shore: An Application on the Delaware Shoreline," Working Papers 11-04, University of Delaware, Department of Economics.
    9. Martin D. Heintzelman & Carrie M. Tuttle, 2012. "Values in the Wind: A Hedonic Analysis of Wind Power Facilities," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(3), pages 571-588.
    10. Kim, Ji-Young & Oh, Ki-Yong & Kang, Keum-Seok & Lee, Jun-Shin, 2013. "Site selection of offshore wind farms around the Korean Peninsula through economic evaluation," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 189-195.
    11. Dicorato, M. & Forte, G. & Pisani, M. & Trovato, M., 2011. "Guidelines for assessment of investment cost for offshore wind generation," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 2043-2051.
    12. Ladenburg, Jacob & Dubgaard, Alex, 2007. "Willingness to pay for reduced visual disamenities from offshore wind farms in Denmark," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 4059-4071, August.
    13. Ladenburg, Jacob & Lutzeyer, Sanja, 2012. "The economics of visual disamenity reductions of offshore wind farms—Review and suggestions from an emerging field," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(9), pages 6793-6802.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:renene:v:96:y:2016:i:pa:p:966-976. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.