Entries in glacier hills (5)
5/22/10 TRIPLE FEATURE PSC, WSC and Hearings AND Columbia County, wind turbines and farmland preservation AND Tornados, doppler radar and wind farms.
The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin will hold hearings in June on proposed wind farm siting rules that ultimately will provide uniform statewide standards.
The Legislature created a PSC council to develop the rules. Local political bodies cannot develop regulations that are more restrictive.
The proposed wind siting rules are filed electronically under case number 1-AC-231 at the PSC Web site, http://psc.wi/gov, under the Electronic Regulatory Filing System (ERF).
Public hearings are scheduled for June 28 at Fond du Lac City Hall; June 29 at the Holiday Inn in Tomah; and June 30 at the PSC headquarters, 610 N. Whitney Way, Madison.
Public comments should be mailed to Sandra J. Paske, PSC, P.O. Box 7854, Madison, WI 53707-7854 or faxed to (608) 266-3957. Written comments must be received by noon July 6 if faxed or by July 7 if mailed. All written comments must include a reference to docket 1-AC-231 and filed via one one form of communication.Questions should be directed to docket coordinator Deborah Erwin at (608) 266-3905 or deborah.erwin@wisconsin.gov. Small business questions may be directed to Anne Vandervort at (608)
SECOND FEATURE:
Columbia County Gives Wind Energy a Nod
SOURCE Capital Newspapers, www.wiscnews.com
May 21 2010
By LYN JERDE,
PORTAGE – The Columbia County Board of Supervisors offered tepid approval Wednesday to a resolution declaring electricity-generating wind turbines on five parcels of farmland are in keeping with the landowners’ farmland preservation agreements with the state.
But the non-unanimous voice vote assent didn’t come without questions about the effects of the turbines on farming, and about how the county’s approval or disapproval of the resolution might affect the future of what could soon be the state’s largest wind energy farm.
We Energies plans to build Glacier Hills Energy Park, beginning this spring, on leased farmland in the towns of Randolph and Scott. Plans call for up to 90 wind turbines, capable of generating up to 207 megawatts of electricity.
Five of the parcels leased for turbine locations – four in the town of Randolph, one in the town of Scott – are subject to farmland preservation agreements with the state.
The intent of the resolution was to declare the county’s conclusion that locating a turbine on the land is not inconsistent with the agreement that the land must continue to be used for agricultural purposes.
But why, asked Supervisor Debra Wopat of Rio, is Columbia County even addressing this issue?
The towns of Randolph and Scott are not covered under the county’s zoning ordinances. And the farmland preservation agreements, she said, are between the landowners and the state’s Department of Agriculture Trade and Consumer Protection.
Kurt Calkins, director of Columbia County’s land and water conservation department, said it was the county board that originally approved forwarding the farmland preservation agreements to the state – so the County Board has to authorize a change in the agreement to reflect the presence of the windmills. The DATCP will agree that the windmills do not impede agricultural use of the land if the county also agrees to that, he said.
“The real question is, do you deem them consistent with agricultural use? That’s the question the state has asked us to answer,” Calkins said.
Supervisor Fred Teitgen of rural Poynette questioned whether the turbines are good for rural areas.
“There are problems with large wind turbine systems, especially with noise and shadow flicker,” he said.
That was why Teitgen proposed amending the resolution to say, “Columbia County believes [that] a wind turbine structure may not (instead of will not) conflict with continued agricultural use in the area,”
He also proposed adding to the resolution a condition that the turbines should be sited properly in accordance with Wisconsin Public Service Commission standards and local requirements.
This amendment failed on a voice vote.
Supervisor Brian Landers of Wisconsin Dells said he was concerned that the revision might imply that the county can or should provide oversight for the construction of the We Energies turbines. If that’s the case, Landers asked, then which department would be responsible for the oversight, and at what cost to the county?
“I would be hesitant to add language that we somehow have a governance of this if we don’t have the legal authority to do so,” Landers said.
When Supervisor John Tramburg of Fall River asked how much farmland would be consumed by the turbines and related structures such as roads, Walter “Doc” Musekamp of We Energies said that, among the five land tracts in question, a total of 3.4 acres would be taken out of production for roads and foundations.
Construction of the roads and other ancillary structures is expected to start this spring.
THIRD FEATURE
Wind Farms vs. Doppler Radar
SOURCE: WMBD/WYZZ Chief Meteorologist Marcus Bailey
Lincoln - Last year a weak tornado touch-downed near Holder in eastern McLean county. That's near the Twin Groves wind farm, one of the largest in the state.
Chris Miller, Warning Coordinating Meteorologist for the National Weather Service in Lincoln explains what happened next.
"When that storm enter the wind farm area, because the rotation was weak we lost that signature as it went through the wind farm." Says Miller. "We had to rely strictly on storm spotter reports in the area."
Here's the concern: The Doppler Radar beam hits the blades on a wind farm tower, causing interference. That interference looks similar to a thunderstorm. Current Doppler Radar uses software to filter out objects that are stationary, but rotating wind tower blades are an issue.
"We don't want to eliminate actual moving storms, but somehow the Radar would need to decide in what area the wind turbines are located and how fast they're moving and then try to remove some of that." Says Miller. "That's a very difficult problem to try to do software related."
This isn't an issue when the weather is fair; but when severe weather approaches or moves over a wind farm, meteorologists may not be able to pick out certain features; most specifically tornadoes.
There are two wind farms that impact the Doppler Radar in Lincoln. Railsplitter in southern Tazewell and northern Logan counties is the closest and most commonly seen on Radar. A proposed wind farm may be built in western Logan county, which could also affect Radar images once completed.
So what's next? National Weather Service officials are educating wind farm developers on their potential impact on Doppler Radar.
"There is open dialog for the wind farm developers, but if anything we just want to educate them on what some of the concerns are." Says Miller. "Hopefully we have future discussions about what can be done to help mitigate the problem."
Tom Vinson, Director of Federal Regulatory Affairs with the American Wind Energy Association says wind developers are in discussions with the National Weather Service on this matter. The Association hope that the Weather Service can develop software to take care of the problem.
"The preference on the industry side would be for a technical solution that would resolve the problem without having to necessarily give up energy production at certain times." Says Vinson. "It's certainly something that should be discussed but it's not something that we have definite agreement on today."
We contacted Horizon Wind Energy, the owner of the Railsplitter wind farm. They had no comment on our story. Oklahoma University scientists are conducting studies on the issue.
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Columbia County, We Energies, Wind farm, Wind farm health effects, glacier hills, wind farm contract, wind farm host, wind farm land, wind farm noise, wind farm property values, wind farm shadow flicker, wind wisconsin
|
Comments Off
2/25/10 Wind Project Picture of the day AND Knock Knock. Who's there? It's the same We Energies representative you've already said no to three times this week AND What about that meeting in Brown County?
Home in a Wisconsin wind project. Fond du Lac County 2009
Construction of Wisconsin's largest wind farm put on hold as WEPCO struggles to find willing landowners: use of eminent domain may be only option.
A resident in Columbia county has contacted Better Plan to say We Energies representatives are scrambling to find enough landowners willing to sign the easements needed to begin construction on the Glacier Hills wind project which is set to occupy the Columbia County Towns of Randolph and Scott. The 90 turbine project which was recently approved by the Public Service Commission, would be the largest in the state.
We Energies representatives are reportedly offering residents a signing bonus of $5000 for completion of contract paperwork by February 28th. The contracts offer landowners a yearly payment of $2,000 with a 2% annual increase. Residents report these numbers can vary widely depending on the importance of a particular easement to the project.
The easements would give We Energies permission to create turbine noise that will exceed the limits set for homes by the PSC. The easements would also allow such things as trenching for laying cables and transmission lines needed to connect the turbines along with other rights We Energies may need. The duration of a contract of this sort is usually a minimum of 40 years and runs with the land.
Some residents who have refused to sign contracts say they are still being hounded by We Energies representatives who won’t take no for an answer.
“They’ve tried to make contact with me three times already in the last several days” says Kristine Novak, whose home would be inside of the project. “They are going house to house.”
We Energies representatives may not find a lot of welcoming faces in a sharply divded community still reeling from the PSC’s decision to approve the project.
“I guess the best way to describe the feeling in the area is shock,” said the resident who wished to remain anonymous. “Hard feelings that developed earlier have now become worse.”
Those hard feelings may well extend to the We Energies Representatives who are now desperate to make deals. Says the resident, “Landowners are telling them to ‘get the hell off my property.”
He believes the tension in the community is so high that should We Energies decide to force the project through by use of eminent domain the consequences would be serious. “People around here will only take so much,” he said.
Better Plan invites residents affected by the Glacier Hills wind project to contact us with their stories.
We hope reporters in our state will follow up on this news-tip and find out more.
SECOND FEATURE:
Public Airs Concerns and Support at Wind Energy Meeting
Feb 19, 2010A Chicago company wants to build wind turbines on towers 400 feet tall in southern Brown County, using private land in Morrison, Hollandtown, Wrightstown, and Glenmore. If it's fully realized, it would become the largest wind farm in the state.
Those fighting the project held an informational meeting Thursday night, and hundreds showed up. Emotions ran high in the meeting.
"This is an industrial factory that's being dropped over some of the best farm land in Brown County," Sandra Johnson said.
"Wind is a good thing. I'm not against wind energy, we're just against the locations right now. We need to have some better setbacks and in a lot less-populated communities," David Vercauteren of Greenleaf said.
The Ledge Wind Energy Farm would be a 150-megawatt project with roughly 100 turbines.
Those backing it say it would give the county a big financial boost.
"This is a project that offers tremendous benefits in terms of new tax revenue to the county, helping farmers who were struggling, with jobs," Barnaby Dinges of Invenergy said.
Still, those who live nearby raised fears of stray voltage, shadow flicker, and noise issues.
Some say if it's built, they'll leave.
"If they go up as they're predicting, we very likely will move," Johnson said. "The problem is, land depreciates once you're in that turbine ghetto. People don't want to come. People aren't interested in buying it."
Right now the Wisconsin Public Service Commission is taking comments on the project. A public hearing will take place later this spring.
If approved, construction will likely start in 2011.
The BPRC Research Nerd
in WEPC wind, We Energies wind, glacier hills, good neighbor agreement, health effects wind turbine, shadow flicker, wind developer, wind farm contract, wind farm easement, wind farm eminent domain, wind power, wind turbine noise
|
Comments Off
1/29/10 How many is too many? Columbia County learns of yet another wind developers plans AND Glacier Hill's 18 turbine "Country Cousin" wind project has no plans to 'buy American'
Home in a Wisconsin wind farm, Fond du Lac County. Photo by Gerry MeyerAnother county wind farm? Feasibility tests in south promising so farOfficials of the Madison-based Wind Capital Group came to County Board's planning and zoning committee almost 18 months ago. They asked for, and got, a conditional use permit for two test towers, each about 197 feet high, to measure wind velocity and direction, to determine if southern Columbia County has adequate wind to sustain a 25- to 33-turbine wind farm capable of generating up to 50 megawatts of electricity.
So far, the data collected at the test towers indicates that southern Columbia County's wind seems sufficient to sustain a wind energy operation, said Tom Green of Wind Capital Group. The planned two-year testing period is scheduled to end in August.
Green said he continues to think that southern Columbia County would be a good location for what would be the company's first Wisconsin wind farm, although it has operations in other states such as Iowa.
Wind Capital Group would sell the wind farm's electricity to utilities.
But whether the wind farm goes in, he said, will depend on what the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin decides, as it sets parameters for wind farms - including setback from neighboring properties - that will apply throughout Wisconsin, and which cannot be made stricter by local authorities.
"You can't have a patchwork of rules throughout the state," Green said.
A new state law directed the PSC to set the statewide rules, which would guide municipalities, such as towns and villages, in regulating wind farms, said PSC spokeswoman Deborah Erwin.
The rules, when they are adopted, will apply to wind farms such as the one proposed by Wind Capital Group - operations that generate less than 100 megawatts.
Larger projects, such as the recently approved We Energies Glacier Hills Wind Park in the Columbia County towns of Scott and Randolph, require direct approval from the PSC. Smaller projects don't need the commission's approval, but would be subject to local regulations, provided that those regulations comply with the rules that the PSC soon will set.
But George Plenty, chairman of the town of Arlington, said officials in his town hope that an ordinance adopted last spring, requiring wind turbines to be at least 2,640 feet from buildings, still will be in place once the PSC establishes the statewide rules.
That ordinance, Plenty said, was in direct response to the proposed wind farm.
Given the density of housing in the town of Arlington, it's unlikely there would be any place in the town where a turbine could be built that would conform to a 2,640-foot setback.
"But I don't know what will happen to this ordinance when the PSC gets involved," Plenty said.
The pending PSC rules were the reason why the town of Leeds didn't adopt any ordinances regulating the placement of wind turbines, said James Foley, Leeds town chairman.
One of the Leeds town supervisors, Alan Kaltenberg, has leased some of his land for one of the test towers. Foley said Kaltenberg would abstain from voting on any matter related to the regulation of wind turbines.
For some town of Leeds residents, Foley said, a wind farm would offer an opportunity to make money from land that might not be particularly productive for farming.
"All these turbines would have to be sited on a high knoll," he said. "High knolls are usually rocky, and farmers can't farm rocks."
Plenty said he's heard of few landowners in the town of Arlington who would be willing to lease their land for a wind turbine location.
One reason for that: Town of Arlington resident Lori McIlrath, who opposes locating a wind farm in the town, has shared her concerns with area farmers.
McIlrath and her husband, Joel, have organized opposition to the project, she said, mainly because they have visited people who live near We Energies' 88-turbine Blue Sky Green Field wind farm in northeast Fond du Lac County.
McIlrath said she thinks a wind farm would cause health problems such as sleeplessness, reduce property values and create around-the-clock noise in what has been a quiet rural area.
"I ask landowners if it's truly worth whatever they'd get for their land, to do this to the community," she said.
Wisconsin utilities already are required to produce a percentage of their power from renewable resources such as wind or solar power. Those requirements might become even more stringent with a bill, backed by Gov. Jim Doyle, that's pending in the Wisconsin Legislature. One of the provisions of the Clean Energy Jobs Act is a proposal to require utilities to use renewable resources for 20 percent of their power by 2020 and 25 percent by 2025.
Wind farms are likely to become more common in Wisconsin, Green said.
That's why, he said, he has made himself available to the public, at Leeds and Arlington town meetings and at small-group sessions with southern Columbia County residents, to answer questions about the effects of a wind farm.
"It's our job," he said, "to present to the public accurate, scientific information, so they can better understand the facts about wind energy."
January 27 2010
Wisconsin regulators have approved plans to startup company E Wind to build a 30 megawatt wind farm northeaset of the State Capial of Madison at a cost of $60 million dollars. Talks are underway to buy 18 turbines fro Hyundai Heavy Industries, E-wind tells Recharge.
If the deal is finalized, it would represent the largest known US order thus far for South Korea’s Hyundai Heavy.
Wes Slaymaker, who heads a company that provides engineering services for the wind industry and is a partner in E Wind, says the next project step is to negotiate a long-term power purchase agreement with a utility.
“This is our biggest challenge because electricity prices and demand are soft,” he says in a telephone interview. “Utilities are not excited about buying more power at the moment.”
Even so, they must comply with Wisconsin’s renewable portfolio standard that requires publicly-held utilities to produce 10% of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2015.
Governor Jim Doyle is also calling on lawmakers to pass his proposed Green Energy Jobs Act, which would update the RPS to 25% by 2025.
“I think the bill has a decent chance of getting passed,” says Slaymaker.
Once a power purchase agreement is in place, Slaymaker believes he and two local partners will obtain project financing. One of them owns part of the 1,800 acres where the turbines will be sited near the town of Randolph.
Slaymaker describes the proposed wind farm as a community project because it has local owners and operators, and most of the investment for site preparation and wind project development will stay in the region.
“This type of community wind project, while common in Minnesota, is unique to Wisconsin,” says Slaymaker.
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Acciona, Columbia County, Columbia County wind farm, EcoEnergy, Wes Slaymaker, Wind farm landowner, Wisconsin wind power, acciona, e-wind, glacier hills, wind energy, wind farm lease, wind farm noise, wind shadow flicker
|
Comments Off
1/11/09 Why are residents living in the footprint of the just approved Glacier Hills wind farm worried? Ask our neighbors to the north.
Scroll down to next post to read about the Public Service Commission's Glacier Hills decision.
Wind power takes a blow around Minnesota
David Brewster
Star Tribune [source]
January 11, 2009
ELKTON, MINN. -- Every sunny morning, shadows from the massive rotating blades swing across their breakfast table. The giant towers dominate the view from their deck. Noise from the turbines fills the silence that Dolores and Rudy Jech once enjoyed on their Minnesota farm.
"Rudy and I are retired, and we like to sit out on our deck," Dolores said. "And that darned thing is right across the road from us. It's an eyesore, it's noisy, and having so many of them there's a constant hum."
Just as they are being touted as a green, economical and job-producing energy source, wind farms in Minnesota are starting to get serious blowback. Across the state, people are opposing projects worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Opposition is also rising in other states. It's not likely to blow over quickly in Minnesota, which is the nation's fourth-largest producer of wind power and on track to double its 1,805-megawatt capacity in the next couple of years.
To be sure, many people who live more than half a mile from machines are not bothered by noise, and those with turbines on their property enjoy an economic windfall. They typically sign 30-year easements and receive up to $7,500 a year for each turbine on their land.
But the Jechs do not own the land across the road, where a turbine stands about 900 feet from their 100-year-old farm home east of Austin. Flickering shadows from the 122-foot blades make east-facing rooms seem as if someone is flipping a light switch for hours at a time. "We can pull our drapes, we can put earplugs in, or we can wear dark glasses, I guess, but it doesn't really make the problem go away," said their daughter Patti Lienau.
After complaining to the developer, they received two large evergreen trees to partly block the view, and $3,000 a year to compensate for the noise. But Lienau said that no money can restore tranquility for her "shell-shocked" 85-year-old father, who struggles with panic attacks and anxiety.
"I'm not against wind. They're going to put them up whether I like it or not," said Katie Troe, leader of Safe Wind for Freeborn County. "What we're asking is that every turbine be looked at and placed correctly."
Rural area not the same
The rising numbers of complaints have taken Minnesota regulators by surprise.
"I've been doing this for 14 years and people are raising issues I've never heard of," said Larry Hartman, manager of permitting in the state's Office of Energy Security.
For the most part, said Hartman, wind farms have been welcomed by struggling farmers and revenue-hungry counties. However, some projects are drawing fire, often from non-farmers who built country homes and commute to nearby cities.
"The rural area isn't what it used to be anymore," said Kevin Hammel, a dairy farmer about 9 miles east of Rochester, where wind developers are active.
Hammel supported wind generators initially, but changed his mind after a developer took him and a busload of neighbors to visit a wind farm. The tour made him feel like he was in an industrial park, he said. Yet others admire the sleek, graceful turbines with towers up to 325 feet tall, topped by generators the size of a bus.
Federal subsidies and state mandates for utilities to produce more electricity from renewable sources are accelerating wind farm development.
The nature of noise
Minnesota regulations require that wind turbines be at least 500 feet away from a residence, and more to make sure sounds do not exceed 50 decibels. In most cases, that amounts to at least 700 to 1,000 feet, depending upon the turbine's size, model and surrounding terrain. Whether 50 decibels is too loud depends upon individuals, who perceive sound differently, but it approximates light auto traffic at 50 feet, according to wind industry reports.
Critics say setback distances should be tripled or quadrupled. Nina Pierpoint, a New York physician who has examined the issue, describes "wind turbine syndrome" with symptoms that include sleep disturbance, ear pressure, vertigo, nausea, blurred vision, panic attacks and memory problems.
Last month, the American and Canadian Wind Energy Associations released a report that reviewed those claims and said they lacked merit.
Rita Messing, a supervisor at the Minnesota Department of Health, co-wrote a report last July to help guide the state on noise decisions.
Wind turbines emit a broad spectrum of sound, she said, including higher frequencies covered by state noise regulations and lower frequency sounds that are not. Her report does not recommend changes in the state noise rules, but notes that local governments can impose longer setbacks.
That needs to happen, said Tom Schulte, who's upset about a proposed wind farm near his new home in Goodhue County. "When I built this house, the county told me where to build: how far from my neighbor, how far from a fence line, how far from a feedlot, and out of 23 acres there wasn't a whole heck of a lot of land left where I could have put a house," Schulte said. "And yet somebody can plop a 400-foot-tall turbine 500 feet from my house and the county steps back and says they don't have any say about it."
Changes ahead?
The debate over noise and setbacks will drop into St. Paul this month when the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission takes up the matter. Comments filed by 16 wind developers said the state's noise rules and setback distances do not need to be changed, that "shadow flicker" from rotating blades can be solved by better modeling and siting, and that there's no evidence that low-frequency sounds affect human health.
Others are not convinced and want Minnesota to reevaluate the rules. People who live near wind turbines are "experimental subjects, who have not given their informed consent to the risk of harm to which they may be exposed," said Per Anderson of Moorhead. He postponed plans to build a house on land near three proposed wind farms in Clay County.
Some people challenge the industry's claim that 50 decibels is no louder than light traffic or a refrigerator running. Brian Huggenvik, who owns 17 acres near a proposed wind farm 2 miles from Harmony, said he has driven to various wind farms and listened to the noise to judge for himself. Huggenvik, an airline pilot, said turbines can also produce a whining sound, similar in frequency to a jet engine idling on a taxiway, though not as loud. "It's not like living next to a highway with constant sound and your mind blocks it out," he said. "It's something that you just can't get used to. It is a different kind of sound."
Bill Grant, executive director of the Izaak Walton League's Midwest office, said that all energy sources impose certain costs and inconveniences. If there are legitimate conflicts about wind turbine noise and public health, the siting guidelines should be revised, he said.
But Grant cautioned against putting severe restrictions on a renewable industry that offers so many benefits. "What people who want to scale back wind are overlooking is the number of deaths that occur annually from air pollution from coal plants," he said.
The BPRC Research Nerd
in WEPCO, Wisconsin wind turbine, glacier hills, wind easement, wind farm contract, wind turbine lease, wind turbine noise, wind turbine shadow flicker
|
Comments Off
10/13/09 The Birds, the Bats and the proposed Glacier Hills Wind "Park"
Better Plan continues with our look at the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Glacier Hills Wind Farm proposed for the Towns of Randolph and Scott in Columbia county.
Download the entire EIS by clicking here
Today we're looking at the section called ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE GLACIER HILLS WIND PARK which begins on page 24 with the issue of bird mortality.
We're very troubled to learn the pre-construction bird and bat studies were done by same utility that is proposing the project.
Here's what the EIS says about birds:
"The potential for avian mortality and displacement from feeding and nesting habitat is a major environmental concern. Bird collisions with turbine blades and towers have been widely reported in this country and abroad.
WEPCO conducted a pre-construction avian study of the project area between mid-June 2007 and mid-June 2008.1 The methodology used and the timing of the survey was consistent with the Breeding Bird Survey methodology and provided a general assessment of bird use in the project area during the one-year study period. The avian study did not identify any heavily used local flight paths or any locations in the project area
where bird activity was heavily concentrated.
The surveys recorded observations of 151 bird species.
Three state-listed threatened species were recorded. An additional 20 species that are listed as species of greatest conservation need (SGCN) were observed in the project area.
Almost all project construction would occur on active agricultural lands. Only a small amount of habitat other than agricultural lands would be directly disturbed by the project. Active agricultural lands provide feeding areas for some bird species during migration and winter but provide only limited habitat for nesting birds. The impact to bird habitat from direct habitat removal and from fragmentation of existing habitat would be relatively low."
NOTE: Though the impact to bird nesting habitat would be relatively low, what about the impact to the birds themselves? Concern about the effects of a large scale industrial wind farms on actual bird populations is growing.
According to a new study by the Britain's Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, wind farms can reduce bird numbers by up to half. [click here for source]The research, published in the Journal of Applied Ecology, suggests the most likely cause of the decline is the fact that birds are less likely to live near wind farms because of the noise and development.
In another report, [source] Purdue University Associate Professor John Dunning says wind turbines could also pose a threat to animals that share the airspace: “The worry is if you put something dramatically different, like big towers with whirling blades in it, some of the species that previously used that area, might not get killed but they might avoid going into the area,” Dunning said.
Newsweek published a recent report entitled "Birds VS Environmentalists" with the sub-heading:"The wind industry may be green, but it's proving deadly to wildlife"[source] In it, Michael Fry of the American Bird Conservancy says turbines kill three to 11 birds per megawatt of wind energy they produce. Right now, there are about 20,000 megawatts produced in the United States, which can mean—at worst—up to 220,000 bird fatalities a year. With wind energy expected to produce 20 percent of this country's energy by 2030, output would grow tenfold and, environmentalists worry, deaths could increase at a similar rate.
Because the turbines in the Glacier Hills wind farm will cover over 17,000 acres, and because out of the 151 species of birds identified in WEPCO's pre-construction study, 3 species are threatened and 20 more qualifiy as Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) we believe another independent study should be conducted by a party with no financial interest in providing results required to get approval of this project.
Residents in both the Invenergy wind farm near the Town of Byron and in the Blue Sky Green Field wind farm near the Town of Malone in Fond du Lac and Dodge counties have said there have been fewer birds since the turbines have gone up. Many have specifically mentioned the loss of barn swallows, even on farms where barn swallow flocks have been coming to nest for years.
Wind developers will often say more birds are killed by cats than by wind turbines. True or not, this statement seems intended to make turbine related bird deaths more acceptable.
Scientists study birds killed by wind turbines
By DAVID SCHECHTER / WFAA-TV
13 October 2009
When it comes to generating green energy from the wind, Texas leads the way.
But in the pursuit of cleaner energy, there’s also an environmental cost: dead birds and bats killed by turbine blades.
Now a unique research project in North Texas is trying to find out how many are dying and what can be done to save them.
As Texas continues to flip the switch from dirty coal to clean wind, not all is perfectly green.
That’s why Texas Christian University researchers are scanning the base of a wind turbine at Wolf Ridge, outside Muenster, Texas.
“Some of them are obvious that the turbine killed them. Other times you can’t tell,” said field technician Jennifer Ellis of the dead birds she finds.
Among them are raptors, vultures, yellow-billed cuckoos, said Amanda Hale, TCU researcher.
Birds killed by wind turbines pale in comparison to birds killed by cars, buildings and other animals.
“We do know that birds and bats are being affected by wind turbines,” said Hale.
Hale and her team want to definitively determine how many birds and bats are killed by wind turbines.
Her peer-reviewed research project is funded by the nation’s biggest renewable energy company NexTera.
“We’ve actually seen a huge variety of birds,” Hale said.
But it turns out, dead bats are the surprise finding.
Hale did not expect to find any. Instead, her team has found five times more bats than birds.
Why is that a problem?
The bat population is smaller, more susceptible to disease, and slower to reproduce.
“If we add wind on top of it, it’s enough to be a real concern,” said Hale.
Back at the Hale’s laborartory at TCU, they carry out tests.
“We can measure how good we are at finding these bats,” said Kris Karsten.
Hale’s team analyzes DNA, weather patterns and mortality trends at the Wolf Ridge Wind Farm, all for one purpose.
“If we can predict when mortality happens, we can use that information to prevent it,” said Hale.
As our reliance on wind energy grows, a discovery like that may keep us from making things worse, while we’re trying to make them better.
THIS from USA TODAY: [click here to read at source]
Updated 9/22/2009 3:21 AM ET For years, a huge wind farm in California's San Joaquin Valley was slaughtering thousands of birds, including golden eagles, red-tailed hawks and burrowing owls.
The raptors would get sliced up by the blades on the 5,400 turbines in Altamont Pass, or electrocuted by the wind farm's power lines. Scientists, wildlife agencies and turbine experts came together in an attempt to solve the problem. The result? Protective measures put in place in an effort to reduce deaths by 50% failed. Deaths in fact soared for three of four bird species studied, said the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area Bird Fatality Study. The slaughter at Altamont Pass is being raised by avian scientists who say the drive among environmentalists to rapidly boost U.S. wind-farm power 20 times could lead to massive bird losses and even extinctions. New wind projects "have the potential of killing a lot of migratory birds," said Michael Fry, director of conservation advocacy at the American Bird Conservancy in Washington. Wind projects are being proposed for the Texas Gulf, the Atlantic Coast, the Great Plains and Upper Midwest. President Obama said in April that he would allow turbines along the Atlantic as one way to help meet a goal by environmentalists and the industry of generating 20% of the nation's electricity through wind by 2030. Currently about 1% of U.S. power comes from wind, according to the American Wind Energy Association. "There's concern because of the scale of what we're talking about," said Shawn Smallwood, a Davis, Calif., ecologist and researcher. "Just the sheer numbers of turbines … we're going to be killing so many raptors until there are no more raptors." Working on the problem Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is aware of the problem and says the administration is working with energy companies and wildlife groups to help lessen the deaths. "I think we will be able to minimize the number of birds being killed, just in terms of sheer numbers," Salazar said. "The fact that some birds will be killed is a reality." Officials in the wind-energy industry say migratory birds and birds of prey, including eagles, are killed each year at some of the nation's biggest wind farms, but they say the concerns are overstated. Laurie Jodziewicz, manager of siting policy for the American Wind Energy Association, said the industry has taken steps to reduce bird deaths. "We have hundreds and hundreds of projects all over the country that are not having those impacts," she said, referring to Altamont. Bird deaths cannot be completely eliminated, Jodziewicz said. "There will be some birds that are killed because they do collide with so many structures," Jodziewicz said. Salazar said new technology in the design of turbines and more careful placement, such as outside of migratory paths and away from ridgelines, can reduce bird deaths. Fry says other methods include using radar to detect and shut down turbines when migratory birds approach, building towers higher and with more space between them, and placing them away from areas where raptors hunt for small animals. "Technology has evolved over the last several decades in significant ways," Salazar said. "We know how to do wind farms in ways that minimize and mitigate the effect on birds." Non-wind utilities fined heavily Some see a double standard for wind farms. ExxonMobil pleaded guilty in federal court in August to the deaths of 85 birds at its operations in several states, according to the Department of Justice. The birds were protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and Exxon agreed to pay $600,000 in fines and fees. In July, the PacifiCorp utility of Oregon had to pay $10.5 million in fines, restitution and improvements to their equipment after 232 eagles were killed by running into power lines in Wyoming, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. That is far fewer than the estimated 10,000 birds (nearly all protected by the migratory bird law) that are being killed every year at Altamont, according to Robert Bryce, author of Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of "Energy Independence." Bryce says that follows a decades-long double-standard where oil and gas companies face prosecution, but "politically popular" forms of energy get a pass. Salazar said his department's Fish and Wildlife Service task force will recommend guidelines for wind farms that are friendlier to birds. Bird advocates raise doubts about the impact, because the guidelines are voluntary. "It's still entirely up to power companies where to place towers," said Gavin Shire, spokesman for the American Bird Conservancy. |
 |
Bats
We are grateful to the PSC for recognizing that the number of bat fatalities caused by the Glacier Hills wind turbines could be high.
Here's what the EIS has to say about bats:
Bat mortality has exceeded bird mortality at most wind farms where post-construction monitoring of both animal groups has been conducted.
Many species of bats are long-lived and have low reproductive rates.
Also, Bat Conservation International estimates that more than 50 percent of American bat species are in decline.
These characteristics make bat populations more vulnerable to the cumulative impacts that could occur as the number of wind projects continues to increase.
Seven species of bats are known to occur in Wisconsin; five of these are state species of special concern exhibiting some evidence of decline.
Very few bat studies have been conducted in Wisconsin and thus bat numbers and behavior are not well understood.
A pre-construction bat activity study was conducted in the Glacier Hills project area. The study, based on acoustic surveys, focused on bat activity patterns during the post-breeding and fall migration periods. No species identifications were performed during the study.
It is certain there will be some level of bat mortality if the proposed wind farm is constructed. However,due to the lack of research on bat mortality at wind farms in the Midwest, it is not possible to make predictions about the magnitude of bat mortality for this project or whether that mortality would have a significant impact on bat populations.
Post-construction mortality studies are being conducted at three recently completed wind projects in Wisconsin, including WEPCO’s Blue Sky Green Field (BSGF) project. These projects have land cover similar to that present within or adjacent to the Glacier Hills project boundary. In addition, the projected bat activity levels based on pre-construction surveys at BSGF are similar to the pre-construction estimates for the Glacier Hills project.
The initial post-construction data from the BSGF project show a high level of bat mortality.3 Thus, it is possible that bat mortality at Glacier Hills could also be high.
The PSC is now taking comments on the Glacier Hills EIS. If you'd like to comment on page 24 of the EIS regarding the impact of 90 wind turbines on bird and bat poplulations in the Glacier Hills project area, CLICK HERE
To review the entire docket for this project CLICK HERE and enter docket number 6630-CE-302.
To watch a short video about bats and wind turbines, click on the image below.
NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Many residents of wind farms in our state have pointed out that studies have been done on the effect of wind turbines on birds and bats, but none have been done on the effect wind turbines have on the people who are forced to live with them.
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Bats wind turbines, Birds wind turbines, PSC, WEPCO, Wisconsin, bat mortality, glacier hills, industrial wind turbine, post-construction bat mortality, wind developer, wind turbine shadow flicker, wind turbines noise
|
Comments Off