Wind Resource Development in The Minnesota Coastal Zone (306-02-08)

Minnesota’s Lake Superior Coastal Program
Wind Resource Development in the Minnesota Coastal Zone

Michael Mageau, Brody Sunderland and Stacey Stark
University of Minnesota, Duluth

Center for Sustainable Community Development
Department of Geography
328 CINA Hall
218-726-6133
August 30, 2008
Project No. 306-02-08

Contract No. A92528
This project was funded in part under the Coastal Zone Management Act, by NOAA’s Office of
Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, in cooperation with Minnesota’s Lake Superior
Coastal Program.
1
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the following individuals for their many contributions to this project.
UMD students Nick Salo, Nick Entinger, Janelle Stauff, Nicole Hynum and Melissa Wenker for
all their work on the project. We would also like to thank UMD’s Linda Klint and Kirsten Lien
for their work on project budgets, invoinces and accounting. As well as the Minnnesota Coastal
Zone’s Karla Sundberg and Pat Collins for their advice and guidance over the entire course of
the project. Finally, we would like to thank our numerous community partners from each
monitoring site for their support, cooperation, interest and past/current/future wind development
enthusiasm and planning.
This project was funded in part under the Coastal Zone Management Act, by NOAA’s Office of
Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, in cooperation with Minnesota’s Lake Superior
Coastal Program. We would also like to thank the U of MN’s Northeast Region Sustainable
Development Partnership (NMSDP), Minnesota’s NE Region Clean Energy Resource Teams
(CERTS), and UMD’s College of Liberal Arts for critical matching project funds.
Introduction
Wind development is one of the fastest growing sectors in the energy industry today. Under the
right conditions it can be a large and sustainable local economic development opportunity.
Current wind resource estimates (i.e. MN DOC) for the Lake Superior Coastal Zone indicate that
we have a poor wind resource not suitable for development. These wind resource estimates are
based on climatological modeling, and are no substitute for site-specific measurements. We
essentially wanted to verify current wind resource estimates with site-specific monitoring, and
explore the economic viability of wind development in our region.
The overall project was designed to achieve three primary objectives: 1. Obtain a minimum of
one years worth of quality wind speed data from eight sites (Duluth, Clover Valley, Silver Bay,
Finland, Lutsen, Grand Marais, Hovland and Grand Portage) along the Northshore of Lake
Superior; 2. Use this site-specific wind speed data to create a wind resource map for the entire
region to include several key overlays (topography, roads, transmission, bird migrations); 3. Use
this wind speed data to conduct community-scale wind development economic feasibility
studies, and determine the direct, indirect and induced (employment) economic impacts
associated with potential future wind development in Southern St. Louis, Lake and Cook
Counties.
Objective I: Wind Monitoring
II. Methods
A. Site Selection:
Our study began with the process of selecting appropriate sites for monitoring the wind. The key
criteria dictating site selection included the following: 1. We needed an existing structure that
could be climbed and was at least 100 feet tall; 2. We were looking for monitoring sites
associated with prominent peaks; 3. We needed year round road access to each site; 4. We
needed a set of sites that were equally spaced along the Northshore; 5. We needed permission to
2
have unlimited access to these sites; and finally 6. We needed a good community partner to
work with. Fortunately, we were able to meet each these criteria at eight different sites from
Duluth to Grand Portage. Figure 1 illustrates the geographical location of each site. Table 1
lists our monitoring sites, and describes several key characteristics of each.
Figure 1. The geographic location of each monitoring site
Table 1. Key characteristics of each monitoring site.
Site Structure Elev (ft) Height (ft)

Enger Tower Tower 1146 95
Clover Valley Fire Tower 1400 110
Silver Bay Weather Stat 620 100
Finland Fire Tower 1865 120
Lutsen Com Tower 1745 120
Grand Marais Com Tower 1722 100
Hovland Fire Tower 1774 95
Grand Portage Com Tower 1720 30m
50m
80m
3
B. Equipment:
The wind monitoring component of the project required the following equipment: 1.
Anemometers for measuring the wind; 2. Dataloggers for recording the wind speed data; 3.
Equipment for mounting the anemometers to the existing towers; 4. Software for downloading
the data; and 5. Excel spreadsheets for data analysis and presentation. We chose a durable and
inexpensive anemometer made by APRS World LLC. Pictures, calibration information and a
detailed technical description of their standard anemometer can be found on their website
(www.aprsworld.com). We chose a relatively inexpensive, mid-range Madgetech Pulse 110 data
logger, along with necessary cables and data aquisition software. Details for each item can be
found on the Madgetech web site (www.madgetech.com). Finally, we used standard one inch
square steel bars along with square and ‘U’ bolts for attaching our anemometers to the existing
towers at each site. In addition, some sites required various lengths of 1 inch galvanized steel
poles.
C. Installation:
Installation began with obtaining permission for access to the towers located on each existing
site. Each site was then visited and photographed for use in determining the best method for
mounting our anemometers. We worked with four different types of towers (Enger Tower,
Staircase Fire Tower, Communication Tower, and External Ladder Fire Tower). Each tower
type required its own particular installation methodology. At Enger Tower we simply bolted a
ten foot galvanized steel pole to the railing at the top of the tower, and mounted our anemometer
to the top of the steel pole (figures 2 and 3).
Figure 2. Detailed schematics of the Enger Tower mount.
4
Figure 3. Photo of the Enger Tower mount.
Clover Valley and Finland had conventional staircase fire towers. At these sites we bolted two
short (1 foot) sections of square steel to the tower window sills to clear the roof overhang, and
extended a ten foot section of square steel from these two supports beyond the roofline. We then
attached the anemometer to the top of this extension pole (figures 4 and 5).
Figure 4. Detailed schematics of the conventional staircase fire tower mounts.
5
Figure 5. Photo of the Clover Valley Fire tower (conventional staircase fire tower) with
anemometer extending vertically from the roofline.
Lutsen, Grand Marais and Grand Portage had communication towers. At these sites we bolted a
ten-foot section of square steel to the towers, and extended the anemometer 6-8 feet from the
towers (figures 6 and 7).
Figure 6. Detailed schematics of the communication tower mounts.
6
Figure 7. Photo of Lutsen communication tower with anemometer extending laterally.
Finally, Hovland had a unique external ladder fire tower with a hole in the roofline. At this site
we attached a one-inch diameter, 10 foot long galvanized steel pole to the floor of the fire tower,
and to two window sills using straps. The pole extended beyond the roof line, and the
anemometer was attached to the top of the pole (figure 8). At each site (with the exception of the
two stairway fire towers) wire is run down the tower to ground level where it is plugged into the
data logger. The data loggers are stored in a safe, dry container. This allows for easy ground
access to the data loggers for monthly data collection. In every case we made every attempt to
follow the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s (NREL) guidelines for anemometer
installation in terms of achieving the appropriate distance from rooflines and communication
towers.
7
Figure 8. Photo of Hovland ‘external ladder’ Fire Tower.
A. Data Recovery and Maintenance

Approximately once every one to two months we visited each site to collect data, and perform
any necessary maintenance. The data was collected in two different ways. The first approach
consists of preprogramming a data logger in the office, and then taking it to a monitoring site
where it is switched with the logger currently reading data. The data filled logger is then
returned to the office, downloaded and reprogrammed to receive data at the next site. In the
second approach, we bring a computer to the monitoring sites and download the data on site,
reprogram the logger and put it back in place.
The data is downloaded onto the computer using the Madgetech software that comes with the
Madgetech Pulse 110 data loggers. The desired time interval (10 – minute averages are
standard) was selected. The results appear in both graphical and tabular form. This Madgetech
data is then exported into Excel. Once in Excel, we can easily conduct all our data analyses,
conversions and graphical presentations as well as compute the desired format for input into the
WAsP modeling program.
8
III. Results
The following graphs depict weekly average wind speed (mph) over the course of the entire
study for each site. In addition, the average for the entire data set is indicated in the key.
Weekly averages were chosen, so that we could include an entire year of data, and still
demonstrate the typical wind speed variability in the study region. Gaps in the data are clearly
illustrated in the figures, and will be explained in the next section. Significant data loss was
only a problem with the Finland site. The annual averages range from 14.3 mph at Enger Tower
to 16.9 mph at Grand Portage. Included as a project deliverable is an excel spreadsheet
containing daily average wind speeds for all sites over the entire course of the study (ten-minute
interval data also available).
Figure 9. Weekly average wind speeds for Enger Tower and Clover Valley over the entire
course of the study.
Figure 10. Weekly average wind speeds for Silver Bay and Finland over the course of the study.
9
Figure 11. Weekly average wind speeds for Lutsen and Grand Marais over the entire course of
the study.
Figure 12. Weekly average wind speeds for Hovland and Grand Portage over the entire course
of the study.
10
IV. Discussion/Conclusions
As we suspected, the wind speeds along the Northshore of Lake Superior are far higher than the
MN state wind maps (30m) published by the MN Department of Commerce
(www.mndoc.state.gov) indicate (Figure 13). According to Figure 13, our study region should
contain average wind speeds of 11 mph or less. We found wind speeds from 14-17 mph at
approximately 30 m. Not only do these wind speeds exceed those estimated by the MN
Department of Commerce, but our windiest sites (16-17 mph) rival those of the well-developed
Buffalo Ridge in SE MN, and the recently developed Taconite Ridge on MN’s Iron Range just
north of Virginia, MN.
Figure 13. MN State wind map at 30 m. Estimated by WindLogics and published by the MN
Department of Commerce in January of 2006 (www.mndoc.state.gov).
11
Finally, the results indicated in figures 9-12 suggest we had a minor problem with lost data.
Data was lost at various sites throughout the study for the following reasons: 1. Data logger
battery failure; 2. Loosened wiring connections; and 3. Data logger theft. At Enger Tower and
Clover Valley no data was lost. The initial installation at the Clover Valley site did not occur
until August. As of this writing we have yet to receive the Data from Northshore mining in
silver Bay. They have been struggling with a consultant throughout the summer to put their data
into a user-friendly format for publication, and to transfer to our project. We anticipate receiving
this data soon.
Finland was our most problematic site in terms of data loss. On two separate occasions
premature battery failure occurred at the Finland site resulting in partial loss of the data between
sampling intervals. In addition, one of our data loggers was stolen from the Finland site resulting
in complete loss of data for the sampling period. Finally, in the last sampling interval we found a
loose wiring connection between the anemometer and data logger. As the result of this loss of
data, and the time periods in which the data was lost we believe we significantly underestimated
the wind speeds at the Finland site.
At the Lutsen site two short time periods of data were lost due to battery failures. No data was
lost from the Grand Marais site. The initial installation at this site did not take place until August
as well. In the final month of reported Grand Marais data the values increase over those of
Lutsen for the first time in the entire sampling period. Over this time period (4/15-5/15) we
recorded several 10-minute intervals with impossibly high wind speeds (some in excess of 100
mph). Since these erroneous readings tended to occur at high wind speed intervals (as compared
with other sites) we replaced the impossibly high readings (anything over 70 mph) with 40 mph.
We felt this was more accurate than simply eliminating these windy intervals. However, we
believe this may have resulted in an over estimate of the Grand Marais wind speeds, and skewed
the power density calculation reported in the next section.
Finally, at the Hovland and Grand Portage sites no significant data was lost. In general, with the
exception of Gand Marais, we found the wind speeds tended to increase as we sampled from
Duluth Northeast to Grand Portage. All things considered, we believe the wind resource from
Finland to Grand Portage is worthy of potential wind development. The major limiting factor for
development in the region is transmission capacity.
Objective 2: Wind Resource Mapping

I. Methods
The process for creating a wind resource map is a complicated one involving many steps and
several different software applications. The following is a detailed overview of the entire
process. We began by collecting Digital Elevation Maps/Models (DEMs) of the entire region
from the US Geological Survey (www.seamless.usgs.gov). These DEM’s are then imported into
ArcMap 9.2, and converted to contour maps. The Contour maps were then split into smaller
segments corresponding to our 7 monitoring sites to reduce file size and calculation time.
Arcv2cad File Converter was then used to convert these contour maps into WAsP 9 readable
dxf.files. WAsP has emerged as the industry standard wind development software (RISO web
site). It is a PC-program that can be used for a wide variety of wind development applications
12
including the extrapolation of the wind resource from a particular monitoring station over a large
region.
Once the contour maps were in WAsP surface roughness values were added/digitized onto the
DEM’s using WAsP’s Map Editor function. Land use maps from
(www.nrri.umn.edu/coastalGIS were used as the template for assigning/digitizing surface
roughness values. We used four surface roughness categories and chose the following surface
roughness values: Water (.0001); Swamp (.1); Forest (.9) and City (1.0) (Gipe, 2004, pg. 41).
The 10-miute interval wind speed and direction data was exported from an Excel Spreadsheet
into a Notepad text file. This text file was then imported into WAsP. WAsP then uses the
elevation data from the contour maps, the digitized surface roughness values along with the wind
speed and direction data to extrapolate the wind resource across the region from a particular
monitoring location.
The regional wind resource maps (one for each monitoring site) generated by WAsP are then
exported into ArcMap 9.2. Once in ArcMap 9.2 the Ascii files are converted into raster files to
allow for the re-creation of visual maps and overlaying. The individual maps were pieced
together to create a single seamless map of the entire study area. This was done using the
Mosiac Data Management Tool in ArcMap 9.2. This tool allows the user to average the wind
resource estimate from those areas where the individual resource maps overlapped. Therefore,
the final wind resource estimate is calculated from a single monitoring site in areas close to site-
specific monitoring stations, and from the average of two monitoring stations in areas between
monitoring sites.
Finally, layers (roads, waterways, cities/towns, transmission lines) were added to the wind
resource map using data from UMD’s Geographic Information Systems Laboratory (roads and
lakes), MN DNR Deli (state boundary, cities and Lake Superior), Land Management Information
Center (transmission lines). We did not do a bird migration route overlay due to a lack of current
data. However, in response to this lack of regional data, the DNR Coastal Zone is currently
funding a detailed migratory bird density analysis for the region, and we will produce an overlay
using this data upon conclusion of the study.
II. Results
Figure 14 illustrates the average annual wind speed for the entire study region (100 meter
resolution) as calculated by WAsP. Also included electronically as a deliverable is the actual
ArcMap 9.2 wind resource map. ArcMap users can use the map to manipulate layers, zoom
in/out on particular areas of interest, and to pull actual wind speed estimates from any point on
the regional map. Any region on the map colored orange or red would likely contain an
economically viable wind development project given adequate transmission capacity. This wind
resource map is the first of its kind at this resolution in our region, and will likely serve as the
starting point for any wind development project in NE Minnesota. Again, the average annual
wind speeds measured and estimated using WAsP are far greater than the 10-12 mph wind
speeds indicated in Figure 13.
13
Figure 14. Wind resource map of entire study region at 100 meter resolution and 30 meter
height. Data from the CSCD, Seamless USGS, LMIC and the MN DNR.
III. Discussion/Conclusions
Overall the WAsP calculations appear to have accurately estimated the wind resource across the
region, but there are some peculiarities worthy of explanation. In some cases, there is a sharp
contrast along the junction between two individual resource maps (i.e. between Finland and
Lutsen) despite the averaging using the Mosiac Data Management Tool. This is the result of
significantly different wind speed measurements at neighboring monitoring stations in
combination with the resolution of our color scale. Increasing the resolution fixes this boundary
problem, but makes the overall map less detailed, hence less useful.
Another issue that is more difficult to explain is the relatively high values estimated in the
Finland region of the wind resource map. The average wind speed measured at the Finland
14
Monitoring site was relatively high, but less than Lutsen, Hovland and Grand Portage. We have
no reason to believe the lack of data from the Finland site has resulted in an overestimate of its
wind resource. In fact, we believe given the period of data that was lost, we are more likely to
have underestimated the Finland wind resource. Therefore, given the moderate wind resource
measured at the Finland site, one would not expect the regional wind resource estimated from the
Finland monitoring site to be so high relative to the others. We believe this is because WAsP has
a tendency to assign the highest wind resource values to the prominent peaks located close to
Lake Superior. Most of our monitoring sites occupy these peaks, so WAsP is extrapolating
down from them as you head inland. However, the Finland monitoring site is further inland.
Therefore, WAsP is actually extrapolating up from the measured value to assign high values to
the prominent peaks closer to Lake Superior, and pulling up the inland values as well. The same
is true, but to a lesser extent in the Clover Valley region of the map.
Objective 3: Economic Feasibility
The wind monitoring data was used to estimate the economic feasibility of wind resource
development at each monitoring site. In addition, an economic I/O model was used to estimate
the county level economic development potential of wind resource development.
A. Economic Feasibility
I. Methods
There are several different common approaches to conducting this sort of economic feasibility
analysis. We took a unique approach using a STELLA computer simulation model because of its
value as a community educational tool, and its ability to incorporate the uncertainty associated
with key system parameters. We began by exporting our 10-minute interval wind speed data in
excel. These 10-minute averages were then exported from excel into a text file, and then inputed
into the WAsP wind modelling software package. WAsP then bins these 10-minute interval
average wind speeds into 1 m/s wind speed bins, and sums the number of 10-minute intervals
(graphed as relative frequency) in each wind speed bin. The result is the statistical distribution
illustrated in figure 15. WAsP then calculates the wiebel-k constant based on the shape of this
distribution. The more skewed the distribution to the right (higher wind speed bins) the smaller
the weibel-k constant, and the greater the power density. Finally, WAsP calculates the power
density (w/m2) for each bin and sums them to arrive at the total power density found in the wind
from the particular monitoring site. This total power density value was then entered in the
STELLA model. This process was repeated for each monitoring site.
15
Figure 15. The wind speed distribution, k-value and power density from the Lutsen monitoring
site.
The STELLA model developed to estimate economic feasibility is illustrated in figure 16. The
mathematical equations governing the relationships between the key parameters can be seen in
the working model included as a project deliverable. The model was designed to calculate and
compare the annual revenues associated with a given wind development project and the
associated annual costs. To calculate annual revenues the power density (PD) value (w/m2)
computed by WAsP is adjusted for the difference between the anemometer monitoring height
and future turbine hub height as well as the wind shear exponent associated with the monitoring
sites surface roughness (adj PD). The adjusted PD is then multiplied by the proposed wind
turbines swept area which is calculated from its turbine diameter along with the proposed
number of turbines. The result is the total turbine output in watts. This output is then converted
to kilowatt hours (kwh) per year by dividing by 1000 and multiplying by the number of hours in
a year and the turbines rated efficiency. The turbines annual output (kwh/year) is then multiplied
by the electricity price (cents/kwh) to arrive at annual revenue. In addition, because the price per
kw paid by the community partner is in many cases equal to the price they can expect from the
electricity their turbine generates the annual revenue value can be expected to increase by an
annual percentage as the price of electricity increases. The model multiplies annual revenue by
an annual electricity rate inflation value to achieve this effect.
16
hub height
cents per kwh
hours per y ear built in
wind shear exp
PD
turbine output annual rev enue
adj PD Kwh annual output
anemometer height swept area

turbine ef f iciency rate inf lation
turbine diameter
annual project costs

equipment lif etime
~ turbine capacity kw
cost per kw
annual cost
total wind sy stem cost loan amount
interest rate
installation costs
Figure 16. Diagram of the STELLA model used to calculate and compare annual wind system
costs and revenues for community economic feasibility.
The annual costs associated with the wind generation system chosen above are simultaneously
calculated. The turbine diameter is linked to turbine capacity in kw by a graphical function that
relates these two values. Total wind system cost is then calculated by multiplying the turbine
capacity in kw by an average cost per kw of cpacity and the number of turbines. This total
system cost embodies the complete cost of the turbines and their towers. Added to this cost to
get the total loan amount is the total installation costs (consulting fees, site prep, installation,
legal, permitting, interconnect, MISO etc…). These installation costs typically vary
considerably, and we attempted to estimate these costs as a percentage of total wind system costs
for each site given their unique characteristics. The cost data used in our model comes from a
survey of many installed projects (Gipe 2004), and Windustries Community Wind Toolbox
(www.windustry.org). In addition, the annual operation costs are calculated based on the total
system cost and added to the annual payment on a loan for the total annual wind system cost.
The term of the annual loan is equal to or less than the expected equipment lifetime. The annual
cost for the wind system is then a function of the total system cost, the interest rate and the term
of the loan. Finally the annual revenues are compared with the annual costs to determine
economic feasibility given the sites wind resource.
The problem with conducting economic feasibility studies for wind development in this manner
is that just about every variable mentioned above changes from site to site and over the course of
the typical 20 year lifetime of any given project. This is the reason for using STELLA. It allows
the user to adjust all the key model parameters (interest rates, system costs, surface roughness
etc…) to determine their individual effects on overall economic feasibility. If this type of model
experimentation is conducted in front of a community interested in the potential for local wind
17
development it becomes not only a very useful planning tool, but a great educational tool as well.
The typical output from the STELLA model and all the key adjustable variables are shown in
figures 17 and 18.
1: annual rev enue 2: annual cost

1: 600000
2:
1
1
1: 400000
2:
2 2 2 2
1:
2: 200000
1.00 5.75 10.50 15.25 20.00
Page 1 Y ears 10:45 AM Tue, Jul 22, 2008
Untitled
Figure 17. Graphical output comparing annual costs to annual revenues using data from the
Grand Portage Site, and a positive value (2%) for utility rate inflation.
18
hub height turbine diameter
10.000 150.000 1.000 100.000

U ? 60.400 U ? 75.250
anemometer height cents per kwh
10.000 150.000 0.02000 0.22000

30.000 U 0.06200
wind shear exp rate inf lation
0.10000 0.40000 0.0000 1.0000

? 0.21000 U 0.0200
turbine ef f iciency installation costs
0.10000 0.40000 0.10000 0.30000

U ? 0.23500 U ? 0.25000
interest rate cost per kw
0.01000 0.10000 1500.00 2000.00

U 0.06040 U ? 1750.00
Figure 18. The key model parameters (variables) included in our community specific
simulations, and their values for the Grand Portage Simulation.
II. Results
Table 2 indicates the average annual wind speed (m/s), weibel-k constant, resulting power
density (w/m2) and the estimated installation costs (as a percentage of total wind system costs)
for each monitoring site. Windustry’s ‘Community Wind Toolbox’ (www.windustry.org)
estimates installation costs are typically 10-30% of total project costs. Installation costs depend
primarily on available infrastructure at the site (roads and foundation) and the distance to
available transmission lines or point of consistent electricity use (i.e. Grand Portage Casino). We
assigned installation cost percentages for each site based on these considerations. These values
are reported in table 2 and used in the site-specific simulation runs described in the next section.
19
Table 2. Average annual wind speed (m/s), weibel-k constant, resulting power density (w/m2)
and the estimated installation costs (as a percentage of total wind system costs) for each
monitoring site.
Site avg (m/s) weibel-k PD (w/m2) install cost (%)

Enger 6.31 1.77 335 14
Clover Valley 6.58 2.29 295 21
Silver Bay
Finland 6.86 2.3 333 18
Lutsen 7.03 1.94 419 16
Grand Marais 6.14 1.32 470 20
Hovland 6.99 1.99 401 28
Grand Portage 7.44 2.03 475 26
Table 3 indicates the annual revenues, annual costs and the resulting net revenues for each site
assuming no utility inflation rate. Several variables were held constant for each simulation to
directly compare the net revenues from each site based on their unique wind climate and site-
specific estimated installation costs. The variables held constant included: 1. 1.5 MW wind
turbine with a 76 m blade diameter; 2. Hub height twice as high as the anemometer height; 3.
Wind Shear Exponent of .21; 4. 20 year equipment lifetime; 5. Loan interest rate of 6%; 6.
Electricity cost of 6.2 cents per kwh; 7. Cost per kw of installed capacity of $1,750; and 8.
Turbine efficiency of 23.5%. These typical cost estimates (model parameters) were obtained
from (Gipe, 2004), various wind turbine manufacturers, community partner electricity bills and
Windustry’s ‘Community Wind Toolbox’ (www.windustry.org). The wind sheer exponent was
calculated using data from anemometers installed at two different heights at the Lutsen and
Grand Portage sites. In addition to the exemplary static results reported in this section, the entire
dynamic STELLA model is included electronically as a project deliverable.
Table 3 Annual revenues, annual costs and the resulting net revenues for each site assuming no
utility inflation rate.
Site Annual Revenues Annual Costs Net Revenues

Enger Tower $295,364 $308,864 -$13,499
Clover Valley $260,096 $327,829 -$67,732
Silver Bay
Finland $293,600 $319,701 -$26,000
Lutsen $369,425 $314,282 $55,143
Grand Marais $414,391 $325,120 $89,271
Hovland $353,555 $346,794 $6,760
Grand Portage $418,800 $341,376 $77,424
IV. Discussion/Conclusions
20
The results of the economic feasibility calculations largely parallel the average annual wind
speed and resulting power density from each monitoring site. This was expected given the
power embodied in the wind is a cubic function of the average annual wind speed. Therefore a 2
mph increase in average wind speed results in 8x the electricity generated from a given wind
turbine. Our simple comparative analysis suggested the region Northeast of Finland has a strong
enough wind resource to make even a small (1MW) wind development project economically
feasible. Project economics improve with larger scale development.
Our electricity production estimates (revenues) are the most accurate available given the wind
speed data gathered during this study and regional electricity pricing. However, our comparative
cost estimates are more general. As previously described in the report, they are based on typical
values given the geology, transmission capacity, road availability and sources of nearby
electricity consumption. More detailed site-specific cost estimates are possible, but beyond the
scope of this project.
The data gathered over the course of this study, and its integration using our modeling methods
not only indicate the possibility for economically feasible wind development projects in NE
Minnesota, but they can be used to facilitate the community decision making process. As the
result of this study, each community in our study region now has a solid estimate of their wind
resource, and the resulting project economics. The STELLA Model can now be used to facilitate
more detailed site-specific project exploration and the corresponding community decision
making process regarding future wind development.
B. County-wide Economic Impacts (see appendix A for detailed description of methods,

results and discussion)
References
Gipe, Paul. 2004. Wind Power:Renwable Energy for Home Farm and Business. Chelsea Green
Publishing Company. White River Junction, Vermont.
Minnesota Department of Commerce. 2006. MN Wind Resource Map. At www.state.MN.gov.
Windustry’s Community Wind Toolbox. 2008. At www.windustry.org.
Appendix A – County-wide Economic Impacts
21
The Economic Impact of Adding Wind Energy
In Communities on Minnesota’s
North Shore of Lake Superior, 2007
April 30, 2008
For the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
and the University of Minnesota Duluth
Center for Sustainable Community Development
22
Prepared by:
UMD Labovitz School of Business and Economics

Bureau of Business and Economic Research
James A. Skurla, Acting Director

Jean Jacobson, Senior Editor
Syed Jafri, Undergraduate Research Assistant
Taha Kasim, Undergraduate Research Assistant
Vickie Almquist-Minko, Executive Administrative Specialist
Bureau of Business and Economic Research
19 School of Business and Economics
University of Minnesota Duluth
Duluth, MN 55812-2496 (218) 726-8614
Start date:
July 2007
Contact:
Michael T. Mageau
UMD Environmental Studies
329 CinaH
1123 University Dr
Duluth, MN 55812
218-726-6133
mmageau@d.umn.edu
i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary...................................................................................................................................... iii

PROJECT DESCRIPTION.................................................................................................................................. 6
Deliverables............................................................................................................................................... 6
Study Area ................................................................................................................................................. 6
METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................ 7
INPUTS TO THE MODEL ................................................................................................................................. 9
Assumptions:............................................................................................................................................. 9
IMPACT FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................................... 11
1) The Three-County Region ................................................................................................................... 11
2) St. Louis County, Minnesota ............................................................................................................... 14
3) Lake County, Minnesota ..................................................................................................................... 16
4) Cook County, Minnesota .................................................................................................................... 18
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 20
APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................................... 21
ii
Executive Summary
These summary tables present the total economic impact from wind-generated energy as ten
percent and twenty percent of total energy supply in the combined three-county region, as well as
Cook, Lake and St. Louis Counties. Impacts are projected for 2010, 2015, and 2020, using
population and energy consumption to estimate inputs for these projections. Sources for all tables
are IMPLAN and the UMD Labovitz School’s Bureau of Business and Economic Research. The
calculations in these models use 2008 dollars for reports, without adjustments for inflation.
Readers should also be mindful of the diminishing reliability of modeling an economy as
projections proceed into the future; therefore the values projected for 2010 will warrant most
scrutiny.
Summary: Economic Impact of Wind-Generated Energy as

10% and 20% of Total Energy Supply, in Cook, Lake and
St. Louis County, Minnesota, Estimated for Years 2010,
2015, and 2020 in 2008 dollars
10% of Total
supply 2010 2015 2020
Output $24,334,673 $24,519,171 $24,727,311
Employment 79 79 79
Value Added $18,345,355 $18,484,443 $18,641,354
Tax $4,971,737 $5,009,430 $5,051,955
20% of Total
supply
Output $48,669,346 $49,038,342 $49,454,622
Employment 156 157 158
Value Added $36,690,710 $36,968,886 $37,282,708
Tax $9,943,474 $10,018,860 $10,103,910

10% and 20% of Total Energy Supply, in St. Louis County,
Minnesota, Estimated for Years 2010, 2015, and 2020 in
2008 dollars
10% of Total
supply 2010 2015 2020
Output $22,404,173 $22,530,897 $22,684,776
Employment 72 72 72
Value Added $16,894,205 $16,989,765 $17,105,800
iii
Tax $4,571,894 $4,597,754 $4,629,155
20% of Total
supply
Output $44,808,346 $45,061,794 $45,369,552
Value Added $33,788,410 $33,979,530 $34,211,600
Tax $9,143,788 $9,195,508 $9,258,310
Summary: Economic Impact of Wind-Generated Energy

as 10% and 20% of Total Energy Supply, in Lake County,
2008 dollars
10% of Total supply 2010 2015 2020
Output $1,118,438 $1,146,691 $1,168,124
Employment 3 3 3
Value Added $883,253 $905,565 $922,491
Tax $244,207 $250,376 $255,056
20% of Total supply
Output $2,236,875 $2,293,382 $2,336,249
Employment 7 7 7
Value Added $1,766,505 $1,811,130 $1,844,983
Tax $488,414 $500,752 $510,112

10% and 20% of Total Energy Supply, in Cook County,
2008 dollars
10% of total supply 2010 2015 2020
Output $527,269 $548,142 $572,706
Employment 2 2 2
Value Added $420,776 $437,433 $457,037
Tax $107,076 $111,315 $116,304
20% of total supply
Output $1,054,537 $1,096,284 $1,145,413
Employment 3 3 3
Value Added $841,552 $874,867 $914,073
Tax $214,153 $222,630 $232,607
Because projected demographic growth and therefore energy demand is expected to be small,
employment remains almost constant in this sector. Output measures increase, however, and
iv
reflect available support for wind energy. The scale of these impacts is in proportion to the three
counties, reflecting both the sizable St. Louis County and the much smaller Lake and Cook
County demographics. Readers are reminded that only residential (not commercial and
industrial) consumption is modeled here. The contribution by wind energy to total energy
consumption is modeled as ten and twenty percent of total consumption—these should be
considered conservative estimates of possible conversion from other sources of energy and
growth in demand. The Bureau of Business and Economic Research believes that the output
from these estimated wind energy contributions would be sufficient to support a wind energy
project in these counties. Finally, it is important to note that energy consumption in the counties
of the study area could be dramatically increased by a group of industrial and commercial
projects currently being proposed for the Iron Range of Northeastern Minnesota. 1
1 For instance The Duluth News Tribune reported an estimate for energy use from the Mesabi
Nugget project : “The process is energy intensive. Mesabi Nugget expects to buy 25 megawatts
of electricity from Minnesota Power when it begins production, and that consumption could
grow to 75 megawatts if the plant is built out to 1.5 million metric tons.” See “Mesabi Nugget
plant is on target” by Peter Pass, in the Duluth News Tribune - 05/11/2008.
v
The Economic Impact of Adding Wind Energy
In Communities on Minnesota’s
North Shore of Lake Superior, 2007
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project is a sub-contract in a larger proposal funded by the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources through the Coastal Zone Program, and University of Minnesota
Northeast Region Sustainable Development Partnership, as well as a CLA Technical
Grant. The UMD Labovitz School of Business and Economics’ research bureau was
asked to deliver estimates of economic impact numbers for conversion wind energy.
This project contributes to a feasibility study for several communities considering
investment in wind power on the North Shore of Lake Superior. Estimates are based on
operations in MW hours of electricity from wind power, projected from data gathered in
2007 and 2008 by Michael T. Mageau and the UMD Center for Sustainable Community
Development. The economic impact of construction is not provided here.
Deliverables
Economic impact tables for all measures and all effects in the IMPLAN model for a study
region comprised of three counties in Northeast Minnesota.
Study Area
Figure 1. St. Louis, Lake, and Cook Counties, in Northeastern Minnesota
6
METHODOLOGY
There are two components to the IMPLAN system, the software and databases. The
databases provide all information to create regional IMPLAN models. The software
performs the calculations and provides an interface for the user to make final demand
changes. Comprehensive and detailed data coverage of the IMPLAN study areas by
county, and the ability to incorporate user-supplied data at each stage of the model
building process, provides a high degree of flexibility both in terms of geographic
coverage and model formulation, in this case definition of the region study areas, and the
definition of specific models for construction and operations.
Data
IMPLAN data files use federal government data sources including:

• US Bureau of Economic Analysis Benchmark I/O Accounts of the US
• US Bureau of Economic Analysis Output Estimates
• US Bureau of Economic Analysis REIS Program
• US Bureau of Labor Statistics County Employment and Wages (CEW) Program
• US Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey
• US Census Bureau County Business Patterns
• US Census Bureau Decennial Census and Population Surveys
• US Census Bureau Economic Censuses and Surveys
• US Department of Agriculture Crop and Livestock Statistics
IMPLAN data files consist of the following components: employment, industry output,
value added, institutional demands, national structural matrices and inter-institutional
transfers.
Impacts for models in these analyses use the most recent IMPLAN data available which
is for the year 2006. Economic impacts are made up of direct, indirect, and induced
impacts. The following cautions are suggested assumptions for accepting the impact
model:
 IMPLAN input-output is a production based model

 Local or export based purchases that represent transfers from other potential local
purchases are not counted.
 The numbers (from U.S. Department of Commerce secondary data) treat both full
and part time individuals as being employed.
 Assumptions need to be made concerning the nature of the local economy before
impacts can be interpreted.
 The IMPLAN model was constructed for the year 2006 (most recent data
available).
7
Model
The impact measures and effects for the following tables use these definitions:
Measures
• Gross Output represents the value of local production required to sustain
activities.
• Value Added is a measure of the impacting industry’s contribution to the
local community; it includes wages, rents, interest and profits.
• Employment estimates are in terms of jobs, not in terms of full-time
equivalent employees. Hence, these may be temporary, part-time or short-
term jobs.
Effects
• Direct – Initial new spending in the study area resulting from the project
• Indirect – The additional inter-industry spending from the direct impact
• Induced – The impact of additional household expenditure resulting from
the direct and indirect impact.
The input-output modeling tool IMPLAN® can provide a general estimate of the possible
economic impact of . . .
Figure 2. Basic information from the IMPLAN software model for the Counties of the
North Shore.
8
INPUTS TO THE MODEL
Assumptions:
Based on population and energy consumption in Cook County, Lake County, and St.
Louis County, Minnesota, the following residential Megawatt hours of demand for the
three counties from 2010-2035 were used in the modeling. Further adjustments to these
numbers were used in the modeling to differentiate residential, commercial, and
industrial use, and to adjust for a weighted average per capita consumption of 11,900
KWhs.
Population And Energy Consumption in Cook County, Lake County, and St. Louis
County, Minnesota, Projections for 2010, 2015, And 2020
2010 2015 2020

County Population MWh Population MWh Population MWh
St. 198,010 6,870,947 199,130 6,909,811 200,490 6,957,003
Louis
Lake 11,480 662,740 11,770 674,421 11,990 687,027
Cook 5,570 83,550 5,790 86,850 6,050 90,750
2025 2030 2035

County Population MWh Population MWh Population MWh
St. 201,850 7,004,195 202,040 7,010,788 202,240 7,017,728
Louis
Lake 12,180 697,914 12,230 700,779 12,320 705,936
Cook 6,280 94,200 6,320 94,800 6,320 94,800
Source: MN State Demographer; UMD Labovitz School BBER
Estimation of Total Residential Consumption for Three Counties
MWh/person % of Total 3-
(Weighted Average County
County Total County MWh MWh/person= 11.9) Consumption
St. Louis 2,205,222 11.08 88.2%
Lake 213,230 18.93 8.5%
Cook 80,791 14.91 3.2%
This table shows the calculation we used to estimate consumption (in dollars) from
population projections. Total industrial (35%) and the total commercial (32%) energy
9
consumption was deducted from total consumption to arrive at an approximate figure for
total residential consumption.
Estimation of 10% and 20% Residential Consumption from

Population Projections for Three Counties, 2010, 2015, and 2020
MWh/person x
population 2010 2015 2020
Three counties 2,559,214 2,578,611 2,600,507
St. Louis 2,356,319 2,369,647 2,385,831
Lake 136,612 140,063 142,681
Cook 66,283 68,901 71,995
Total consumption (in

2008 dollars) 2010 2015 2020
Three counties $179,144,980 $180,503,190 $182,035,490
St. Louis $164,942,330 $165,875,290 $167,008,170
Lake $9,562,840 $9,804,410 $9,987,670
Cook $4,639,810 $4,823,490 $5,039,650
10% of total consumption

(in 2008 dollars) 2010 2015 2020
Three counties $17,914,498 $18,050,319 $18,203,549
St. Louis $16,494,233 $16,587,529 $16,700,817
Lake $956,284 $980,441 $998,767
Cook $463,981 $482,349 $503,965
20% of total consumption

(in 2008 dollars) 2010 2015 2020
Three counties $35,828,996 $36,100,638 $36,407,098
St. Louis $32,988,466 $33,175,058 $33,401,634
Lake $1,912,568 $1,960,882 $1,997,534
Cook $927,962 $964,698 $1,007,930
Reported as an average cost in 2008 for the study area, the approximate cost of a KWh is
seven cents. (See for instance Minnesota Power total production divided by dollars.
Mageau et al. also corroborated these calculations and recommend $.07/KWh.) Based on
this assumption BBER estimated projections of direct inputs of wind-powered supply, in
2008 dollars. The above table shows the value of 10% and 20% consumption of total
consumption for the three counties.
10
IMPACT FINDINGS
Tables showing the economic impacts of wind energy as 10% and 20% of the total
supply of energy in the three-county region are presented below. The combined counties
and the individual county detail are modeled. The impact is measured in terms of the
value of local production, as well as in terms of wages and jobs. The impacts are
projected for the years 2010, 2015, and 2020, based on estimated demand from projected
population and energy consumption, as noted in the previous section.
1) The Three-County Region
10% of total energy:
Summary of Economic Impacts of 10% Wind-Generated

Energy in St. Louis, Lake, and Cook Counties of
Minnesota, in the Year 2010, 2015 and 2020 in 2008 dollars
2010 2015 2020
Output $24,334,673 $24,519,171 $24,727,311
Employment 79 79 79
Value Added $18,345,355 $18,484,443 $18,641,354
Tax $4,971,737 $5,009,430 $5,051,955
Again, these measures are defined as follows: Gross Output represents the value of local
production required to sustain activities. Value Added is a measure of the impacting
industry’s contribution to the local community; it includes wages, rents, interest and
profits. Employment estimates are in terms of jobs, not in terms of full-time equivalent
employees. Hence, these may be temporary, part-time or even short-term jobs. Tax
impacts are reported here as the total of State, Federal and Corporation taxes.
The economic impact, as it moves through the economy, is modeled as the following
effects:
The direct effect is initial new spending in the study area resulting from the project. The
indirect effect is the additional inter-industry spending from the direct impact. The
Induced effect is the impact of additional household expenditure resulting from the direct
and indirect impact.
11
Economic Impact of 10% Wind-Generated Energy in St. Louis, Lake, and Cook
Counties of Minnesota, in the Year 2010 in 2008 dollars
2010 Direct Indirect Induced Total Multiplier
Output $18,797,148 $2,651,665 $2,885,860 $24,519,171 1.3
Employment 37 12 30 79 2.1
Value Added $15,280,056 $1,338,426 $1,726,873 $18,345,355 1.2
Tax $4,971,737
In the detail tables we show the economic multipliers from the IMPLAN model. These
ratios can be interpreted as follows: The output multiplier: for every dollar of output in
the reference industry, how many dollars are generated in the region. The employment
multiplier: for every employee in the reference industry, how many employees are
generated in the region? The value added multiplier: for every dollar of value added
earned from the operations of the reference industry, how many dollars of value added
are generated in the region.
There are actually several layers that can be analyzed through multipliers; the most basic
uses a multiplier that takes only the interaction between local industries into account.
Interaction between industries is measured as purchases and sales from and to one
another so that further production can take place.
Output $18,939,662 $2,671,769 $2,907,740 $24,519,171 1.3
Employment 37 12 30 79 2.1
Value
Added $15,395,904 $1,348,573 $1,739,966 $18,484,443 1.2
Tax $5,009,430
Output $19,100,440 $2,694,448 $2,932,424 $24,727,311 1.3
Employment 37 12 30 79 2.1
Value Added $15,526,599 $1,360,020 $1,754,736 $18,641,354 1.2
Tax $5,051,955
The following tables for further percentages in the three-county region and the individual
three counties can be interpreted in the same way for impact measures (output,
12
employment, value added, and taxes) and effects (direct, indirect, induced, and total
effects).

Summary of Economic Impacts of 20% Wind-
Generated Energy in St. Louis, Lake, and Cook
Counties of Minnesota, in the Year 2010, 2015 and 2020
in 2008 dollars
2010 2015 2020
Output $48,669,346 $49,038,342 $49,454,622
Value Added $36,690,710 $36,968,886 $37,282,708
Tax $9,943,474 $10,018,860 $10,103,910
Output $37,594,296 $5,303,330 $5,771,720 $48,669,346 1.3
Employment 74 23 59 156 2.1
Value Added $30,560,112 $2,676,852 $3,453,746 $36,690,710 1.2
Tax $9,943,474
Output $37,879,324 $5,343,538 $5,815,480 $49,038,342 1.3
Employment 74 23 60 157 2.1
Value Added $30,791,808 $2,697,146 $3,479,932 $36,968,886 1.2
Tax $10,018,860
Output $38,200,880 $5,388,896 $5,864,848 $49,454,622 1.3
Employment 74 24 60 158 2.1
Value Added $31,053,198 $2,720,040 $3,509,472 $37,282,708 1.2
Tax $10,103,910
13
2) St. Louis County, Minnesota

Summary of Economic Impact of 10% Wind-
Generated Energy in St. Louis County of Minnesota,
in the Year 2010, 2015 and 2020 in 2008 dollars
2010 2015 2020
Output $22,404,173 $22,530,897 $22,684,776
Employment 72 72 72
Value
Added $16,894,205 $16,989,765 $17,105,800
Tax $4,571,894 $4,597,754 $4,629,155
Economic Impact of 10% Wind-Generated Energy in St. Louis County of

Minnesota, in the Year 2010 in 2008 dollars
Output $17,306,906 $2,455,815 $2,641,450 $22,404,173 1.3
Employment 34 11 27 72 2.1
Value Added $14,068,649 $1,241,991 $1,583,566 $16,894,205 1.2
Tax $4,571,894
Output $17,404,800 $2,469,706 $2,656,391 $22,530,897 1.3
Employment 34 11 27 72 2.1
Value Added $14,148,225 $1,249,016 $1,592,523 16,989,765 1.2
Tax $4,597,754

Output $17,523,668 $2,486,574 $2,674,533 $22,684,776 1.3
Employment 34 11 27 72 2.1
Value Added $14,244,854 $1,257,547 $1,603,400 $17,105,800 1.2
Tax $4,629,155
14
Summary of Economic Impact of 20% Wind-

Generated Energy in St. Louis County of Minnesota,
in the Year 2010, 2015 and 2020 in 2008 dollars
2010 2015 2020
Output $44,808,346 $45,061,794 $45,369,552
Value $33,788,410 $33,979,530 $34,211,600
Added
Tax $9,143,788 $9,195,508 $9,258,310
Output $34,613,812 $4,911,630 $5,282,900 $44,808,346 1.3
Employment 67 22 54 143 2.1
Value Added $28,137,298 $2,483,982 $3,167,132 $33,788,410 1.2
Tax $9,143,788
Output $34,809,600 $4,939,412 $5,312,782 $45,061,794 1.3
Employment 68 22 54 144 2.1
Value Added $28,296,450 $2,498,032 $3,185,046 $33,979,530 1.2
Tax $9,195,508

Output $35,047,336 $4,973,148 $5,349,066 $45,369,552 1.3
Employment 68 22 55 145 2.1
Value Added $28,489,708 $2,515,094 $3,206,800 $34,211,600 1.2
Tax $9,258,310
15
3) Lake County, Minnesota
Economic Impact of 10% Wind-Generated Energy in

Lake County of Minnesota, in the Year 2010, 2015 and
2020 in 2008 dollars
2010 2015 2020
Output $1,118,438 $1,146,691 $1,168,124
Employment 3 3 3
Value
Added $883,253 $905,565 $922,491
Tax $244,207 $250,376 $255,056
Economic Impact of 10% Wind-Generated Energy in Lake County of Minnesota,

in the Year 2010 in 2008 dollars
Output $1,003,400 $26,128 $88,910 $1,118,438 1.1
Employment 2 0 1 3 1.5
Value Added $815,656 $14,095 $53,502 $883,253 1.1
Tax $244,207

Output $1,028,748 $26,788 $91,156 $1,146,691 1.1
Value Added $836,261 $14,451 $54,853 $905,565 1.1
Tax $250,376

Output $1,047,976 $27,288 $92,859 $1,168,124 1.1
Value Added $851,892 $14,721 $55,879 $922,491 1.1
Tax $255,056
16
Economic Impact of 20% Wind-Generated Energy in

Lake County of Minnesota, in the Year 2010, 2015 and
2010 2015 2020
Output $2,236,875 $2,293,382 $2,336,249
Employment 7 7 7
Value
Added $1,766,505 $1,811,130 $1,844,983
Tax $488,414 $500,752 $510,112

Output $2,006,801 $52,255 $177,819 $2,236,875 1.1
Value Added $1,631,313 $28,189 $107,003 $1,766,505 1.1
Tax $488,414

Output $2,057,496 $53,576 $182,312 $2,293,382 1.1
Value Added $1,672,522 $28,902 $109,706 $1,811,130 1.1
Tax $500,752

Output $2,095,953 $54,577 $185,719 $2,336,249 1.1
Value Added $1,703,784 $29,442 $111,757 $1,844,983 1.1
Tax $510,112
17
4) Cook County, Minnesota
Economic Impact of 10% Wind-Generated Energy

in Cook County of Minnesota, in the Year 2010,
2015 and 2020 in 2008 dollars
2010 2015 2020
Output $527,269 $548,142 $572,706
Employment 2 2 2
Value
Added $420,776 $437,433 $457,037
Tax $107,076 $111,315 $116,304
Economic Impact of 10% Wind-Generated Energy in Cook County of

Output $486,841 $8,285 $32,142 $527,269 1.1
Value
Added $395,750 $4,290 $20,736 $420,776 1.1
Tax $107,076

Output $506,114 $8,613 $33,415 $548,142 1.1
Value
Added $411,416 $4,460 $21,557 $437,433 1.1
Tax $111,315

Output $528,795 $8,999 $34,912 $572,706 1.1
Value
Added $429,854 $4,660 $22,523 $457,037 1.1
Tax $116,304
18
Economic Impact of 20% Wind-Generated Energy

in Cook County of Minnesota, in the Year 2010,
2015 and 2020 in 2008 dollars
2010 2015 2020
Output $1,054,537 $1,096,284 $1,145,413
Employment 3 3 3
Value
Added $841,552 $874,867 $914,073
Tax $214,153 $222,630 $232,607

Output $973,683 $16,569 $64,285 $1,054,537 1.1
Value
Added $791,499 $8,581 $41,472 $841,552 1.1
Tax $214,153

Output $1,012,229 $17,225 $66,830 $1,096,284 1.1
Value
Added $822,833 $8,920 $43,114 $874,867 1.1
Tax $222,630

Output $1,057,591 $17,997 $69,825 $1,145,413 1.1
Value
Added $859,707 $9,320 $45,046 $914,073 1.1
Tax $232,607
19
REFERENCES
Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc., IMPLAN System (data and software), 1725 Tower
Drive West, Suite 140, Stillwater, MN 55082 www.implan.com
Minnesota Department of Commerce, “A Reference guide to Minnesota electric and

natural-gas utilities 1965-2002.”
Minnesota Department of Commerce, “Minnesota Utility Data Book, A reference guide

to natural gas and electric utilities for the years 1965 through 2005,” at
http://www.state.mn.us/.
Minnesota State Demographer’s Population Projections, at

http://www.demography.state.mn.us/
20
APPENDIX
The combined and compressed tables below provide opportunities to compare the 10%
and 20% of total supply estimates of economic impact, for all years and counties
modeled. Again, the calculations in these models use 2006 dollars for reports, without
adjustments for inflation. Readers should also be mindful of the diminishing reliability of
modeling an economy as projections proceed into the future; therefore the values
projected for 2010 will warrant most scrutiny.
Economic Impact of Wind-Generated Energy as 10% and 20% of Total Energy

Supply, in Cook County, Minnesota, Estimated for Years 2010, 2015, and 2020 in
10% of total supply
Output $486,841 $8,285 $32,142 $527,269 1.1
Value Added $395,750 $4,290 $20,736 $420,776 1.1
Tax $107,076
2015
Output $506,114 $8,613 $33,415 $548,142 1.1
Value Added $411,416 $4,460 $21,557 $437,433 1.1
Tax $111,315
2020
Output $528,795 $8,999 $34,912 $572,706 1.1
Value Added $429,854 $4,660 $22,523 $457,037 1.1
Tax $116,304
20% of total supply
Output $973,683 $16,569 $64,285 $1,054,537 1.1
Value Added $791,499 $8,581 $41,472 $841,552 1.1
Tax $214,153
2015
Output $1,012,229 $17,225 $66,830 $1,096,284 1.1
Value Added $822,833 $8,920 $43,114 $874,876 1.1
Tax $222,630
2020
Output $1,057,591 $17,997 $69,825 $1,145,413 1.1
Value Added $859,707 $9,320 $45,046 $914,073 1.1
Tax $232,607
Supply, in Lake Cook County, Minnesota, Estimated for Years 2010, 2015, and
10% of total supply
21
Output $1,003,400 $26,128 $88,910 $1,118,438 1.1
Value Added $815,656 $14,095 $53,502 $883,253 1.1
Tax $244,207
2015
Output $1,028,748 $26,788 $91,156 $1,146,691 1.1
Value Added $836,261 $14,451 $54,853 $905,565 1.1
Tax $250,376
2020
Output $1,047,976 $27,288 $92,859 $1,168,124 1.1
Value Added $851,892 $14,721 $55,879 $922,491 1.1
Tax $255,056
20% of total supply
Output $2,006,801 $52,255 $177,819 $2,236,875 1.1
Value Added $1,631,313 $28,189 $107,003 $1,766,505 1.1
Tax $488,414
2015
Output $2,057,496 $53,576 $142,614 $1,772,928 1.1
Value Added $1,672,522 $28,902 $109,706 $1,811,130 1.1
Tax $500,752
2020
Output $2,095,953 $54,577 $185,719 $2,336,249 1.1
Value Added $1,703,784 $29,442 $111,757 $1,844,983 1.1
Tax $510,112
22
Supply, in St. Louis County, Minnesota, Estimated for Years 2010, 2015, and
10% of total supply
Output $17,306,906 $2,455,815 $2,641,450 $22,404,173 1.3
Employment 34 11 27 72 2.1
Value Added $14,148,225 $1,241,991 $1,583,566 $16,894,205 1.2
Tax $4,571,894
2015
Output $17,404,800 $2,469,706 $2,656,391 $22,530,897 1.3
Employment 34 11 27 72 2.1
Value Added $14,068,649 $1,249,016 $1,592,523 $16,989,765 1.2
Tax $4,597,754
2020
Output $17,523,668 $2,486,574 $2,674,533 $22,684,776 1.3
Employment 34 11 27 72 2.1
Value Added $14,244,854 $1,257,547 $1,603,400 $17,105,800 1.2
Tax $4,629,155
20% of total supply
Output $34,,613,812 $4,911,630 $5,282,900 $44,808,346 1.3
Employment 67 22 54 143 2.1
Value Added $28,137,298 $2,483,982 $3,167,132 $33,788,410 1.2
Tax $9,143,788
2015
Output $34,809,600 $4,939,412 $5,312,782 $45,061,794 1.3
Employment 68 22 54 144 2.1
Value Added $28,296,450 $2,498,032 $3,185,046 $33,979,530 1.2
Tax $9,195,508
2020
Output $35,047,336 $4,973,148 $5,349,066 $45,369,552 1.3
Employment 68 22 55 145 2.1
Value Added $28,489,708 $2,515,094 $3,206,800 $34,211,600 1.2
Tax $9,258,310
23
Supply, in Cook, Lake and St. Louis County, Minnesota, Estimated for Years
2010, 2015, and 2020 in 2008 dollars
10% of total supply
Output $18,797,148 $2,651,665 $2,885,860 $24,334,673 1.3
Employment 37 12 30 79 2.1
Value Added $15,208,056 $1,338,426 $1,726,876 $18,345,355 1.2
Tax $4,971,737
2015
Output $18,939,662 $2,671,769 $2,907,740 $24,519,171 1.3
Employment 37 12 30 79 2.1
Value Added $15,395,904 $1,348,573 $1,739,966 $18,484,443 1.2
Tax $5,009,430
2020
Output $19,100,440 $2,694,448 $2,932,424 $24,727,311 1.3
Employment 37 12 30 79 2.1
Value Added $15,526,599 $1,360,020 $1,754,736 $18,641,354 1.2
Tax $5,051,955
20% of total supply
Output $37,594,296 $5,303,330 $5,771,720 $48,669,346 1.3
Employment 74 23 59 156 2.1
Value Added $30,560,112 $2,676,852 $3,453,746 $36,690,710 1.2
Tax $9,943,474
2015
Output $37,879,324 $5,343,538 $5,815,480 $49,038,342 1.3
Employment 74 23 60 157 2.1
Value Added $30,791,808 $2,697,146 $3,479,932 $36,968,886 1.2
Tax $10,018,860
2020
Output $38,200,880 $5,388,896 $5,864,848 $49,454,622 1.3
Employment 74 24 60 158 2.1
Value Added $31,053,198 $2,720,040 $3,509,472 $37,282,708 1.2
Tax $10,103,910
24

Wind Resource Development in The Minnesota Coastal Zone (306-02-08)

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Wind Resource Development in The Minnesota Coastal Zone (306-02-08)

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Minnesota’s Lake Superior Coastal Program

Wind Resource Development in the Minnesota Coastal Zone

University of Minnesota, Duluth

August 30, 2008

Project No. 306-02-08

Objective I: Wind Monitoring

Figure 1. The geographic location of each monitoring site

Table 1. Key characteristics of each monitoring site.

Site Structure Elev (ft) Height (ft)

Figure 2. Detailed schematics of the Enger Tower mount.

Figure 4. Detailed schematics of the conventional staircase fire tower mounts.

Figure 6. Detailed schematics of the communication tower mounts.

A. Data Recovery and Maintenance

Objective 2: Wind Resource Mapping

Objective 3: Economic Feasibility

anemometer height swept area

annual project costs

1: annual rev enue 2: annual cost

10.000 150.000 1.000 100.000

anemometer height cents per kwh

10.000 150.000 0.02000 0.22000

wind shear exp rate inf lation

0.10000 0.40000 0.0000 1.0000

turbine ef f iciency installation costs

0.10000 0.40000 0.10000 0.30000

interest rate cost per kw

0.01000 0.10000 1500.00 2000.00

Site avg (m/s) weibel-k PD (w/m2) install cost (%)

Site Annual Revenues Annual Costs Net Revenues

B. County-wide Economic Impacts (see appendix A for detailed description of methods,

Minnesota Department of Commerce. 2006. MN Wind Resource Map. At www.state.MN.gov.

Windustry’s Community Wind Toolbox. 2008. At www.windustry.org.

Appendix A – County-wide Economic Impacts

April 30, 2008

UMD Labovitz School of Business and Economics

James A. Skurla, Acting Director

Executive Summary...................................................................................................................................... iii

Summary: Economic Impact of Wind-Generated Energy as

Summary: Economic Impact of Wind-Generated Energy as

Summary: Economic Impact of Wind-Generated Energy

Summary: Economic Impact of Wind-Generated Energy as

IMPLAN data files use federal government data sources including:

 IMPLAN input-output is a production based model

2010 2015 2020

2025 2030 2035

Estimation of Total Residential Consumption for Three Counties

Estimation of 10% and 20% Residential Consumption from

Total consumption (in

10% of total consumption

20% of total consumption

10% of total energy:

Summary of Economic Impacts of 10% Wind-Generated

20% of total energy:

10% of total energy:

Economic Impact of 10% Wind-Generated Energy in St. Louis County of

Economic Impact of 10% Wind-Generated Energy in St. Louis County of

Summary of Economic Impact of 20% Wind-

Economic Impact of 20% Wind-Generated Energy in St. Louis County of

10% of total energy:

Economic Impact of 10% Wind-Generated Energy in

Economic Impact of 10% Wind-Generated Energy in Lake County of Minnesota,

Economic Impact of 10% Wind-Generated Energy in Lake County of Minnesota,

Economic Impact of 10% Wind-Generated Energy in Lake County of Minnesota,