NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Economic and Technical 

Feasibility Study of Utility-Scale 

Wind Generation for the New 

York Buffalo River and South 

Buffalo Brownfield Opportunity 

Areas

Joseph Owen Roberts and Gail Mosey

Produced under direction of the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

under Interagency Agreement IAG-09-1750 and Task No. 

WFD3.1001.

Technical Report

NREL/TP-5000-60440

April 2014
NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

15013 Denver West Parkway

Golden, CO 80401

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

Economic and Technical 

Feasibility Study of UtilityScale Wind Generation for the 

New York Buffalo River and 

South Buffalo Brownfield 

Opportunity Areas

Joseph Owen Roberts and Gail Mosey

Prepared under Task No. WFD3.1001 

Technical Report

NREL/TP-5000-60440

April 2014
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, 

express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of 

any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately 

owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, 

trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, 

or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors

expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/scitech

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.aspx

Cover Photos: (left to right) photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 16416, photo from SunEdison, NREL 17423, photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 

16560, photo by Dennis Schroeder, NREL 17613, photo by Dean Armstrong, NREL 17436, photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 17721.

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post consumer waste. 
iii

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Acknowledgments

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) thanks the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) for its interest in securing NREL’s technical expertise. In 

particular, NREL and the assessment team for this project are grateful to the Buffalo 

Reuse Authority for their generous assistance and cooperation and for hosting the 

site visit. 

Thanks go to Lura Matthews, Jessica Trice, and Shea Jones of EPA, as well as to 

everyone who participated in the site visit, shared the rich history of the Buffalo Reuse 

Authority area, and allowed NREL and EPA to assist in the potential reuse of the land. 
iv

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Executive Summary

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in accordance with the RE-Powering 

America’s Land Initiative, selected the Buffalo Reuse Authority brownfield site for a 

feasibility study of renewable energy production. The National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory (NREL) was contacted to provide technical assistance for this project. This 

report presents an assessment of the site for possible wind turbine installations and an 

estimate of the cost, performance, and site impacts of different wind energy options. In 

addition, this report recommends financing options that could assist in the 

implementation of a wind system at the site. 

The feasibility of wind systems installed at this site is highly impacted by the available 

area for a project, wind resource, operating status, ground conditions and restrictions, 

distance to electrical infrastructure, future uses, and distance to major roads. The Buffalo 

site has some available area for several utility-scale wind turbines, and the wind resource 

is appropriate for development. 

The site is approximately 2,500 acres in size with 180 acres appropriate for the 

installation of wind turbines. While this entire area does not need to be developed at one 

time due to the feasibility of staging installation as land or funding becomes available, 

calculations for this analysis reflect the wind potential if all 180 acres are used for wind 

energy production. 

The economic feasibility of a potential wind farm on the site depends greatly on the 

purchase price of the electricity produced. An economic analysis of a potential project at 

this site indicates that a minimum power purchase agreement (PPA) price of $85/MWh is 

required for the project to be economically viable. In comparison, the current New York 

Independent System Operator (NYISO) wholesale electric rate is $57/MWh. However, 

prices for wind PPAs in the east and northeast regions in 20111

 and 20122 have varied 

greatly, and longer-term wind prices in the NYISO service area may be closer to this 

project’s potential PPA price. The analysis assumes that the production tax credit 

incentive would be captured for the system. 

While it might not be the least expensive short-term option, wind energy can also help the 

EPA meet federal energy targets, such as those laid out in the Presidential Memorandum 

from December 5, 2013: Federal Leadership on Energy Management. President Obama 

called on all federal agencies to increase their use and purchases of renewable energy. 

 

1 Wiser, R.; Bollinger, M. 2011 Wind Technologies Market Report. Washington, D.C.: Department of 

Energy, 2011; p. 53. Accessed January 6, 2014: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/2011_wind_technologies_market_report.pdf. 2 Wiser, R.; Bollinger, M. 2012 Wind Technologies Market Report. Washington, D.C.: Department of 

Energy, 2012; p. 53. Accessed January 6, 2014: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/2012_wind_technologies_market_report.pdf. 
v 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

“By fiscal year 2020, to the extent economically feasible and technically practicable, 

20 percent of the total amount of electric energy consumed by each agency during any 

fiscal year shall be renewable energy.” 3 Section 1(d) of the Memorandum specifically 

states, “Agencies shall consider opportunities, to the extent economically feasible and 

technically practical, to install or contract for energy installed on current or formerly 

contaminated lands, landfills, and mine sites.” 

 

3 Accessed March 24, 2014: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/12/05/presidentialmemorandum-federal-leadership-energy-management. 
vi 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table of Contents

1 Project and Site Background............................................................................................................... 1

2 Wind Energy .......................................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Wind Characteristics ...................................................................................................................... 2

2.2 Wind Turbines ............................................................................................................................... 4

3 Potential Turbine Locations................................................................................................................. 7

3.1 Area Available for Turbines .......................................................................................................... 7

3.2 Site-Specific Considerations .......................................................................................................... 8

3.3 Permitting and Setbacks................................................................................................................. 9

3.4 Environmental Siting Considerations .......................................................................................... 11

3.5 Local Wind Resource Characteristics .......................................................................................... 13

3.6 Estimated Power Production and Cost of Energy from a Potential Wind Facility at the 

Buffalo Site .................................................................................................................................. 19

3.7 Buffalo Site Energy Use .............................................................................................................. 20

3.7.1 Ownership Options ......................................................................................................... 21

4 Project Financial Performance ..........................................................................................................22

5 Conclusions and Recommendations................................................................................................24
vii 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

List of Figures

Figure 1. U.S. national wind resource map ................................................................................................... 3

Figure 2. New York 80-m annual average wind speed map.......................................................................... 4

Figure 3. Modern utility-scale wind turbines ................................................................................................ 5

Figure 4. Site extent map ............................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 5. 230-kV dead-end structure ............................................................................................................. 9

Figure 6. Screen shot of long-range radar impact potential ........................................................................ 10

Figure 7. NEXRAD radar impact potential ................................................................................................. 11

Figure 8. Levelized cost of energy comparison of modern turbines with historical performance,

 .............. 14

Figure 9. Wind rose at the Buffalo site ........................................................................................................ 15

Figure 10. Frequency of wind speeds at the Buffalo site ............................................................................ 16

Figure 11. Monthly long-term wind speed averages ................................................................................... 16

Figure 12. Diurnal wind speed profile (X Axis in Coordinate Universal Time) ......................................... 17

Figure 13. Average wind shear .................................................................................................................... 18

Figure 14. Possible turbine layout (turbines are blue symbols) .................................................................. 20

Figure 15. Levelized PPA power prices by U.S. region: 2011–2012 projects ............................................ 23

List of Tables

Table 1. Estimated Capacity Factors ........................................................................................................... 19

Table 2. Buffalo Wind Farm Financial Assumptions .................................................................................. 22
1 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

1 Project and Site Background

Under the RE-Powering America’s Land Initiative, the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) provided funding to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

to support a feasibility study of wind renewable energy generation at the Buffalo Reuse 

Authority brownfield site (Buffalo site). Feasibility assessment team members from 

NREL, the Buffalo Reuse Authority, and EPA conducted a site assessment visit to gather 

information integral to this economic feasibility study. The team gathered and considered 

information about the wind resource, transmission availability, environmental 

considerations, radar, and ground conditions. 

The Buffalo site is located in the southwest corner of Buffalo, New York, adjacent to the 

City of Lackawanna. The site was previously used for steel and chemical production, and 

the majority of the reclamation related to those activities has been carried out. The site is 

being developed as an industrial park that has several customers already occupying space 

in the brownfield area. The site has many possible development options, but many of 

these options will consume large amounts of electricity, which may facilitate a more costeffective interconnection or possibly a behind-the-meter agreement with the local utility.

Adjacent to the Buffalo site is the Steel Winds wind farm, which also utilizes 

contaminated land reused for renewable energy production. The Buffalo site was a 

candidate for the Steel Winds project, but the developer indicated that the wind resource 

at the Steel Winds site was substantially greater, and at the time of the development, the 

land at the Steel Winds site was substantially less expensive than the Buffalo site. 
2 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

2 Wind Energy

Uneven heating of the earth’s surface creates motion in the atmosphere and thus kinetic 

energy in the form of wind. Variation in heating and factors, such as surface orientation, 

slope, rate of reflectivity, absorptivity, and transmissivity, also affect the wind resource. 

In addition, the wind resource can be affected (accelerated, decelerated, or made 

turbulent) by factors such as terrain, bodies of water, buildings, and vegetative cover. 

Wind is air with kinetic energy that can be transformed into useful work via wind turbine 

blades and a generator. Overall, wind is a diffuse resource that can generate electricity 

cost effectively and competitively in regions with a good wind resource, high cost of 

electricity, or both. 

2.1 Wind Characteristics

Winds vary with the season, time of day, and weather events. Analysis of wind data 

focuses on several critical aspects—average annual wind speed, frequency distribution of 

the wind at various speeds, turbulence, vertical wind shear, and maximum gusts. These 

parameters allow for estimation of available energy in the wind and the suitability of 

turbine technology for the site. 

The wind speed at any given time determines the amount of power available in the wind. 

The power available in the wind is given by: 

P = (A ρV3

)/2

where

P = power of the wind [W] 

A = windswept area of the rotor (blades) [m2] = πD2/4 = πr

2

 

ρ = density of the air [kg/m3

] (at sea level at 15°C)

V = velocity of the wind [m/s]. 

As shown, wind power is proportional to velocity cubed (V3

). This matters because, if 

wind velocity is doubled, wind power increases by a factor of eight (23 = 8). 

Consequently, a small difference (e.g., increase) in average speed causes significant 

differences (e.g., increases) in energy production. Examining ways to increase the wind 

velocity at a particular turbine location should be considered through modeling the terrain 

and micro-siting the turbines. Normally, the easiest way to accomplish this is to increase 

the height of the tower. The wind industry has been moving toward higher towers, and 

the industry norm has increased from 30 m to 80 m over the last 15–20 years. 

Figure 1 is a map of the national wind resource. Wind maps can give a visual 

approximation of the wind resource in an area but do not provide enough data for 

estimating annual electricity output at a particular site. Onsite wind data are typically 
3 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

collected for 1–3 years and are necessary to accurately estimate future wind 

turbine performance. 

Figure 1. U.S. national wind resource map4

Figure 2 shows the New York state wind resource at 80 m above ground level. The 

Buffalo site is shown on the western edge of the state. 

 

4 DOE. “Utility-Scale Land-Based 80-Meter Wind Maps. Accessed November 20, 2013: 

http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_maps.asp.
4 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure 2. New York 80-m annual average wind speed map5

2.2 Wind Turbines

Wind turbines consist of rotating blades that convert the kinetic energy of the wind into 

mechanical energy that is then converted into electrical energy. They have a number of 

moving parts that require regularly scheduled and unscheduled maintenance. 

Manufacturer warranties cover the first 2–10 years. Professional wind turbine 

maintenance contractors are recommended after the warranty period. Figure 3 shows 

large wind turbines that are of the scale and general size that might be considered at the 

Buffalo site. 

 

5 "New York 80-Meter Wind Map and Wind Resource Potential." U.S. Department of Energy, 2013. 

Accessed 2013: http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_resource_maps.asp?stateab=ny.

Buffalo 

Site
5 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure 3. Modern utility-scale wind turbines. Photo by Joseph Owen Roberts

Wind farms are typically cost effective where the average wind speed is high, where the 

competing energy costs are high, or where both conditions exist. Large wind farms of 

100–500 MW are commonly deployed instead of wind farms with only 1 or 2 turbines 

because of lower installed costs largely due to economies of scale. In the United States,

about 60,000 MW of wind power have been installed.6 Turbines as small as 250 W and 

as large as 5 MW are available. For the size of the wind plants considered here, large 

turbines in the range of 1,000–3,000 kW per turbine would be appropriate due to the 

advantage of economies of scale that larger turbines present. Small turbines may only be 

able to achieve levelized cycle costs of energy of approximately $200/MWh, whereas

large wind turbines in large wind farms can have a levlized cost of energy (LCOE) of 

roughly $70/MWH.7

 

Wind power became a commercial-scale industry more than 30 years ago. Over that time, 

wind power has moved from the fringes of the electric power sector to a mainstream 

resource responsible for 35% of new U.S. power capacity from 2007 through 2011; it is 

 

6 Wiser, R.; Bollinger, M. 2012 Wind Technologies Market Report. Washington, D.C.: Department of 

Energy, 2012. Accessed January 6, 2014: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/2012_wind_technologies_market_report.pdf. 7 Lantz, E.: Wiser, R.: Hand, M. “IEA Wind Task 26: The Past and Future Cost of Wind Energy, Work 

Package 2.” p. 16. 
6 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

second in new capacity additions only to new natural gas power.8 In the best resource 

areas or localities with exceptionally high electricity costs, wind power can be cost 

effective even in the absence of direct financial incentives or subsidies. Recent 

technological improvements9 are expected to significantly lower the life cycle cost of 

wind energy. Initial investment costs for wind power are high compared with such costs 

for natural gas or other forms of generation10; however, with zero fuel costs and 

relatively modest fixed annual operations expenditures, wind-generated electricity is 

often an economical generation resource over the long term.

 

8 Williams, E.; Hensley, J. AWEA U.S. Wind Industry Annual Market Report 2012. 2013.

9 Wiser, R.; Lantz, E.; Bolinger, M.; Hand, M. Recent Developments in the Levelized Cost of Energy from 

U.S. Wind Power Projects, February 2012. Accessed January 6, 2014: 

http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/wind-energy-costs-2-2012.pdf. 10 U.S. EIA. Updated Capital Cost Estimates for Utility Scale Electricity Generation Plants, April 2013. 

Accessed November 20, 2013: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/capitalcost/pdf/updated_capcost.pdf. 
7 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

3 Potential Turbine Locations

3.1 Area Available for Turbines

The Buffalo site has more than 180 acres of land within the brownfield areas potentially 

suitable for the placement of wind turbines. Figure 4 shows the site extent in light red, 

landfill sites in dark red, the Tifft Nature Preserve in blue, and potential turbine locations 

as blue markers. Some of these areas will be excluded for potential bird interactions, as 

well as for business development and infrastructure, but the exact bird migratory paths 

and redevelopment plan are currently unknown. The blue-shaded area shows the extent of 

the Tifft Nature Preserve.

11 Further investigation into the population, species, and 

migration paths should be done. Contacting the organizers of the nature preserve is highly 

recommended if the development of a wind project is pursued. 

Two closed landfills on site present increased elevation and exposure to the predominant 

wind direction. These areas are shaded in dark red in Figure 4. Multiple turbines have 

been constructed atop older landfills and uncontrolled fill and demonstrate that such 

projects can be feasible, including Hull, Massachusetts; Falmouth, Massachusetts; 

Buffalo Mountain wind farm near Oak Ridge, Tennessee; and Stony Creek wind farm in 

Somerset County, Pennsylvania. These sites use monopile or “can” type foundations 

rather than gravity/ballast systems, such as “spreadfoot foundations.” The monopile or 

“can” foundations use skin friction and large surface areas to provide sufficient support to 

a turbine in poor soil conditions, such as a landfill or mine spoil soils. Typical spreadfoot 

foundations are not feasible due to possible differential settlement of the soil in 

uncontrolled fill areas. Potential turbines in the landfill areas of the Buffalo site would 

therefore be expected to be monopile or “can” type foundations.

 

11 "About Tifft." Buffalo Museum of Science, 2013. Accessed December 2013: 

http://www.sciencebuff.org/tifft-nature-preserve/about-tifft/.
8 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure 4. Site extent map

Image generated in Google Earth

3.2 Site-Specific Considerations

As shown in Figure 4, the site has sufficient space to allow for the installation of several

utility-scale turbines and depending on the actual wind direction distribution, turbine 

manufacturer specifications, and actual suitable turbine sites. An onsite 230-kV 

transmission tower is designed to serve as the end of transmission line (a dead-end 

structure), as seen in Figure 5. The tower would need a substation added for 

interconnection and could be cost prohibitive as only several turbine sites appear suitable 

for installation and the distance between the interconnection point ant the developable 

areas is too great. Smaller distribution voltage lines could be considered for 

interconnecting at a lower voltage or existing substation at a significantly lower cost than 

a 230-kV substation. Further investigation into the cost of a substation and the possibility 

of connecting turbines to distribution voltage power lines is recommended. There is also 

a large amount of distribution level voltage infrastructure in the area that could allow 

interconnection of 10–15 MW of turbines, depending on the size of the conductor and 

distance to the nearest substation. Further investigation into the local distribution voltage 

level infrastructure is recommended. 
9 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure 5. 230-kV dead-end structure. Photo by Joseph Owen Roberts, NREL

3.3 Permitting and Setbacks

One of the largest constraints to permitting large wind turbines can be the avoidance of

interference with air traffic, weather radar, and military operations. The Buffalo site is not 

within any direct flight paths that would automatically preclude it from the possibility of 

installing a utility-scale turbine, and the nearest FAA-regulated airspace is for the 

Heussler Hamburg Heliport, which is approximately 3.5 miles from the nearest 

developable turbine location. The Steel Winds project’s nearest wind turbine is within 

1 mile of this same heliport. 

Local ordinances might also apply, and they should be investigated further, as some local 

governments have regulations that constrain the overall height of structures for viewshed 

reasons. If the installation of utility-scale turbines is pursued, investigation of all local 

ordinances for structure heights and viewshed considerations is recommended. 

Long-range radar can also be affected by the movement of the turbines’ blades, and it can 

cause interference for air traffic control if not mitigated. Figure 6 is a screen shot from a 

Department of Defense Preliminary Screening Tool and shows that there is a high 

likelihood of interference with long-range radar at the site; contacting the FAA should be 

one of the first steps in the siting process. The red area in Figure 6 represents a potentially 

severe impact on local radar and as one can see the entire area is red. Many turbines have 
10 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

been installed in potential impact zones, and mitigation measures can vary from ignoring 

the interference to upgrading the software of the radar to filter this interference. The Steel 

Winds turbines are also located within this area of potential impact, but this does not 

guarantee that the proposed turbines for the Buffalo site will not severely impact 

the radar. 

Figure 6. Screen shot of long-range radar impact potential12

 

12 "DoD Preliminary Screening Tool." Federal Aviation Administration, 2013. Accessed December 2013: 

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/gisTools/gisAction.jsp?action=showLongRangeRadarToolForm. 
11 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure 7 shows that the site has a high probability of interference with local NEXRAD 

radar, as the centrally located black wind turbine symbol coincides with some of the 

semi-circular areas that represent local weather radar. The existing Steel Winds turbines 

are in a very similar location, which suggests that interference might not be an issue, but 

further discussion with the FAA is recommended.

Figure 7. NEXRAD radar impact potential13

3.4 Environmental Siting Considerations

The Buffalo site has the potential for significant bird presence due to the site’s proximity 

to the Tifft Nature Preserve.

14 Wind turbines have been shown to kill birds in their 

operation, and this should be considered when placing turbines in an area that has a bird

population. Currently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is making 

recommendations to specific projects, such as wind farms, but these are not yet stipulated 

for specific technologies, species, or other factors. Each site is specific to each species, 

wind regime, and turbine height and model. 

The USFWS has developed voluntary guidelines15 that provide a tiered approach in 

which each tier can provide a developer with information that can then be used to make 

 

13 "Notice Criteria Tool." Federal Aviation Administration, 2013. Accessed December 2013: 

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/gisTools/gisAction.jsp?action=showNoNoticeRequiredToolForm. 14 Buffalo Museum of Science. “Tifft Nature Preserve.” Accessed January 6, 2014: 

http://www.sciencebuff.org/tifft-nature-preserve/. 15 National Wind Coordinating Collaborative. “Comprehensive Guide to Studying Wind Energy/Wildlife 

Interactions.” Accessed November 20, 2013: 

http://www.nationalwind.org/assets/publications/Comprehensive_Guide_to_Studying_Wind_Energy_Wildl
12 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

decisions on how to proceed with a wind project at a particular site. Potential developers 

can consults with the USFWS, which will provide non-binding recommendations, and it 

is up to the developer to choose to follow the recommendation. Tier 1 is a preliminary 

site evaluation typically conducted as a desktop study. The developer should use all 

available information for this initial screening, but no site visit is needed. Tier 2 is 

frequently referred to as “boots on the ground,” for which a site visit is needed, and a site 

characterization can be done. Tier 3 is typically where pre-construction site assessments 

are conducted and are focused on species or habitat considerations that were identified 

during Tier 2. Tier 4 focuses on post-construction monitoring to coincide with whatever 

species of importance were identified and assessed during Tier 3. Finally, if the site has a 

major species issue but the developer is still interested in going forward with the project, 

more complex studies or research would be conducted under Tier 5. The need for Tier 5 

research is likely to be determined during Tier 3, so these two activities should align. 

Given the proximity of the Tifft Nature Preserve, it is assumed that at least Tier 1 and 

Tier 2 studies would be recommended by USFWS for the Buffalo site, with those 

findings determining whether further study will be recommended.

The National Wind Coordinating Collaborative published the “Comprehensive Guide to 

Studying Wind Energy/Wildlife Interactions” in 2011.16 This document is a resource 

describing methods and metrics for conducting wildlife studies at wind facilities and is 

referenced in the USFWS guidelines. 

Research on land-based wind-wildlife interactions has been conducted beginning with the 

first wind facilities in California. As wind development has moved across the country, 

various species- and habitat-specific issues have been raised. Research is now being 

conducted or supported by a wide range of sectors and stakeholders, including the federal 

government (e.g., DOE, U.S. Department of the Interior), states including the Association 

of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA), trade industry, academia, non-governmental 

organizations (e.g., The Nature Conservancy, Union of Concerned Scientists, Audubon 

Society, Defenders of Wildlife), individual wind developers, and virtually all other 

sectors and stakeholders. 

The species currently of most interest include eagles, Greater Sage-Grouse, Greater and 

Lesser Prairie Chickens, bat species, Whooping Cranes, condors, and Marbled Murrelet. 

Habitat fragmentation and disturbance are also issues—it is not just about collision with a 

wind turbine but also how the species could be affected by the presence of the wind 

turbines and the effects on the landscape due to the construction of the facility. Other 

species, such as federally threatened and endangered bird and bat species, candidate 

species, state species of concern, and various other raptor species, including several hawk 

and owl species, for example, should also to be considered. 

 ife_Interactions_2011_Updated.pdfhttp://www.nationalwind.org/assets/publications/Comprehensive_Guide

_to_Studying_Wind_Energy_Wildlife_Interactions_2011_Updated.pdf. 16 National Wind Coordinating Collaborative. “Comprehensive Guide to Studying Wind Energy/Wildlife 

Interactions.” Accessed November 20, 2013: 

http://www.nationalwind.org/assets/publications/Comprehensive_Guide_to_Studying_Wind_Energy_Wildl

ife_Interactions_2011_Updated.pdfhttp://www.nationalwind.org/assets/publications/Comprehensive_Guide

_to_Studying_Wind_Energy_Wildlife_Interactions_2011_Updated.pdf. 
13 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Although the USFWS guidelines are voluntary, a discussion of adherence in the 

guidelines says, “Adherence to the Guidelines is voluntary and does not relieve any 

individual, company, or agency of the responsibility to comply with laws and regulations. 

However, if a violation occurs the Service will consider a developer’s documented efforts 

to communicate with the Service and adhere to the Guidelines” (p. vii). 

3.5 Local Wind Resource Characteristics

This study assumed the use of utility-scale wind turbines with 80 m or greater hub 

heights. Modern turbine technology and improvements in modeling wind resources in 

North America have changed which wind resources are cost effective to develop for 

utility-scale wind energy. NREL and AWS Truepower previously partnered to determine 

the potential for wind development in all U.S. states.17 These potential state-installed 

capacities were developed assuming older turbine technologies that now underestimate

the total potential for installed capacity. 

Advancements in modern, commercially available turbine technologies have drastically 

increased turbine energy yields, especially for lower wind speed sites. The industry trend 

for utility-scale wind turbines is larger rotor diameters (referred to below as current 

technology in Figure 8) and smaller electrical nameplate capacities for lower wind speed 

regimes. This has been shown to be cost effective, especially for lower wind speed sites, 

as shown in Figure 8. 

As no onsite wind monitoring was performed for this study, typical meteorological year 

data from AWS Truepower were used to estimate the energy production of various 

turbines at the site. These data are created from numerical weather models and are 

adjusted using surface observations, such as airport weather stations. The data are then 

compiled to create a typical year of hourly data that should be representative of an 

average year at the site. 

The uncertainty in this modeled dataset varies by location. For the Buffalo site, the 

uncertainty appears low as the model predicts the existing Steel Winds wind farm to have 

a long-term adjusted annual capacity factor for the Clipper C96 turbines of 31.2%,18 and 

the actual long-term capacity factor is roughly 29.9%.19 Also, the fact that the Steel 

Winds turbines were known to have major periods of inoperation for blade and gearbox 

repairs shows that there is a high uncertainty in this comparison. The other large source 

of uncertainty is the actual surface roughness characteristics of the upwind areas as the 

native resolution of the AWS dataset is much too coarse for a site-specific turbine 

production estimate. It is highly recommended that on-site measurements be used or that 

validated model data is used in conjunction with high topographic and surface roughness 

data (to more accurately estimate the energy production of turbines at the site). 

 

17 DOE. “Wind Resource Maps and Anemometer Loan Program Data.” Accessed November 20, 2013: 

http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/windmaps/. 18 Estimates are based on 200-m resolution data comparing both sites generated in conjunction with the 

typical meteorological year dataset.

19 Emera. “Power Plant Profile.” Accessed January 6, 2014: 

http://www.snl.com/irweblinkx/PowerPlantProfile.aspx?iid=4072693&PlantID=9027&Graph=3. 
14 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure 8. Levelized cost of energy comparison of modern turbines with 

historical performance20,21

These data show that turbines being produced and installed in North America, especially 

for lower wind speed sites, such as at the Buffalo site, now have a much better chance of 

producing cost-effective electricity. It appears that the industry is continuing in this 

direction, and the next generation of turbines already being tested and installed could 

have a similar impact on the cost of energy as their rotors are even larger. It is yet to be 

seen where turbine pricing for these new machines will fall, but recent industry trends 

indicate that prices will continue to decrease over the long term.22 It is worth noting that 

modern International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Class III turbines with larger 

rotor to nameplate electrical capacity typically reduce the volatility of annual variations 

in the wind resource. As the datasets used are focused on temporally longer periods, 

turbulence intensity is not included as part of either dataset. For this reason, standard 

industry practice or discussions with a financier or turbine manufacturer that has 

confidence in the wind resource in the area are recommended to any developer.

 

20 Wiser, R.; Lantz, E.; Bolinger, M.; Hand, M. Recent Developments in the Levelized Cost of Energy from 

U.S. Wind Power Projects, February 2012. Accessed January 6, 2014: 

http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/wind-energy-costs-2-2012.pdf. 21 This model assumes current turbine and installation pricing, reduced operation and maintenance (O&M) 

costs, production tax credits (PTC) and modified accelerated cost-recovery system (MACRS) tax 

incentives, increased turbine availability, and the comparative capacity factors for the current and previous 

generation turbine technologies.

22 Wiser, R.; Lantz, E.; Bolinger, M.; Hand, M. Recent Developments in the Levelized Cost of Energy from 

U.S. Wind Power Projects, February 2012. Accessed January 6, 2014: 

http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/wind-energy-costs-2-2012.pdf.

8 m/s

7 m/s

6 m/s

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

2002-03 Current, 2012-13

Standard Technology Technology Choice

Levelized Cost of Energy ($/MWh)

No Incentives

31% Cost Reduction

17% Cost Reduction
15 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

These modeled data provide significant additional insights regarding the wind resource at 

the site. Figure 9 shows the wind rose, indicating the directionality of the wind resource. 

The blue area of the figure plots the total wind energy from a given direction. 

Figure 9. Wind rose at the Buffalo site

Figure 10 illustrates the frequency of different wind speeds at the site, which is critical to 

turbine selection and energy production. This histogram shows the frequency of 

occurrence on the y-axis and the wind speed on the x-axis. The Weibull parameters K 

and c are 2.13 and 6.87, respectively. 
16 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure 10. Frequency of wind speeds at the Buffalo site

Figure 11 indicates that the strongest winds occur in the winter at this site. Such 

variability is not expected to have a significant impact on the economic viability of wind 

power on the local utility. 

Figure 11. Monthly long-term wind speed averages
17 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure 12 indicates that the strongest winds occur during the night; the x-axis indicates 

hours with the beginning of the day starting at 0 Coordinated Universal Time—not 

local time.

Figure 12. Diurnal wind speed profile (x-axis in Coordinated Universal Time)

Figure 13 shows the site average wind shear, where wind shear is defined as how the 

average wind speed changes as the height above the ground increases. The shear is high 

enough (i.e., the wind speed greatly increases as elevation above the ground increases) 

that taller turbines could increase their energy production enough for taller turbines to be 

cost effective.
18 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure 13. Average wind shear

The average annual wind shear at the Buffalo site is characterized by a power law 

equation exponent of 0.320 when using all four heights provided by the AWS dataset 

(50–140 m). The shear is very high but consistent with very high surface roughness areas. 

As shear values increase, it becomes more cost effective to install taller towers because 

the taller hub heights can reach faster average wind speeds. However, the construction, 

material, and labor costs also increase, and this balance will require estimates of sitespecific energy production to understand whether taller towers are cost effective. 
19 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

3.6 Estimated Power Production and Cost of Energy from a 

Potential Wind Facility at the Buffalo Site 

Four key elements are necessary to estimate power production from a wind facility: 

1. Wind resource potential 

2. Project size or capacity (in MW)

3. The respective wind turbine power curve, a function that demonstrates the energy 

produced at a given wind speed 

4. Estimated losses likely associated with a given project. 

Table 1 shows the estimated capacity factors for various IEC class III wind turbines. As 

discussed earlier, there is uncertainty in these capacity factor estimates due to the 

complex terrain and interaction of the wind with this transition between water and high 

surface roughness land. Further analysis utilizing modeled wind data that are adjusted 

from a local source, such as the Steel Winds nacelle anemometers or the met tower from 

the initial investigation of the Steel Winds site, can be used along with much higher 

resolution topographic and surface roughness data to more accurately predict the turbine 

energy productions at the site. It is worth noting that these modern turbines have 

significantly higher capacity factors than turbines from 5–10 years ago, such as the 

turbines at the Steel Winds site. The Buffalo site was not as desirable as the Steel Winds 

site due to the fact that the annual average wind speeds are significantly lower the farther 

inland from Lake Erie. However, the cost-per-unit energy for modern machines is 

significantly lower than for turbine technology 5–10 years ago, so a wind project at the 

Buffalo site could be economically viable.

Table 1. Estimated Capacity Factors

Turbine

Hub Height 

Average Wind 

Speed (m/s)

Net Capacity Factor 

(15% Losses) (%)

GE 1.6-100 (80 m) 6.09 32.4

Nordex N117/2400 (80 m) 6.09 30.7

Siemens SWT-2.3-113 (80 m) 6.09 32.7

Vestas V100 - 1.8 MW 60 Hz (80 m) 6.09 29.1

Vestas V110 - 2.0 MW 60 Hz (80 m) 6.09 31.6

Note: Estimates shown here do not account for terrain, roughness, wake losses, or localized differences in 

wind resource. The number of turbines in each case was determined by local topography and turbine 

spacing of roughly three rotor diameters between turbines. Capacity factor is a means of illustrating the 

average energy production of a turbine or plant as a share of its theoretical potential over the course of a 

year. Capacity factors shown here are a function of the wind resource and the expected performance of the 

turbine models listed here.
20 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

The potential project size at the Buffalo site is highly constrained by industry standard 

setbacks from adjacent landowners, bat habitat and buffer, and future use areas for the 

industrial park development. Figure 14 shows a possible turbine layout that meets 

industry standard setbacks from homes, roadways, rail lines, and occupied buildings. Of 

the 10 possible turbine sites, the 2 closest to Lake Erie will have significantly higher 

annual energy output, but these sites might not be cost effective, depending on the cost to 

interconnect them to either the existing grid or a substation.

Figure 14. Possible turbine layout (turbines are blue symbols)

Image generated in Google Earth

Modern utility-scale turbines, especially turbines designed for the lower wind resource 

areas, are reducing the cost differential between lesser wind resource sites and sites where 

the wind resource is greater. This trend is illustrated in Figure 8. Energy production 

estimates are based on inputs of wind resource potential derived from the AWS-modeled 

data, turbine-specific power curves extracted from manufacturer data by NREL, and 

estimated losses. Energy production estimates were then used to estimate the net capacity 

factor for the respective turbine models noted in Table 1. 

3.7 Buffalo Site Energy Use

The Buffalo site could have some large electrical loads from industrial customers in the 

future. However, the electrical loads are currently small, and this study focuses on the 

possibility of a utility-scale wind farm. It is highly unlikely that any state policy, 

renewable portfolio standard (RPS), or other legislation would allow connection of a 

utility-scale project behind the meter at this scale. New York has an RPS that escalates in
21 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

2015, which requires 29% renewable energy, but additional investigation is warranted. If 

the RPS is met though other projects, there will be less incentive for a project such as 

this. New York also has a net-metering policy, but the capacity for any net-metered 

facility is capped at 2 MW for commercial facilities.

23 For this reason, a conventional 

third-party ownership model may be the most likely scenario for a utility-scale project at 

the Buffalo site, but individual turbines could be placed behind the meter if individual 

industrial customers are interested. If a third-party PPA is to be pursued, the first step 

would be to finalize which areas of the site can be set aside for wind development.

Integral to this land allocation is a final recommendation by USFWS, which should be in 

place to ensure that bird habitat is protected. The site also needs an electrical 

interconnection capable of handling the capacity of the wind farm. As previously noted, 

the current electrical interconnection onsite is inadequate for the size of project in this 

report, but it appears that industrial customers will require a larger electrical service on 

the site regardless of the wind developments discussed here. After these critical steps are 

taken, a request for proposal can be generated and be made public to gauge interest by 

third-party developers and owners to own and operate a wind farm on the site. 

3.7.1 Ownership Options

In the case where a third party would own and operate a wind farm on the Buffalo site,

the owner would lease land and the rights to install turbines and electrical components 

from the industrial park. The magnitude of these annual lease payments could be on the 

order of $5,000–$10,000 per turbine as per typical industry practice. 

 

23 "New York: Incentives/Policies for Renewables and Efficiency." Database of State Incentives for 

Renewables & Efficiency, 2013. Accessed 2013: 

http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=NY05R&re=0&ee=0.
22 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

4 Project Financial Performance

The NREL System Advisor Model (SAM)24 was used to model the financial performance 

of one possible project scenario at the Buffalo site. Assuming conventional third-party 

ownership, as well as use of the production tax credit (PTC), this project might be 

financially viable in the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) territory, 

given the assumptions in Table 2. However, as detailed in Figure 15, the average PPA 

price in the Northeast in 2011–2012 was approximately $57/MWh. For a target internal 

rate of return of 10%, the PPA is required to be $85.3/MWh for a project at the Buffalo 

site. The assumptions use turbine prices and installed costs from 2012, and they do not 

reflect any advantages or disadvantages of economies of scale, existing or planned 

substations, or current construction costs and turbine prices. This financial model is not 

meant to be representative of an actual project cost but to estimate what a project could 

cost in this terrain, region, and general state of the industry. 

Table 2. Buffalo Wind Farm Financial Assumptions

Annual energy 45,951,000 kWh

Turbine capacity 1.62 MW

Wind farm capacity 16.20 MW

Capacity factor 32.4% 

Losses 15.0% 

Installed cost $2,150/kW

Land lease cost (annually) $100,000 

Project life 20 years

PPA price $85.3/MWh

Calculated PPA escalation 2% 

Debt fraction 0%

Internal rate of return 10%

Federal income tax rate 35%

State income tax rate 3.90%

Inflation rate 2.50%

Nominal discount rate 9%

Production tax credit value (non-escalating) $0.023/kWh

Accelerated depreciation 5 years

 

24 SAM. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2013. Accessed June 5, 2013: https://sam.nrel.gov/. 
23 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure 15. Levelized PPA power prices by U.S. region: 2011–2012 projects25

The economic feasibility of a potential wind farm on the site depends greatly on the 

purchase price of the electricity produced. An economic analysis of a potential project at 

this site indicates that a minimum PPA price of $85.3/MWh is required for the project to 

be economically viable. Prices for wind PPAs in the east and northeast regions in 

201126and 201227 vary greatly, and the sample size in recent years is much smaller than 

previous years, which suggests longer-term wind prices in the NYISO service area may 

be closer to this project’s potential PPA price. The analysis assumes that the PTC

incentive would be captured for the system. 

 

25 Wiser, R.; Bollinger, M. 2012 Wind Technologies Market Report. Washington, DC: Department of 

Energy, 2012. Accessed December 2013: http://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-6356e.pdf. 26 Wiser, R.; Bollinger, M. 2011 Wind Technologies Market Report. Washington, D.C.: Department of 

Energy, 2011; p. 53. Accessed December 2013: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/2011_wind_technologies_market_report.pdf. 27 Wiser, R.; Bollinger, M. 2012 Wind Technologies Market Report. Washington, D.C.: Department of 

Energy, 2012; p. 53. Accessed December 2013: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/2012_wind_technologies_market_report.pdf. 
24 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

5 Conclusions and Recommendations

The site locations considered for a wind system in this report are suitable areas in which 

to implement wind systems. Using land that cannot be used for other purposes would 

minimize the environmental impact of a wind generation plant. The Buffalo site also has 

the following attributes, which greatly increase the viability of a potential wind project at 

the Buffalo site: 

• Adequate wind resource

• Low potential for public opposition due to land use 

• Access to multiple transmission lines (although interconnection oversized) 

• Potential for wind to co-exist with future uses of site

• Constructible site, but landfills will increase foundation costs. 

Multiple customers onsite may be interested in paying for portions of the wind energy, 

which is an example of consumers paying for local energy. Further development of 

ownership and investment options should be explored. 

It is recommended that the Buffalo Reuse Authority further pursue opportunities for a 

wind system installation on the Buffalo site. Some of the first steps the Reuse Authority 

could undertake that could make the project more attractive to potential wind developers 

are investigation of the Tifft nature preserve species and local support or opposition for 

environmental concern and investigation as to a local substation that could be 

interconnected at a lesser cost than building a new 230-kV substation on site, as well as 

potential radar interference and local government opposition. It is recommended that a 

public request for intent to bid be issued to gauge interest from developers in the location 

and site. For multiple reasons—a combination of acceptable resource, potential 

developable area, utilization of contaminated lands, onsite loads, onsite electrical 

infrastructure, and low impact to surrounding neighbors—this assessment finds that a 

wind system is a reasonable use for the site. A third-party ownership PPA is the most 

feasible way for a system to be financed and installed on this site, as ownership of the 

wind farm would require substantial financing and transaction costs for the PTC.