FROM PENNSYLVANIA

Note from the BPWI Research Nerd: The wind turbine related bird and bat kill rates in Pennsylvania have made news several times in the past few years with numbers considered to be shockingly high.

Sadly these numbers are far less than the turbine related kill rates in the state of Wisconsin

In a recent Green Bay Press Gazette Article , turbine related bat kills in Wisconsin were reported to be as high as 50 per turbine per year, a number that is not not only ten times what the wind companies say is the national average, but it is considered to be unsustainable. To the best of our knowledge the bat kill rates from wind turbines in our state are the hightest in North America. And to the best of our knowledge no one is doing anything about it.

BLOWING' IN THE WIND

READ ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: Outdoor Trails, Staff Writer, lancasteronline.com

May 16, 2011

By AD CRABLE,

Since 2007, 73 percent of the owners of wind projects in the state have signed the Wind Energy Voluntary Cooperation Agreement.

Among the notable exceptions is Florida Power & Light and its subsidiaries, which have the most turbines in the state. High bat mortality has been found at some of them.

Are proliferating wind turbines killing a large number of birds in Lancaster County and Pennsylvania? No, say the Game Commission and power companies. You’ll have to take their word for it.

Every other day since March 1, a searcher has walked a grid pattern under the two new wind turbines on Turkey Hill, looking for the carcasses of birds that may have been killed by the turning blades.

So, have there been any bats, tundra swans, birds of prey or endangered songbirds unfortunately whacked by the 135-foot-long blades?

Project owner PPL Renewable Energy and the Pennsylvania Game Commission know, but they’re not telling.

Certainly there is no reason to think many birds are being sliced and diced at the Manor Township site.

But shouldn’t the public be allowed to know if there are? After all, the turbines were partially built with federal stimulus funds, your tax dollars.

How about bird scientists with the Pennsylvania Biological Survey, the Game Commission’s independent scientific advisers who monitor the state’s bird populations? Should they be privy to the mortality rate at Pennsylvania’s proliferating wind turbines?

The group certainly thinks so, but the body count is not shared with them, either.

Instead, the Game Commission, apparently to gain turbine owners’ participation, agree to share information with each other but not anyone else.

The agreement states, “It is understood between the parties that information resulting from the cooperator’s compliance with this agreement shall be treated with the highest affordable level of confidentiality available unless otherwise agreed to in writing by both parties.”

When I requested the results of dead bird searches at the Turkey Hill project, PPL said it “was following the Game Commission’s protocol in keeping it in confidence.”

This is the questionable state of affairs several years into wind energy taking hold in Pennsylvania.

The Game Commission is responsible for the state’s birds and mammals.

As wind technology advanced like a sudden gust of wind several years ago, it became clear there were no comprehensive regulations in place to protect wildlife.

Working with energy companies — and at least initially independent advisers such as the PBS — the Game Commission fashioned a voluntary agreement designed to avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts on wild animals.

Mainly, we’re talking about birds, and especially bats, which seem to be most prone to running into turbine blades.

Since 2007, 73 percent of the owners of wind projects in the state have signed the Wind Energy Voluntary Cooperation Agreement.

Among the notable exceptions is Florida Power & Light and its subsidiaries, which have the most turbines in the state. High bat mortality has been found at some of them.

In addition to working with the Game Commission to reduce effects on birds, wind companies agree to do pre-construction surveys of birds and animals at proposed sites, and to count any mortality from turbines for two years after startup.

That advance scouting of bird habits and pooling of information has been effective, according to the Game Commission.

Turbines have been moved, bat-roosting locations have been pinpointed and protected, and even a few turbine sites have been abandoned, the agency says.

Indeed, at Turkey Hill, the number of turbines was reduced from four to two, the two turbines that were built were set back farther from the Susquehanna, vegetation is kept close-cropped so as not to attract predators and electrical lines were buried to discourage perching birds near the turbines — all because of pre-construction wildlife surveys, points out Steven Gabrielle of PPL.

“We’re not required to do this. We’re spending a lot of time and money to do this because we respect preserving the environment,” Gabrielle says.

Then why not prove it by making available the results of all those commendable approaches, I say.

Another who is very unhappy with the no-tell approach is George Gannon, a professor of biology and ecology at Penn State-Altoona who worked with the Game Commission in setting up the wind energy cooperative agreement on behalf of the PBS.

He voices this complaint, “There is no independent scientific peer review of anything submitted by the wind companies, as these data are not permitted to be seen by anyone else.

“This is contrary to the very basic premise of how good science works.”

He mentions a 2009 case in West Virginia where a federal court found that a wind company’s hired bat consultants reached a conclusion favorable to the client, but turned out to be inaccurate when the actual data was reviewed.

“It was Ronald Reagan who said ‘trust but verify,’ ” continues Gannon. “Unfortunately, with the system in place, the PGC cannot verify the work submitted by wind developers and the people of Pennsylvania cannot verify either the developers or the PGC.”

In 2007, a PBS wind energy and bats subcommittee accused the Game Commission of “side-stepping” input and review from the PBS in developing the cooperative agreement with wind energy developers.

The group, which included two PGC biologists, unanimously urged the agency to abandon the protocol used in evaluating bats and bat mortality at wind turbine sites and to “develop a more realistic, more meaningful, and more scientifically sound protocol.”

The current agreement “puts the interests of the wind industry before the interests of the Commonwealth,” the PBS group said.

The Game Commission recently issued its second wind energy summary report that includes 150 wildlife surveys and research under the voluntary agreement from 2007 through June 30, 2010.

Among the tidbits (no names, of course):

The number of bat deaths comes out to 24.6 per turbine per year.

Among birds, the average death rate was 3.9 per turbine per year.

Three state-endangered birds were killed: two blackpoll warblers and one yellow-bellied flycatcher. All three were deemed to be migrants passing through and not from local breeding populations.

No large mortality events were recorded, defined as more than 50 carcasses found in a single day.

Surveys conducted as part of the agreement have located new locations of state- and federally-listed bats.

As part of the cooperative agreement, the Game Commission has said it will not pursue liability against cooperating wind turbine companies that kill birds, as long as they comply with the conditions of the agreement.

The agency is proud of its efforts.

“The Cooperative Agreement has allowed Pennsylvania to become one of the national leaders for determining and addressing wildlife impacts from wind energy development, as well as providing critical data needed to address future wind energy project proposals,” said William Capouillez, director of the agency’s Bureau of Wildlife Habitat Management.

With some transparency on behalf of the Game Commission and wind turbine operators, maybe the public would come to the same conclusion.

FROM NORTH DAKOTA

IBERDROLA SAYS FALLING SUZILON BLADES WERE A ONE-TIME ACCIDENT

READ THE WHOLE STORY AT THE SOURCE: Bloomberg, www.bloomberg.com

May 18, 2011

By Natalie Obiko Pearson,

Iberdrola SA (IBE), the world’s biggest renewable energy producer, has found that falling blades from a Suzlon Energy Ltd. (SUEL) generator at a U.S. wind farm was a one-off accident unrelated to the turbine’s history of cracked blades.

“This type of failure is a singular event,” said an Iberdrola report, a copy of which was mailed by Suzlon to Bloomberg News, on a joint investigation by the two companies into the incident.

Iberdrola suspended operations at the 150-megawatt wind farm in Rugby, North Dakota after blades from a Suzlon S88 turbine fell from their mount, the company said on March 21. The same model suffered cracked blades starting in 2007, which had prompted a $100 million global retrofit program by India’s largest maker of windmills for power production.

The accident at Rugby was caused by the failure of a bolt connecting the rotor assembly to the nacelle, the report said. Stress may have been put on the bolt because of a misalignment of the connecting surfaces between the rotor hub and mainshaft flange, it said.

All 70 turbines and 3,360 bolts were inspected and seven bolts replaced as a precaution before Iberdrola and Suzlon agreed the site was safe to return to service, it said.

“Suzlon, who is permanently onsite, will perform additional checks in conjunction with regular maintenance activities,” it said.

Suzlon has more than 2,000 sets of S88 turbines operating worldwide and its global fleet are performing above industry standards, spending only 3 percent in downtime for maintenance, the company said in an e-mail.

Suzlon shares plummeted 83 percent between the time it announced the defect in January 2008 and completed retrofitting in October 2009 as customers, including Rosemead, California- based Edison International (EIX), canceled orders.

Click on the image above to watch Wisconsin Public Television report on bats and wind turbines

WIND TURBINES THREATEN WISCONSIN BATS

READ ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: Green Bay Press-Gazette, www.greenbaypressgazette.com

May 15, 2011

by Tony Walter,

Wind turbine industry reports filed with the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin indicate that a significant number of bats fall victim to the turbine blades every night, which could mean crop losses.

The rate of bat mortality has a major impact on the agricultural industry, according to a U.S. Geological study recently published in Science Magazine.

The study, conducted by Boston University’s biology department, estimated that insect-eating bats save the agricultural industry at least $3 billion a year.

“Because the agricultural value of bats in the Northeast is small compared with other parts of the country, such losses could be even more substantial in the extensive agricultural regions in the Midwest and the Great Plains where wind-energy development is booming and the fungus responsible for white-nose syndrome was recently detected,” said Tom Kunz, an ecology professor at Boston University and co-author of the study.

White nose syndrome is a disease believed to kill and sicken bats, which first was noticed in Albany, N.Y., in 2006, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The source of the condition remains unclear, the agency said.

According to studies by Current Biology, National Geographic and Science Daily, bats can be killed without being struck by a turbine blade. The studies concluded that air in low-pressure areas near the tips of the blades ruptures the bats’ lungs and causes internal hemorrhaging.

In PSC reports obtained by the Green Bay Press-Gazette, a post-construction bat mortality study of the Wisconsin Power and Light Company’s Cedar Ridge Wind Farm in Fond du Lac County, conducted by the power company, showed that 50 bats are killed annually by each of the project’s 41 turbines — about 2,050 each year.

Similarly, reports show that the 88 turbines in the Blue Sky Green Field Wind Energy Center in Fond du Lac County each kill an estimated 41 bats per year, which is a little more than 3,600 each year, according to the Wind Energy Center’s post-construction study.

Each turbine in the state kills about 41 bats each year, according to estimates compiled by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

“I can verify that bats are good natural predators of insects and definitely benefit agriculture,” said Mark Hagedorn, agricultural agent for the UW-Extension.

The largest known area for hibernating bats in Wisconsin is the Neda Mine State Natural Area in Dodge County, where a census found 143,000 bats, according to the DNR.

The construction of wind turbines in Brown County has been a controversial subject for years, but most of the complaints focused on the safety and health impact on humans. The impact on bats has not been part of the debate over wind turbine construction in Brown County.

Recently, Invenergy Inc. abandoned its plans to build a 100-turbine wind farm in four southern Brown County municipalities. The town of Glenmore last month approved permits for Cenergy to build eight turbines in the town.



BATS ON THE BRINK:

READ ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: WISCONSIN TRAILS

By Jennifer L.W. Fink

Three wind farms – Butler Ridge Wind Farm in the town of Herman, Cedar Ridge Wind Farm in Fond du Lac County and another near Byron – have gone up within miles of the hibernaculum, and preliminary data suggest the wind towers may be responsible for the deaths of migrating bats. “We’re seeing some of the highest fatality numbers in the U.S.,” Redell says.

A century ago, Neda was an iron town. Hardy miners worked deep beneath the earth’s surface, digging out precious iron ore with picks and shovels. Now the miners are just a memory, and the tunnels are dark and damp – but far from empty.

Each fall, the fluttering of wings breaks the still silence of the mine as thousands of bats migrate hundreds of miles to hibernate in the old mineshafts. Today, the old iron mine, located just south of Iron Ridge in Dodge County, is one of North America’s largest bat hibernacula. 

“Most people don’t realize that Wisconsin is such an important area for hibernating bats,” says Dave Redell, a bat ecologist with the Bureau of Endangered Resources. More than 140,000 bats, including little brown bats, northern long-eared bats, eastern pipistrelle bats and big brown bats, hibernate at Neda each winter.

Why Neda? “The old mine is big enough to host a large number of bats,” Redell says, “and the four miles of underground tunnels provide perfect hibernating conditions.” Hibernating bats require stable temperatures (41 degrees Fahrenheit is ideal), high humidity, good airflow and a private, undisturbed place. Any disturbances can awaken hibernating bats, causing them to prematurely deplete the fat stores they need to make it through the winter.

But while Neda has provided a safe haven for bats for many years, ecologists such as Redell are worried about the bats’ survival. Three wind farms – Butler Ridge Wind Farm in the town of Herman, Cedar Ridge Wind Farm in Fond du Lac County and another near Byron – have gone up within miles of the hibernaculum, and preliminary data suggest the wind towers may be responsible for the deaths of migrating bats. “We’re seeing some of the highest fatality numbers in the U.S.,” Redell says.

A new and deadly disease also has begun attacking hibernating bats, mainly in the northeastern United States. White-nose syndrome, a disease unprecedented in its ability to kill, was first identified in New York State in 2006 and has already killed more than 1 million bats. “Scientists are seeing anywhere from 90 to 100% mortality at affected hibernacula,” Redell says. While the fungal disease has not yet arrived in Wisconsin, experts believe it’s just a matter of time. “White-nose syndrome spread over 500 miles this year,” Redell says. “It’s now about 250 miles from Wisconsin.”

Scientists such as Redell are working feverishly to learn as much as possible about the disease and the state’s bats in the little time they have left. “We know that bat-to-bat transmission occurs, and now we’re trying to see if the environment remains infected,” Redell says.

Nestled deep within the earth, the mines at Neda are a world apart. For years, bats have wintered in their depths, undisturbed. Now experts can only hope that the bats don’t go the way of the miners before them.

Jennifer L.W. Fink grew up hearing stories about the bats at Neda but didn’t visit the mines until 2000. She currently lives in Mayville.

ADVICE FROM A PUBLIC RELATIONS FIRM:

READ THE ENTIRE SERIES AT THE SOURCE: NIMBY Wars: The Politics of Land Use.

Guide to Leadership, Effectiveness and Activities for Citizen Groups Pt 5

(by Robert J. Flavell. Flavell is vice chairman of The Saint Consulting Group and co-author of NIMBY Wars: The Politics of Land Use. This concludes the series begun last month)

Once the developer has identified natural supporters, outreach efforts will be needed to contact, recruit, and organize them. For that, you’ll need to find a citizen leader in the community, usually a natural supporter who has leadership abilities and feels strongly that the community needs the project.

It’s important that a local resident lead the citizen group to provide credibility and assure effectiveness. Clearly, the developer cannot manage the group, or its members will be branded as dupes and the group will lack credibility and influence.

An outsider won’t do to manage the group for much the same reason: lack of credibility and influence. Local residents will mistrust a stranger who suddenly appears in town just in time to accept leadership of the pro-development citizens group.

But a local resident who has longstanding community ties and legitimate personal reasons for supporting the project will be accepted at face value, and has the credibility to round up community support. The best way to find such a leader is to look among your natural supporters for a person with leadership skills who has the time and enthusiasm to do the job right.

You may well need to quietly fund the support group, but their expenses should be small—the cost of flyers and urns of coffee. Remember that a group seen as bought will also be seen as hirelings.

The group needs to appear independent of you and your company, which means that they may disagree with you on some points, or may have different ideas of what constitutes adequate mitigation. Taking their suggestions seriously and treating them with respect will win you points in the community.

Citizen Group Effectiveness and Activities

The effort to get a project approved and permitted organizes natural supporters to carry the issue, works to neutralize or marginalize opponents whose efforts can damage the chances of approval, and stresses the benefits to the community not through a public relations or marketing program but through the citizen advocates organized for the purpose.

Those advocates will express their support in their own words and from their own point of view, a much more effective approach than using a canned list of talking points.

Ardent supporters will also sway others who know and respect them—relatives, neighbors, co-workers, friends—will deter those who might have reservations about the project but don’t want to offend a neighbor or old friend, and can dissuade, neutralize or turn at least some opponents because they clearly speak from their own viewpoint and not as agents of the developer.

Make sure your group has a Web site and email address so that people tempted to support your project can easily join up.

Once it has a leader, the group can begin engaging in political support activities, forming coalitions with other groups, calling public officials to express support, writing letters to the editor, managing a website, starting a blog, printing flyers, and attending meetings and hearings, for example.

They can also hold fundraisers and seek donations to offset their expenses, and stage a site cleanup to dramatize the improvement your project will bring to the area. One particularly effective activity is the citizen petition drive, in which your group members collect signatures of local voters who favor the project, or at least are not opposed to it.

A stack of signed citizen petitions makes a nice prop for your lawyer to present to the licensing authority at the big hearing to bolster your claim of widespread public support.

Short-eared owls disappearing from island

READ THE ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: The Whig-Standard

May 13, 2011

By Paul Schliesmann

The short-eared owl, listed as a species of special concern in Canada, has all but disappeared from the west end of Wolfe Island.

A noted Kingston-area birder says the decline has everything to do with the construction and startup of wind turbines on that part of the island two years ago.

"They're definitely avoiding the area," said Kurt Hennige, who has been watching and documenting the short-eared populations on Wolfe Island for more than 25 years.

The owls specifically congregated on the northwest corner of the island because of an abundance of their favourite food — meadow voles. As well as being a favourite hunting ground, short-eareds also winter there.

"Now we see that where the most windmills are, we hardly see any short-eareds," said Hennige.

"We weren't studying this specific to windmills … the area where they were common, the short-eared owls were displaced from the heavy area where the windmills are. They've moved to the east end.

"That's a threatened species."

Two years ago, an 86-turbine wind farm opened on the western half of Wolfe Island, built on leased properties.

The facility is owned and operated by Calgary-based Trans­Alta, which purchased it from Canadian Hydro Developers.

Hennige said that part of the island, along with Amherst Island, has consistently offered one of the most important hunting and nesting grounds available to short-eareds in all of North America.

"I have seen up to 30 birds feeding in a small area," he said. "They're very social birds. Up to 30 or 40 can roost in one area."

Hennige is affiliated with the Kingston Field Naturalists, a volunteer organization that has been documenting bird sightings in the region for decades.

Two years ago, he began assisting Kristen Keyes, a student from McGill University, with her thesis on short-eared owls.

The absence of the birds on Wolfe Island became instantly apparent to Hennige.

He insists, however, that the disappearance of the owls should come as no surprise. For several years, birder friends in Mexico have documented similar findings where turbines have been installed in large numbers.

"They learned years ago it's not the migrating birds that get killed, it's the residential birds that can no longer use the feeding area," said Hennige.

A report released by TransAlta in January showed about 22 raptors were killed by wind turbines on Wolfe Island from July 1, 2009, to June 30, 2010.

The company pledged to find ways to reduce the raptor death count.

In the same time period, an estimated 1,151 birds were killed along with 1,720 bats.

Hennige said that from his recent observations, it appears all 10 of the resident red-tailed hawks were victims.

Despite all of the information gathered over the years by the Kingston Field Naturalists, he said, none of it was used by the companies that sited the wind turbines.

Hennige suspects that the staggered alignment of the 80-metre towers, with their 93-metre diameter blades, has contributed to the large hawk kill numbers.

"If the whole population is gone, to me that's pretty bad. Maybe with good placement of the windmills it could have been avoided," he said.

Hennige believes it's possible for industry and scientists to work together to avoid similar environmental degradation.

He holds up his own special project, reclaiming habitat in the Napanee area for the endangered loggerhead shrike, as a case in point.

When it was learned that solar electricity company SunEdison wanted to install a massive panel project in that area, Hennige and Wildlife Preservation Canada pushed the company to consider the shrikes' needs.

By avoiding a certain area of the property critical to its survival, the shrike appears to be thriving — growing from four pairs last year to seven this year.

"You can have solar farms and you can have shrikes," said Hennige. "It took a bit to get them convinced. We had to explain why they should not build on the front of the property.

"They often buy more land than they're using anyway."

Hennige said it will take further study to determine if the east end of Wolfe Island can sustain the short-eared owl population.

His concern is that Amherst Island, the other popular spot for the owls in this area, could also be threatened by a proposed wind farm there.

The eastern end of Lake Ontario, encompassing Kingston and the islands, is considered a globally significant migratory route.

"If you put a lot of windmills there, where can they go?" he asked.

"We have sensitive habitat that needs protecting. I have no issue with green technology, but it needs to be scientifically done."

IN SHEFFIELD, WIND OPPONENTS UPSET ABOUT EROSION

READ ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: The Chronicle, vdigger.org

May 13, 2011 by Chris Braithwaite of

Calling it “an obscene abuse of our environment,” Vermonters for a Clean Environment says erosion at the Sheffield wind energy development is threatening sensitive streams and their fish populations.

The group has posted dozens of photos, taken at the site over the past nine days, which it says document violations of a storm water runoff permit obtained by the developer, First Wind, from the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC).

The state says First Wind has not violated its permit. The developer is in the middle of constructing 16 turbines in Sheffield.

First Wind spokesman John Lamontagne says that when state inspectors visited the site Friday, May 6, “they were happy with the site and said it was in compliance with the permit.”

David Mears, the commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation, said he had a quick briefing Monday morning with department officials who inspected the site on Friday. He said the section of the site where gravel roads had been completed to wind turbine sites that had been cleared and leveled “appears to be fully compliant with the permit.”

In a second part of the site, Mears said, “they’re still doing forestry work, cutting the trees.”

That portion is subject to a lower level of storm water runoff regulation, Mears said, “the same as any forestry project.”

There are some deficiencies in that area, Mears said. “But none appeared to have resulted in any harm to the waters of the state.”

Some areas which posed a risk to streams were pointed out to a First Wind representative, who agreed to correct them, Mears said.

“We’ll continue to monitor and evaluate the site,” the commissioner added. But at the moment, he said, DEC plans no further action.

Annette Smith, the executive director of Vermonters for a Clean Environment said the photos show “hundreds and hundreds” of feet of roads that were never stabilized when the site was shut down last fall.

“We’re talking about multiple failures here,” she added. “The sediment is running off into trout streams.”

Paul Brouha of Sutton, a member of the Ridge Protectors, a group that opposed the wind project and fought the storm water runoff permit in the state Environmental Court, accused Mears of splitting hairs by distinguishing between First Wind’s finished site work and the logging portion of its operation.

Ridge Protectors is currently appealing the permit to the state Supreme Court.

“What we’re after here is natural resource protection,” Brouha said. “I would say there’s been a large amount of erosion, and water has carried that soil into the streams, especially the tributaries of Calendar Brook.”

“We’ve got resource damage,” Brouha continued, “and more will occur if the site is not stabilized. That sediment flows into the Calendar Brook Wildlife Management Area.”

Calendar Brook is a native brook trout fishery, Brouha said. “It will be affected by that sediment. Fish and vertebrate habitat will be reduced in quality and quantity.”

Smith said First Wind should be subject to the sort of fine imposed on Jay Peak in 2007, after heavy rains washed pollution into streams from a golf course the resort was building. After considerable negotiation with the state, Jay Peak agreed to a fine of $105,000.

ONTARIO GREEN PROJECT MAY KILL ENDANGERED SPECIES

READ FULL STORY AT THE SOURCE: CBC News, www.cbc.ca

May 13 2011

By Mike Crawley

What the company is applying for is a permit that would allow it to “kill, harm and harass” two endangered species — Blanding’s turtle and the whippoorwill.

A Toronto-based wind power company is proposing to build a green energy project on the shores of Lake Ontario, but building the project could threaten two endangered species.

Gilead Resources would have the legal right to kill the two species — if the province approves the new proposal.

What the company is applying for is a permit that would allow it to “kill, harm and harass” two endangered species — Blanding’s turtle and the whippoorwill.

Gilead wants to build a wind farm on the shoreline in Prince Edward County. But the location is designated an “important bird area” and the endangered turtle nests there, as well.

Anne Bell of Nature Ontario says her group supports green energy but only so far. “We have to keep good projects out of bad locations,” said Bell, “and this is exactly what we’ve got here.”

The final decision rests with Natural Resources Minister Linda Jeffrey who says that “for the most part we can find ways to mitigate around endangered species reasonably, so that the species continues, and continues to thrive.”

But Myrna Wood, a resident in nearby Picton says she “just cannot believe the government will do this. None of us here can, we’re all astounded.”

But Jeffery counters that the “ministry has to find a balance between protection and allowing economic development — no matter what the species.”

In an email statement the company says it will do its best to mitigate the harm to the birds and turtles. It says it will create new nesting habitat and will build the project in winter, when the wildlife aren’t around.

Next Story

CONSTANT NOISE OF OFFSHORE WIND FARMS MAY STRESS FISH

READ ENTIRE STORY AT SOURCE: New Scientist, www.newscientist.com

May 12, 2011 J

Jeff Hecht

Sonar’s effect on marine mammals has been a hot-button topic for years, and recent research shows that loud sounds damage the balance organs of cephalopods.

But we also should worry about the potential effect of lower-level, constant noise on fish, Arthur Popper of the University of Maryland in College Park will warn the Acoustical Society of America at a meeting in Seattle, Washington, later this month.

Navy sonar, acoustic guns used in seismic exploration and pile driving can produce sound levels of 180 decibels in water. These sounds can seriously affect nearby marine animals. For instance, injuries or distress caused by such intense sounds have been blamed for the beaching of cetaceans. They can also drive whales from their feeding grounds. But the loud noises don’t last long, so uninjured individuals can swim away until they stop.

But what if they don’t stop? This is Popper’s concern: the constant lower levels of noise from shipping or offshore wind farms can increase background noise by 10 decibels over a very large area. Although this noise is less intense than sonar, Popper says that long-term exposure to this constant rumble stresses fish. Experiments have shown that exposure to recorded ship noise increases levels of the stress hormone cortisol in fish.

The constant din may have other repercussions. Another experiment showed that recorded ship noise blocked Lusitanian toadfish from hearing sounds produced by others of their species. The extra noise can also prevent fish from hearing natural sounds that alert them to predators or prey.

Imagine living near a busy highway to understand how a busy shipping lane or an offshore wind farm might affect fish. Like highway noise, low-level machinery noise can be relentless.

The effects have not been well studied, but Popper suspects they may be serious. “It’s very hard to do experiments in the lab,” he told New Scientist, because the laboratory environment itself stresses fish enough to obscure the effects of several decibels of noise. He’s giving his talk primarily to increase awareness, he says. “We need to be doing some very critical experiments to understand long-term effects on animals on the wild.”

[Also see:  "Low-frequency sounds induce acoustic trauma in cephalopods" by Michel André, Marta Solé, Marc Lenoir, Mercè Durfort, Carme Quero, Alex Mas, Antoni Lombarte, Mike van der Schaar, Manel López-Bejar, Maria Morell, Serge Zaugg, and Ludwig Houégnigan, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2011, doi:10.1890/100124]

CONNECTICUT WIND PROSPECT DENIED

READ FULL STORY AT THE SOURCE: Citizen's Neews, www.mycitizensnews.com

May 12, 2011

by Laraine Weschler

NEW BRITAIN – After months of research and over $100,000 spent on legal fees and experts, the hard work has finally paid off for members of Save Prospect who fought to protect what they saw as their quality of life.

The Connecticut Siting Council voted 6-2 on May 12 to deny BNE Energy’s petition to build two 1.6 megawatt commercial wind turbines in Prospect.

Despite health and safety concerns from the project’s opponents, the decision turned on visual impacts.

The two, 463 foot turbines would be visible from 50 residences year-round and 248 residences seasonally.

“Given the mass of the turbine towers, the height of the turbine hubs, the height and rotation of the blades and lack of an effective means of visual mitigation, the Council finds a substantial adverse visual impact sufficient to deny the proposed project,” wrote the council in its opinion.

After the vote, opponents of the Wind Prospect project in the audience applauded.

“We’re very happy,” said Fred Bonyai, who lives near the proposed site. “I didn’t believe it would ever happen because I thought it was a done deal. I guess the council listened to us and the made the right decision.”

Tim Rielly, President of Save Prospect Corp. said the council did the right thing.

“It’s nice to see a small group of people who fight for their cause against big government and end up winning,” Reilly said.

He said he looked forward to being able to hang out in his back yard and leave the windows open at night without having to worry about the noise and sight of the turbines.

“To us now, the American dream is still alive,” Reilly said.

Rich Sargeant, who lives about 1,700 feet away from the site on Radio Tower Road, said it was astonishing to see a simulation of how big the turbines would look from his front door.

“We’re not looking to stop wind energy in Connecticut. We just want to have it done correctly so people aren’t adversely affected,” Sargeant said.

Even though the council sited visual impact as the main reason they denied the petition, Reilly said he still believes that noise could have a health impact.

Sargeant agreed that the noise was still a big concern. He said he didn’t believe BNE’s noise studies were very accurate, especially at night, when the wind blows the hardest and people are trying to sleep.

Sargeant said the site tour and listening to residents at public hearings in Prospect had a big impact on the council’s decision.

Representatives from BNE said they were disappointed with the council’s decision.

“It’s troubling that the Siting Council would shoot down a wind project because people don’t want to see them off in the distance,” said BNE Chairman Paul Corey.

BNE President and CEO Gregory Zupkus said the council’s decision was a major blow to the future of wind energy in Connecticut.

“This is a real bad message sent to renewable energy,” Zupkus said.

Even though the Prospect project was denied, Zupkus said he is still optimistic that his company’s two other petitions for wind projects in Colebrook will be accepted.

“There’s no denying that wind energy is the right energy source for the future. The question just becomes is whether Connecticut can accept it and make it a part of Connecticut’s future.”

After over 250 fact findings in favor of the project, Zupkus said it was a shame it was rejected because people don’t want to look at the turbines.

Zupkus, who lives in Prospect, said many of his neighbors supported the project.

“This is just a small NIMBY anti-wind crowd that disagree with it,” Zupkus said.

BNE representatives said they didn’t want to comment on whether they would appeal the case.

Several members of the council expressed their understanding of the complexities of the issue and difficulty in making a decision.

They said their decision only applied to the unique characteristics of the Prospect proposal.

“I don’t want this to be an end of wind turbine projects in Connecticut,” said council member Daniel Lynch.

Brian Golembiewski, designee of the Department of Environmental Protection, said a smaller scale project could still be viable on the site.
One of two dissenting voters, Ken Braffman, designee of Department of Public Utility Control, said the proposal is in accordance with the law as it is now, even if it’s not how the council wished it would be.

The other dissenting vote, Council Chair Robert Stein said that the issues and resident’s concerns have to be balance against legal requirements.

“I feel this project should be approved,” he said.

He said he looked at whom and what the Council was trying to protect, how serious the issues were, how many people would be impacted, how frequently, and what mitigation was possible.

In the case of ice throw, Stein said that although it was a potentially serious threat, mitigation made the likelihood of it hurting anyone highly improbable.

The council found that the project would not produce any air emissions or greenhouse gas, have no adverse impact on water quality, would not disturb wetlands and would not adversely impact birds. In the council’s opinion, shadow flicker is a potential annoyance rather than a health threat and could be mitigated using greenery and blinds.

The council’s opinion did state that noise is a serious concern, but that the project would meet Connecticut DEP allowable limits. However, the council noted that some health professionals are challenging the adequacy of state regulations and that mitigation of noise issues would be difficult and costly.

After brushing aside most of the issues brought up in the case, they only one left was visual impact. The council found that the turbines would be visible from many homes and attract attention because of their movement. Although BNE said it would plant trees along the property line to help shield the sight of the turbines from their neighbors, the council found such mitigation would not be effective.

Stein said that even though some people had described the turbines’ size as monstrous, visual impact does not affect health or safety.

On the other side, council member Philip Ashton said he was very worried about the impact of the turbines on surrounding neighborhoods. He said he was very much aware of the precedent the council would be setting in the Wind Prospect decision.

“We all felt an obligation to do it right the first time,” Ashton said.

Council Vice-Chair Colin Tait recused himself from the vote as per BNE’s request because he is involved in a group opposed to the wind projects in Colebrook. He said he had been impartial, but wanted to avoid any appearance of impropriety.

Another request for Council Chair Robert Stein to abstain because he came into the process late, replacing former Chair Daniel Caruso, was denied. Stein said he’d done his homework, read all the transcripts, and did not have any pre-judge position.



NEXTERA SAYS BROKEN WIND TURBINE BLADE REMOVED

READ ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: DAILY CHRONICLE. COM

May 6, 2011

By Caitlin Mullen

SHABBONA – Officials with NextEra Energy said a broken blade on a wind turbine has been removed and the cause of the shattered blade will be investigated. With weight limits on county and township roads this spring, NextEra spokesman Steve Stengel said Thursday that the company had to wait until those weight postings were removed before a large truck with a crane could drive on the roads to get to the blade, at Shabbona Road between Keslinger and Gurler roads.

The DeKalb County Highway Department removed its spring road posting signs for county roads April 8, which had restricted traffic weighing more than 33,000 pounds, County Engineer Bill Lorence said.

Stengel, who said broken blades occur occasionally, with one happening in May 2010, said the blade was removed in the last 1½ weeks. It shattered in mid-March. The company has operated 145 turbines in DeKalb and Lee counties since late 2009. A group of local residents called Citizens for Open Government is opposed to the wind farm and is suing to have it shut down

DOCTOR'S CALL: STOP WIND FARM CONSTRUCTION

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE AT SOURCE: Stock & Land, sl.farmonline.com.au

May 6, 2011

Alan Dick

A doctor campaigning on the claimed health impacts of wind farms has called for a halt to construction of wind turbines within 10 kilometres of housing until independent research is conducted.

She said research was needed, particularly on the impact of infrasound – sound below the level of normal human hearing.

Dr Sarah Laurie, medical director at the Waubra Foundation, made the call in her submission to the inquiry by the Senate Community Affairs Committee into the social and economic impact of rural wind farms.

(The Waubra Foundation was formed to generate independent research on the health effects of wind farms, in response to reported problems associated with the Waubra wind farm near Ballarat, Victoria.)

The inquiry has received almost 900 submissions and become a battleground of competing views on the value of and need for wind farms and on health impacts.

Many submissions from landholders speak of negative health effects.

But other landholders, wind farm developers and “green” organisations have talked up the need for wind farms as alternatives to burning of fossil fuels in electricity generation, and some landholders hosting wind turbines have emphasised their benign nature and the importance of the guaranteed income they provide.

Dr Laurie told the committee numerous doctors around the world who had conducted studies on their patient populations had reported health problems since wind farms started operating near their homes.

“There is absolutely no doubt these turbines, particularly at some developments, are making nearby residents very sick, and that their symptoms worsen over time.”

“This is resulting in people abandoning their homes and farms, if they can afford to.”

Dr Laurie said the “strong hypothesis” among concerned doctors, acousticians, physiologists, physicists, psychologists and others around the world was that one of the mechanisms causing ill health was low frequency sound and infrasound.

She said episodes of sleep disturbance and waking in a panicked state were being experienced by people living up to 10 kilometres from existing wind developments in South Australia and NSW.

She said research was needed to measure infrasound concurrent with indices such as sleep and blood pressure in affected residents when turbines were operating, and to compare results when the turbines were not operating.

However, wind farm companies and others, including the Australian Psychological Society, have dismissed suggestions of negative health effects from wind farms.

The latter in its submission said the Senate committee should take into consideration the “robust evidence base” which suggested wind farms did not present any major health risk,

The APS said local opposition to wind farms could be understood in terms of “place protective action”, and recommended use of “psychological principles” to explain and promote the benefits of wind farms.

The NSW Government in its submission said the World Health organisation had concluded there was no reliable evidence that sounds beneath the hearing threshold produced physiological or psychological effects.

Next story

KIRKCALDY TURBINES COULD FORCE CLUNY FALCONRY TO CLOSE ITS DOORS

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE AT THE SOURCE: The Courier, www.thecourier.co.uk

May 6, 2011

By Charlene Wilson,

A Fife falconry could be forced to close if plans for three wind turbines on the outskirts of Kirkcaldy take flight.

Robin Manson, who works at Elite Falconry, which has been based at Cluny since 1998, said the business would not survive if the plan goes ahead, as the area would no longer be safe for the facility’s 37 birds to take to the skies.

The proposals for three 300ft wind turbines at Begg Farm, on an area of land parallel to the A92, have yet to be submitted to Fife Council but were brought to the attention of Mr Manson and Elite Falconry owners Roxanne Peggie and Barry Blyther by concerned community council members.

Mr Manson said, “We feel quite let down because the company behind the proposal, I and H Brown Ltd, have not given us any information about it or made contact with us about these plans yet they are planning on doing something pretty much on our doorstep that they must realise will be at the detriment of our business.

“Here at our centre we train hawks, falcons, eagles, vultures and owls to fly and behave in a trained and controlled state while retaining their natural instincts and behaviour, however they will simply not be able to fly if there are wind turbines nearby — it would be too dangerous for them because when a bird flies into a turbine, it is sure to either die instantly or suffer a slow, agonising death.

“We take great pride in our work at the centre and when you have birds worth potentially around £6000 it’s simply not an option for them to fly near such a dangerous hazard.”

Mr Manson said although the safety of the birds is his main concern, he also thinks the turbines would be a blight on the town’s landscape.

He said, “I’ve seen a computer-generated image of what they are expected to look like and they completely dominate the skyline of Kirkcaldy and basically just look like an eyesore.

“I am actually a qualified architect and did some investigations into wind turbines as part of my studies and I know that to put three on the site in question would be of no benefit to the community, only the landowner.

‘Hard to recycle’

“I’ve done a lot of research on the issue and when wind turbines first came out 10-15 years ago in places like Germany they were very popular, however now the same people who put them up are taking them down as it has come to light that, ironically, they could be bad for the environment long-term due to the material they are made of being very hard to recycle.”

“Also they only last for around 20 years and are very expensive to manufacture so it takes a long time before any profit is made on each one, which, it could be argued, almost defeats the purpose.

“The bottom line is Elite Falconry has been here for 13 years and we have built up a good reputation in the area but if these turbines go up, we will be forced to close.”

As well as visiting schools and putting on displays, the centre has the responsibility of trying to breed golden eagles by mating its two resident birds — among only a handful in the UK able to breed naturally.

There are also other birds in breeding programmes, with the latest egg hatching being that of a tiny baby falcon, and eight great grey owl eggs due to hatch in a month.

A spokesman for I and H Brown Ltd said they welcomed public feedback regarding their plans and that ornithology would be one of a range of subjects covered and taken into account in their environmental impact assessment.

Next Story

LAWSUIT CONTENDS VESTAS MISLEAD IN FINANCIAL REPORTS

READ ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: Northern Colorado Business Report, www.ncbr.com

May 6, 2011

By Steve Porter

The lawsuit, filed March 18, alleges that four of Vestas’ top officers – Bent Erik Carlsen, chairman of the board; Ditlev Engel, president and CEO; Henrik Norremark, executive vice president and CFO; and Martha Wyrsch, president of Vestas Americas – deliberately made false and misleading statements in press releases and financial reports.

DENVER – Vestas Wind Systems, one of Northern Colorado’s biggest employers with manufacturing facilities in Windsor and Brighton and another in Pueblo, is facing a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Denver over accounting practices.

The suit alleges the company posted misleading information about its 2010 earnings that resulted in financial losses to pension fund investors and others who purchased Vestas stock based on the information.

The lawsuit was filed by the City of Sterling Heights (Mich.) General Employees’ Retirement System and accuses Vestas and some of its chief officers and directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The suit alleges that, during the “class period” between Oct. 27, 2009, and Oct. 25, 2010, the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the company’s financial revenues and earnings, as well as its fiscal year 2010 financial guidance.

As a result of those alleged actions, the lawsuit contends that Vestas’ American Depository Receipts and ordinary shares traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the time period.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages to be determined by the court. Attorneys for the plaintiffs are seeking other Vestas investors who purchased securities during the class period to join in the suit.

Those involved with filing the lawsuit, including Darren Robbins of San Diego-based Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, did not return telephone calls for this story. Walt Hessel, pension fund administrator for the City of Sterling Heights, about 20 miles northeast of Detroit, also declined to comment.
“We have ongoing litigation so it’s not appropriate for us to comment at all,” Hessel said, although he did acknowledge that about 500 active and retired employees are included in the pension fund.

Chief officers singled out

The lawsuit, filed March 18, alleges that four of Vestas’ top officers – Bent Erik Carlsen, chairman of the board; Ditlev Engel, president and CEO; Henrik Norremark, executive vice president and CFO; and Martha Wyrsch, president of Vestas Americas – deliberately made false and misleading statements in press releases and financial reports.

“These claims are asserted against Vestas and its officers and chairman of the board who disseminated materially false and misleading statements during the class period in the company’s financial reports, press releases and analyst conference calls,” the lawsuit states.

“Because of their positions with the company, and their access to material non-public information available to them but not to the public, the individual defendants knew that the adverse facts alleged herein had not been disclosed to, and were being concealed from, market participants and that the positive representations being made were then materially false and misleading,” the suit further states.

According to the suit, Vestas failed to implement a new accounting policy that was to go into effect no later than Jan. 1, 2010. It would no longer allow the company to recognize revenues from wind projects that were contracted or under construction but instead must be deferred until the installation was complete.

The new policy, known as IFRIC 15, was not implemented by Vestas until Nov. 22, the suit alleges.

The suit states that on Aug. 17, Vestas issued its second quarter 2010 results and “downwardly revised its 2010 financial outlook for revenue and earnings, admitting that hundreds of millions of Euros of wind systems contracts expected to be recognized in 2010 – particularly in the United States – must be deferred.”

“As such, the company decreased its 2010 revenue guidelines from $7 billion Euros to $6 billion” Euros because “revenue associated with firm and unconditional orders could not be recognized during fiscal 2010,” according to the suit. It also noted that market reaction to the Aug. 17 disclosure was “swift and punitive,” with the value of both its ADRs and ordinary shares dropping by 22.5 percent in one day.

Defendants benefitted?

The lawsuit further alleges Vestas admitted on Oct. 26 that it had failed to implement IFRIC 15 and that its 2010 financial statement would require corrective action.

The suit says that “after defendants’ fraud was revealed and absorbed by the market, investors sold their Vestas securities in mass, reducing the price of the company’s securities by 57 percent from their class period high.”

The lawsuit contends that the actions by Vestas’ officers “allowed the top officers and director of Vestas to obtain millions of Euros in salary and incentive-based compensation during the class period.”

Vestas spokesman Peter Kruse issued a statement saying the company would fight the lawsuit. “The company has reviewed the complaint with its legal and other advisers and believes that the complaint is without merit. The company and the individual defendants intend to defend themselves vigorously.”

When called for a follow-up comment, Kruse said he had “nothing to add to the statement of March 21.”

As of May 2, Vestas had not filed a reply to the lawsuit.

Vestas reported in February that it had received a total of 15 North American orders for wind turbines in 2010, a record for the company that employs about 1,600 people in Colorado.

WIND GENERATORS STILL CAUSING PROBLEMS

SOURCE Fond du Lac Reporter, www.fdlreporter.com

April 14, 2011

I live about 2,100 feet from a wind generator and had experienced interference on my television as soon as it went into operation.

Cedar Ridge Wind Farm made arrangements to remedy the interference. I was given two years of basic Satellite TV service at no cost.

Then, I received a notice that Alliant, owners of the wind farm, had decided to grant us compensation equal to the cost of getting only the Green Bay local channels. All I needed to do was to sign a “Release of Claim,” which states in part “the undersigned… hereby fully and forever releases and discharges Wisconsin Power and Light … from any and all claims, demands, actions and/or rights … arising from…”

The three paragraphs protect Alliant forever in every way from any future actions. There is no mention of what we might expect in the coming years.

Does this sound like a good faith effort to correct a wrong done to those of us who have no commercial interest in the wind farms?

Feeling put upon by Alliant following both written and oral communications with their representative, last February I proceeded to contact my local Assembly representative, Richard Spanbauer. I received a letter from him stating, “The Joint Rules Committee recently held a public hearing about the proposed rules changes.”

He offered no suggestions regarding the restraints Alliant is imposing upon us.

Sensing that I might get a better response from our native son, U.S. Rep. Tom Petri, I delivered copies of all correspondence to his office in Fond du Lac. No response. I sent an email to him reminding him of my concern. No response.

I suppose my next attempt at obtaining fair treatment from Alliant would be to file a class action. Why must it come to that?

Allan Loehndorf

Town of Empire

FOREST RESIDENTS CONTINUE FEUD OVER WIND TURBINES

SOURCE: Pierce County Herald, www.piercecountyherald.com

April 14, 2011

Jeff Holmquist

The Town of Forest has been a quiet, rural community for much of its long history. But these days there is an atmosphere of unrest throughout the township, thanks in part to a proposed wind farm proposal that has been debated over the past couple years.

Supporters of the wind energy idea and opponents have been feuding over an agreement with Emerging Energies LLC to place up to 39 wind turbines on private properties. The agreement would pay landowners and residents within a half mile of each turbine an annual payment. The township and county would also have received annual payments.

“Residents and landowners are either for or against this,” said Jaime Junker, newly elected town board chairman. “There really is no in between ground. The division line is fairly well divided between people who would get compensated by the project and those who would not.”

Emerging Energies has been studying wind speeds in the St. Croix County township for more than two years. The Forest area was found to be a favorable location for large wind turbines due to sustained winds in the area.

The company’s research shows that average wind speeds are about 16 to 17 mph, which is sufficient to turn a large turbine and thus generate electricity.

According to the original plans, the turbine system would have been hooked up to a new or existing electric substation and the power would have ended up on the grid.

While there was support for the idea among some residents and the Forest Town Board during the initial planning stages, a number of residents are less than happy with the project.

A citizens group, called the “Forest Voice,” formed in an attempt to stop the project from moving forward.

The group filed a federal lawsuit on Feb. 9, 2011, claiming that the Town Board had bypassed open meeting law requirements to push through an agreement with Emerging Energies. The group also claimed that several board members should not have participated in the vote for the wind farm plan as they or their relatives stood to gain financially from the project.

The disgruntled Town of Forest residents also petitioned for a recall election of the former town board members. All of the challengers eventually won election to the board. The support of the majority of the residents was reaffirmed last Tuesday when wind turbine opponent Jaime Junker was re-elected as town chairman, and newly elected Patrick Scepurek and Richard Steinberger were returned to their supervisor positions.

After gaining office, the new board members voted on March 17 to rescind the wind energy development agreements, driveway permits and other approvals that had been granted to a wind developer. The board also approved a temporary stay on the location and construction of the turbines in the township.

According Forest Voice’s Attorney Glenn Stoddard, most Town of Forest residents were “completely unaware” that the former town board members had approved an agreement in 2008 and another one on Aug. 12, 2010, to proceed with the proposed wind energy project.

A postcard announcing the project was the first many heard about the plan, he claimed.

No public hearing was ever held by the defendants during a three-year development period, he further claimed.

The opponents of the wind project allege that the proposed wind energy project would destroy their quality of life and have adverse health and safety impacts on them.

Despite the fact that the agreements have been rescinded and the town board has been replaced, Stoddard said the federal lawsuit is likely to continue. He said Emerging Energies has indicated that it may seek legal action in an effort to continue with the previously approved project.

Officials with Emerging Energies did not want to comment on the Forest project when contacted.

Junker said many expect the company to seek a legal opinion in the matter.

“Now it’s pretty much a wait and see situation,” he said. “It’s hard to predict what the short term future is going to be.”

Whatever the future holds, residents on both sides of the issue say they are frustrated by the continuing feud over wind turbines.

“What has happened in our township is heartbreaking and has left many residents feeling betrayed,” said Brenda Salseg, a property owner and managing member of the Forest Voice LLC.

“Those of us who researched industrial wind turbines found disturbing evidence of health, safety and property devaluation issues associated with so-called wind farms when turbines are sited too close to homes. It’s all about what is profitable rather than responsible, which is what I thought green energy is supposed to be.”

Salseg said it’s unfair to force wind turbine opponents to live near such a large project.

“The statement we continually hear that wind energy is green, clean and renewable is nothing more than deception,” she said.

Gary Heinbuch, who continues to be a supporter of the wind project, said the atmosphere in Forest is now “as foul as can be.”

“It’s neighbor against neighbor. It’s niece against uncle,” he said. “I never thought it would get this bad.”

Rick Heibel, 53, who signed an agreement to have three turbines sited on his 240 acres, agreed.

“It’s gotten way more heated than I ever thought it would,” he said. “I never thought it would get this divisive.”

Heibel, who has lived his entire life on the farm that was first settled by his grandfather 99 years ago, said he remains convinced that the wind project would be good for him and for the town.

The annual payments to landowners and local units of government would mean a lot, he said.

“It would greatly enhance my retirement,” Heibel said. “Right now, my retirement is Social Security. All my savings is in my land, and I don’t want to sell my land. It would make my standard of living more comfortable.”

Apart from the financial benefits, Heibel said wind generation just makes sense.

He said all energy generation methods have their drawbacks. The burning of coal contributes to global warming and the mining of coal harms the land, he noted. With the ongoing disaster in Japan, Heibel wonders if more nuclear plants are a good idea. Even natural gas has its problems, he added.

“With wind, I think it’s one of the least damaging forms of generation as far as the environment goes,” he said.

Next Story

BPA, WIND DEVELOPERS ARGUE OVER LOOMING PROBLEM OF TOO MUCH POWER FROM RENEWABLES

SOURCE: The Oregonian, www.oregonlive.com

April 14 2011

By Ted Sickinger,

Under pressure from wind developers and investor-owned utilities around the region, the Bonneville Power Administration this week backed away from a plan to start pulling the plug on wind turbines when it has too much water and wind energy at the same time.

BPA Administrator Steve Wright is still reviewing a controversial plan to occasionally “curtail” wind farms in the region, a move the federal power-marketing agency has said is necessary to maintain grid reliability, protect migrating salmon and avoid passing big costs onto its public utility customers.

Wind developers and utilities who buy their output say such shutdowns are discriminatory, will breach transmission agreements and compromise wind-farm economics because the projects rely on lucrative production tax credits and the sale of renewable energy credits that are generated only when turbine blades are spinning.

They also maintain the plan is simply unnecessary, a sop to public utility customers that can be solved by other means.

In one sense, the debate is simply the latest wrinkle in the perennial debate over who should bear the costs and benefits of operating the federal hydroelectric dams and transmission system. But it illustrates the growing complexity of integrating into the grid intermittent sources of renewable energy.

“This is going to be a major issue for the region,” said John Saven, chief executive of the Northwest Requirements Utilities, a trade group representing 50 public utilities that buy their power from the BPA. “We’re in the first inning.”

The capacity of wind farms connected to the BPA’s transmission network has ballooned from 250 megawatts in 2005 to more than 3,500 today and is expected to double again in the next two years. That outstrips demand growth in the region and is being driven in large part by California utilities, which are required to meet a third of their customers’ electricity needs with renewables by 2020.

Oregon and Washington have their own mandates, but more than half the wind power generated in the Northwest is sold under long-term contact to California. Congested transmission often means the only things exported are the associated renewable energy certificates that buyers use to comply with state mandates. The electricity often stays in the region, dumped into this region’s wholesale market, depressing prices for electricity from all sources.

Grid balance

The BPA, which operates 75 percent of the high-voltage transmission grid in the region, is responsible for balancing the minute-to-minute variations in supply and demand on the grid. The agency says growing wind capacity requires it to reserve more of its hydro generation as backup reserves, either to fill in for scheduled electricity when the wind isn’t blowing or back off hydro production when wind-farm output is higher than scheduled.

The BPA charges wind farms for that flexibility. But it says there’s only so much it can absorb before those reserves start to compromise regular operations.

Overgeneration typically occurs in the spring and early summer, when snow runoff and heavy rains combine to increase hydro generation and the same storm fronts rapidly ramp wind turbines. The BPA says the dam operators have only limited flexibility to dial back hydro generation to accommodate wind surges because dumping water through the dams’ spillways raises dissolved nitrogen levels in the river, which can harm migrating fish.

The result, BPA officials say, is that the agency is left with more power than regional customers need or that an already congested transmission system can ship out of the region.

“Eventually, you just run out of places to put it,” said Doug Johnson, a BPA spokesman.

Long-term fixes

The BPA has worked during the past two years — some say been pushed and dragged — to accommodate more wind by improving forecasting and transmission scheduling. Adding transmission or new storage is a potential solution, as is transferring the responsibility for balancing some of the variable supply and demand to other utilities. But those are expensive, long-term fixes.

Meanwhile, new wind farms keep mushrooming on the Columbia Plateau, exacerbating the problem. Last June, high wind and water nearly forced the BPA into “negative pricing,” when it is forced to pay utilities and independent power producers in the region to shut down their plants and take BPA power instead.

That’s expensive for wind farms, where the cost of curtailment is not just replacement power, but the loss of production tax credits and renewable energy tags they generate when operating. The BPA recently estimated the combined impact at $37 a megawatt hour.

That’s not a price the BPA or its public utility customers want to pay.

Wind producers are the Johnnys-come-lately to the Northwest’s energy scene. But they argue that any move to single them out and curtail their production is discriminatory and violates the equal-access provisions of the laws governing the federal transmission system.

They have the support of Oregon’s Rep. Earl Blumenauer and Sen. Jeff Merkley, two Democrats who have criticized the agency in the past for dragging its feet on wind issues.

The BPA has backed away from formally implementing the wind-curtailment plan, a move that renewables advocates applauded. But it hasn’t come up with an alternative.

Next Story

BIRDS & BATS VS BLADES

SOURCE: Prince George Free Press, www.bclocalnews.com

April 14 2011

By Allan Wishart -

What happens when a bird or a bat gets involved with a wind turbine?

It’s not usually a good result for the animal, UNBC instructor Ken Otter told a Cafe Scientifique audience at Cafe Voltaire on Wednesday evening.

Otter, an instructor in the ecosystem science and management program, said people have been researching the idea that wind farms and birds have a collision problem.

“Most research suggests the problem is not much worse than with other tall structures, such as high-rise buildings or radio towers,” he said in an interview with the Free Press, “but certain species seem at a higher risk.”

Most of the at-risk species are migratory birds, which may encounter the turbines on their regular route, and “soaring” birds.

“These are species which make use of a lot of updrafts when they’re flying, birds like hawks or eagles and cranes.”

With the wind-farm technology still relatively new in Canada, the opportunity is there to work with industry to make it as safe as possible for the animals, he said.

“What we’re finding s it doesn’t take much to make the farms safer for birds. A lot of it is looking at weather patterns.”

Generally, he said, the birds are flying at elevations well above the turbines. Sometimes, however, a weather pattern will push them lower, to where they may be at risk.

“We can plot out the tracks of their migrations and see how they use the ridges and rises. That allows us to predict where the patterns will occur, and we can get very specific information.”

How specific? Otter says in some cases it could be a question of just idling one turbine in a group for a few minutes to allow a flock of birds to get by.

“Most of the turbines can be idled in about two minutes. It might just be a question of having someone out there to keep an eye on the conditions and, if needed, call back to the main operation and ask them to shut one of the turbines down for a few minutes.”

Otter said a University of Calgary study found bats ran into a different problem when it came to wind turbines.

“They have very thin walls in their lungs, and a lot of capillaries to distribute the blood. the study found groups of sometimes hundreds of bats dead near a turbine, but with no contusions on their body to indicate they had been hit by one of the vanes.”

Autopsies showed the capillaries had burst inside the bats. This led researchers to take a look at how the turbines affected wind pressure in their area.

“What happens with any fan is there is a low-pressure area created right behind the vanes. The bats were coming into this area, and their capillaries were bursting because of the sudden drop in pressure.”

Again, the solution may be as simple as varying the speed the vanes turn at to ease the drop in pressure.

And, he says, the industry seems to be willing to look at making these changes.

“We’re working with them, showing them how these small changes can keep the birds and bats safe, and they’re listening.”