COUNTY WIND POWER DEBATE ENTERING FIFTH YEAR

Editorial staff

Via Hudson Star-Observer, www.hudsonstarobserver.com

January 4, 2012 

A legal, and neighbor-against-neighbor, battle in northeastern St. Croix County continues as the pros and cons of wind-generated power are debated. The issue has already been brewing for four years and it may not be settled anytime soon as we enter the fifth year of the controversy.

Talk to anyone and they will, in general terms, talk about wind power as a good, efficient and cheap energy source for the times — that’s the easy part.

But then, try finding a location to construct wind generators and suddenly you’ve got yourself a first-class controversy, complete with arguments among neighbors, recalls and lawsuits.

Such is the case in St. Croix County in the town of Forest.

As the debate continues, we are starting to see new terms in the discussions of wind energy. Terms such as “shadow flicker” and “turbine noise levels” are things that no one thought much about in the past.

The latest developments in the Forest project find that the company attempting to build the turbines, Highland Wind Farm LCC, increased the size of the project from 97 to 102.5 megawatts. The Highland Wind Farm project has been a controversy in the town of Forest since the town board approved a wind development agreement with the wind farm developer, Emerging Energies of Wisconsin, in 2008.

In 2010 the town board was recalled and replaced by turbine opponents. They had made things difficult for the proposal with various town regulations and citizen lawsuits. The 102.5 megawatt proposal is significant because it makes the plan subject to state approval instead of town approval. The cutoff is 100 megawatts.

A bit of history finds that the original project in Forest called for 39 wind towers. Each tower stands about 500 feet tall. Many landowners in the town had signed leases with the wind firm, but were prohibited from discussing the project. When the rest of the town’s residents got “wind” of the deals, the uprising began. Battles erupted over setbacks, noise, quality of life, health, property value, safety, “shadow flicker” and more.

With the latest proposal now involving the state, the clock began ticking last week on state regulators to review the application to construct the larger 102.5 mega-watt wind energy farm in the towns of Forest and Cylon. By statute, the Wisconsin Public Service Commission has 30 days to determine if the application submitted by Highland Wind Farm LCC is complete, and if so, then six months to approve or deny it. If necessary, a circuit court can grant the PSC a six-month extension. The town’s role in the decision is now uncertain.

The bottom line is, when wind towers begin popping up in either populated areas, or rural countryside, there is likely to be plenty of opposition. A group of wind towers doesn’t do much for the scenic value of any topography.

Despite all the virtues of wind power, developing a power source to a degree where it would have a significant impact could be difficult when facing “not in my backyard” neighborhoods.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: The people in the video below live in the last wind project to be developed by this wind company. That project has just 8 turbines but they've made life hell for several families, at least two of whom have abandoned their homes because of noise and vibration from the wind turbines.

Click on the image below to meet some of them and hear their story

Video courtesy of The Forest Voice-- visit their website by clicking HERE

"At least eight families living in the Shirley Wind Project in the Town of Glenmore just south of Green Bay, are reporting health problems and quality of life issues since the Shirley Wind project went online in December of 2010. Six families have come forward, five of them testify on the video, and at this time two of them have vacated their homes. STAND UP to protect people, livestock, pets, and wildlife against negligent and irresponsible placement of industrial wind turbines."

FEDS PROPOSE ALLOWING WIND-FARM DEVELOPER TO KILL GOLDEN EAGLES

By James Eng,

Via msnbc.msn.com

January 4, 2012 

“As a former USFS employee, I am appalled that the Forest Service would approve the wholesale damage to critical black bear habitat in order to squeeze out a few kilowatt hours of electricity,” says Wright, in a press statement. “This is a serious error in judgment by the Obama administration for little or no effective climate change result.”

The legislation, enacted in 1940, prohibits anyone from killing or disturbing any bald or golden eagles without a permit from the Interior Department.

Regulations adopted in 2009 enabled the agency to authorize, for the first time, the “take” of eagles for activities that are otherwise lawful but that result in either disturbance or death. In this case “taking” would be the killing of eagles hit by the wind turbines’ huge blades.

The federal government is proposing to grant a first-of-its-kind permit that would allow the developer of a central Oregon wind-power project to legally kill golden eagles, a regulatory move being closely watched by conservationists.

The Interior Department’s Fish and Wildlife Service on Tuesday released a draft environmental assessment that would allow West Butte Wind Power LLC to kill as many as three protected golden eagles over five years if the company fulfills its conservation commitments.

It’s the first eagle “take permit” application to be received and acted on by U.S. Fish and Wildlife under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. (“Take” means to kill, harass or disturb the birds, their nests or their eggs.) [Ed. Read the application here]

The legislation, enacted in 1940, prohibits anyone from killing or disturbing any bald or golden eagles without a permit from the Interior Department.

Regulations adopted in 2009 enabled the agency to authorize, for the first time, the “take” of eagles for activities that are otherwise lawful but that result in either disturbance or death. In this case “taking” would be the killing of eagles hit by the wind turbines’ huge blades.

Public comments on the draft environmental assessment of the Wind Butte project will be accepted until Feb. 2.

The permit, if ultimately issued, stipulates that there must be no net loss to breeding populations of golden eagles from the wind farm project. That means for every protected bird permitted killed, developers must contribute to conservation efforts for breeding them.

“Our goal is to maintain stable or increasing populations of eagles protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act,” said Chris McKay, assistant regional director for Migratory Birds and State Programs in the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Pacific Region.

“Regulations under the Act allow us to issue permits for activities that are likely to take eagles provided the activity is otherwise lawful and the taking is not the purpose of that activity, the take is unavoidable even though advanced conservation practices are being implemented, and the take is compatible with eagle preservation,” McKay said in a press release.

California-based West Butte Wind Power LLC is proposing to build a 104-megawatt wind energy generation facility on ranchland in Oregon’s Deschutes and Crook counties, consisting of up to 52 wind turbines. Electricity generated by the project could power as many as 50,000 homes.

Conservation groups expressed cautious optimism at the government’s proposal to award the eagle take permit.

“This is a type of project where it’s appropriate for them to issue this kind of permit,” said Liz Nysson, energy policy coordinator with the Oregon Natural Desert Association She noted that only a small number of golden eagles are believed to be in and around the area where the wind turbines will be built.

“I say ‘cautious optimism’ because we fear that the agency is going to go forward and start issuing these permits … for a multitude of golden eagles every year, and that would be a bad use of the policy,” Nysson said.

It’s not mandatory for wind-power projects to apply for the eagle “take” permits.

Kelly Fuller, wind campaign coordinator for the American Bird Conservancy, praised West Butte for being the first company to apply for one. She described the latest development as “precedent-setting,” according to the Governors’ Wind Energy Coalition, a bipartisan group of the nation’s governors dedicated to expanding the development of wind energy.

Fuller said the eagle permit process gives conservationists more opportunity to participate in the development process.

She said the conservancy group will ask Fish and Wildlife to extend its public comment period an additional 30 days beyond the Feb. 2 deadline, according to the Wind Energy Coalition.

MORE ON THIS SUBJECT:

LOWELL WIND OPPONENTS DECRY USDA FOREST SERVICE APPROVAL OF DEERFIELD WIND PROJECT

by Ken Picard,

Via Seven Days, 7d.blogs.com 

January 3, 2012 

Just three days into 2012, Vermont’s critics of industrial wind power already have a new ridgeline in the sand to fight about: The USDA Forest Service just granted final approval to Iberdrola, Inc. to build more than a dozen, 393-foot wind turbines on two ridgelines in the Green Mountain National Forest in southern Vermont.

The project, known as Deerfield Wind, located near the towns of Readsboro and Searsburg, gained federal approval for 15 of the 17 turbines that were OK’ed two years ago by the Vermont Public Service Board. The PSB approval came despite objections from the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources and others that the project would damage critical bear habitat. The new ridgeline development will be located not far from the existing Searsburg Wind Power Facility, Vermont’s first industrial wind project, which went online in July 1997.

According to Iberdrola, Deerfield Wind is expected to generate enough power to light 14,000 Vermont homes, or roughly three-quarters of the households in Windham County. In September 2010, Central Vermont Public Service announced a long-term, fixed-rate power purchase agreement with Iberdrola Renewables to buy 20 of the 30 megawatts generated by the Deerfield project for its Vermont customers. According to the Iberdrola website, it’s now looking to secure other Vermont-based purchasers of the Deerfield electricity so all the power is consumed locally.

If Vermont’s industrial wind opponents thought they were in a David-and-Goliath fight with Green Mountain Power — now in the process of merging with CVPS — their latest nemesis is exponentially larger. Portland, Ore.-based Iberdrola is the second largest wind developer in the United States, with more than 40 utility-grade energy projects nationwide, including wind, solar, biomass and gas-fired generators, as this map reveals. Iberdrola Renewables is the U.S. division of its Spanish parent, Iberdrola, S.A. Iberdrola S.A.’s website claims it has the largest renewable asset base of any company in the world, which includes 11,400 MG of renewable energy globally. ¡Muy enorme!

A familiar cast of local enviros have sounded alarm bells about this latest regulatory action. To wit: Vermonters for a Clean Environment (VCE) put out a press release this afternoon condemning the decision — even before the USDA Forest Service had a chance to announce it.

Steve Wright of Craftsbury is the former Forest Service employee and Vermont Fish and Wildlife commissioner who’s led the fight against th Kingdom Community Wind Project in the Lowell mountains.

“As a former USFS employee, I am appalled that the Forest Service would approve the wholesale damage to critical black bear habitat in order to squeeze out a few kilowatt hours of electricity,” says Wright, in a press statement. “This is a serious error in judgment by the Obama administration for little or no effective climate change result.”

As Wright points out, the ridgeline turbines would be located less than two miles from the George D. Aiken Wilderness, a fact that he and other opponents say was initially downplayed by both wind developers and the Forest Service. They claim that maps used at the public meeting for the project as recently as several months ago did not identify the nearby wilderness area.

“The decision is based on a process plagued with conflict of interest,” alleges VCE executive director Annette Smith. “Experts were working for Iberdrola, the developer on a wind project in New Hampshire, at the same time they prepared the supposedly independent analysis for the Forest Service.”

Smith claims the final EIS also violates the management plan for the George D. Aiken Wilderness, noting that the turbines would be visible from more than half the wilderness, “completely eviscerating” its whole purpose.

Justin Lindholm, a Mendon resident who serves on the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Board and is a frequent visitor to the Aiken Wilderness, says that politicians “want to turn the Aiken Wilderness into nothing more than a tree park.”

Added Smith, “This is a bad project based on bad information leading to a bad decision.”

Spokespeople for Iberdrola Renewables and the USDA Forest Service did not return calls as of press time.

IF YOU WANT TO COMMENT...

Click here for instructions

Public Comments

We invite public comment on the proposed DEA. If you wish, you may submit comments by any one of the methods discussed above under ADDRESSES.Show citation box

Public Availability of Comments 

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. You can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, but we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

DATES: 

To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by February 2, 2011.Show citation box

SEND YOUR COMMENT:

You may download a copy of the DEA on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/pacific/migratorybirds/nepa.html. Alternatively, you may use one of the methods below to request hard copies or a CD-ROM of the documents. Please specify the “DEA for the West Butte Wind Project” on all correspondence.Show citation box

Submitting Comments: You may submit comments or requests for copies or more information by one of the following methods.Show citation box

• Email: pacific_birds@fws.gov. Include “DEA for the West Butte Wind Project” in the subject line of the message.Show citation box
• U.S. Mail: Please address written comments to Michael Green, Acting Chief, Division of Migratory Birds and Habitat Programs, Pacific Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 911 NE 11th Ave., Portland, OR 97232.Show citation box
• Fax: Michael Green, Acting Chief, Division of Migratory Birds and Habitat Programs, (503) 231-2019, Attn.: DEA for the West Butte Wind Project.Show citation box

For more information contact Michael Green, Acting Chief, Division of Migratory Birds and Habitat Programs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (503) 231-2019 (phone); pacific_birds@fws.gov (email, include “DEA for the West Butte Wind Project” in the subject line of the message). If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.

Next Feature

From Vermont

PRECEDENT-SETTING WIND PROJECT WILL LIKELY BE APPEALED

by Susan Keese,

via Vermont Public Radio, www.vpr.net

January 4, 2012

(Host) A 15-turbine wind project just approved by the Green Mountain National Forest could set a precedent as the nation’s first commercial wind farm on national forest land.

But opponents say the Deerfield Wind project will be appealed.

VPR’s Susan Keese has more.

(Keese) Deerfield Wind is a subsidiary of Iberdrola Renewables, a Spanish company that’s one of the largest wind developers in this country.

The development covers 80 acres of National Forest in Readsboro and Searsburg. It was one of 14 renewable power projects fast-tracked this summer by the Obama administration.

The proposal has been under scrutiny for years. The state Public Service Board approved it, with conditions, in 2009.

Green Mountain National Forest spokesman Ethan Ready says the Forest Service’s decision was scheduled for the end of December, even without the president’s help.

(Ready) “With projects of this magnitude we have to go through the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires us to do in-depth policy analysis and… a lot of scientific work. So we’re really proud of the work we’ve done… and we think that it’s been an extensive and thorough process which has involved the public.”

(Keese) Ready says the forest received more than a thousand comments. They’re addressed in the 400 page environmental impact statement and 70-page decision.

At 410 feet tall, the new turbines would be twice the height of towers at an existing adjacent wind farm, and will require aircraft safety lighting.

That’s a major concern for the group Vermonters for a Clean Environment. Annette Smith directs the group. She says the lights will be visible from the 5,000 acre George D. Aiken Wilderness, a few miles away.

(Smith) “More than half the area inside the wilderness you will be able to see the wind turbines from, with their blinking lights… and this is totally contrary to everything that the wilderness plan calls for.”

(Keese) The project has also drawn concern from biologists and wildlife advocates, who worry about the removal of beech groves used by black bears as a food source.

The permits require the developer to set aside 144 acres of comparable bear habitat and to continue extensive bear, bat and bird impact surveys once the turbines are running.

The Forest Service says the public will have 45 days to appeal the decision, after legal notices are published.

Annette Smith says her group will appeal, and she expects others to do the same.

For VPR News, I’m Susan Keese in Manchester.

NEXT FEATURE

From West Virginia

TURBINE NOISE MARS QUALITY OF LIFE

Letter from Gary Braithwaite

Via Mineral Daily Dews-Tribune, www.newstribune.info

January 4, 2012

I can verify there is noise from the windmills, and it has ruined my way of life in my home, out in the yard and even in the garage with the radio playing. I name all three areas because the noise of the windmills can be heard anywhere on my property.

I have lived in the Cross area of Mineral County my entire life and have done so because of the peace and quiet of the small community. However, over the past months, things have changed, and the reason is the windmills on the mountain across from my home.

The windmills cause an extremely loud disturbance to the point that lying down at night to have a good night’s sleep is impossible. I recently attended a county commission meeting, to see what the commissioners could do to help the Cross residents with the noise from the windmills. The three commissioners showed no interest in helping with this problem. One in particular spoke to a relative and said, “You wanted the windmills, now live with them.”

I personally did not want the windmills in the county. Prior to the approval of the windmill project and the construction, I do not remember hearing anything or reading newspaper reports concerning how much noise would be produced by the windmills. I can verify there is noise from the windmills, and it has ruined my way of life in my home, out in the yard and even in the garage with the radio playing. I name all three areas because the noise of the windmills can be heard anywhere on my property. For those living near railroad tracks, I agree there is a time to become adjusted to the noise of passing trains. The sound from the windmills is like having a train come through the middle of my house for seven or eight hours straight.

On another comparison subject, the smell emitted by what was called the West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company was one to be tolerated. Those living in Luke, Westernport and Piedmont did tolerate the smell because the paper factory that created the unpleasant odor was the company that sent paychecks to many homes in the Tri Towns. That odor put the food on their plates and a roof over their heads.

Edison Mission, the owners of the Pinnacle Wind Farm, has nothing to do with whether my family eats or has suitable housing, so there is no reason for me to tolerate the noise from the windmills.

Dave Friend and Jim Cookman, top people with US WindForce, the developers of the wind farm, visited in this area to gain support for the windmills. They have been contacted about the noise factor and their response is that it is now a problem for Edison Mission. If that is the case, why do they continue to be the spokespeople for windmills at advisory meetings?

Then on the subject of windmills creating a green environment for the area, the comment I have about that is the only thing green the developers and owners are interested in the kind they fold and put in their pockets.

I was told by Edison Mission that they knew the Mitsubishi wind turbines were a lot louder than the ones that are normally used. In addition, surely there were noise studies conducted prior to the plans to build the windmills on Pinnacle, but the company installed them anyway. Everyone talks of how quiet other wind farms are, but that is only if a person stands directly beneath them, where there is little noise. Further away from the windmills, there is noise as we can hear in Cross.

I feel like the county commissioners should not have allowed US WindForce to place these noisy wind turbines so near to private homes. They and the Public Service Commission have ruined the lives of those residing near the Pinnacle Wind Farm. I was told the windmills would shut down during the night until a way was found to correct the noise. This has not happened.

How does the wind farm think they are protecting the environment by clear-cutting over 2 miles of timber to erect 23 noisy windmills? I understand additional wind farms could be built in Mineral County Those that may live near them are in for a real treat, that is if they want to get a good night’s sleep. Better yet, get all the sleep you can now, because you will not be able to if any future windmills are built close to your house. With a situation like this, causing disruption and unsettling problems with quality of life, something must be done.

One more thing, I have lived with the deposit of sludge from NewPage in the ground near my home, and this has been ongoing for 30 years. The sludge is at least 100 feet deep over many acres, with the possibility of ruining the water supply.

Gary Braithwaite
Cross

COUPLE SETTLE WITH WIND FARM OPERATORS OVER 'UNBEARABLE HUM'

SOURCE The Telegraph, www.telegraph.co.uk

November 29  2011 

A couple have settled a High Court damages action against the owners and operators of a wind farm they say drove them from their farmhouse home with its ”unbearable” noise.

A judge was told today the terms of the settlement agreed by tenant farmers Sarah Jane and Julian Davis were strictly confidential.

The couple moved out of Grays Farm in Deeping St Nicholas, near Spalding, Lincolnshire, in December 2006 six months after the eight-turbine wind farm began operating about half a mile from their home.

They blamed the ”whoom whoom whoom” and the low frequency ”hum” of giant turbine blades for their exile in a case that was closely watched by the wind farm industry.

They said the ”intolerable” noise disrupted their sleep, made them feel ill and was so severe that it warranted a reduction in council tax and rendered the £2.5 million farmhouse no longer marketable as a family home.

Mr and Mrs Davis were accused of being ”over-sensitive” to the noise and ”exaggerating and overreacting”.

The couple launched a claim for damages and an injunction against defendants including Fenland Windfarms Ltd and Fenland Green Power Co-operative Ltd.

The long-running hearing was due to resume today, but trial judge Mr Justice Hickinbottom was told the case was settled.

Both sides said in a joint press release: ”The terms of that settlement are strictly confidential, and the parties will not be answering any questions about the terms of that agreement.”

The case was described as being of general importance because hundreds of other families say they have suffered similar disturbance from wind farms up and down the country.

The operators were accused at the start of the High Court hearing earlier this year of trying to impose “a code of silence” on those examining or recording the noise the turbines caused.

The terms of today’s settlement mean that details of the how the settlement was reached will remain secret.

The judge said he had been given a copy of the signed agreement – “nobody has seen it other than me, and I am giving it back to you”.

When the case was before the court in July, Peter Harrison QC, appearing for former nurse Mrs Davis, 55, and her husband, 46, told the judge: “Wind farms have emphatically not been the source of trouble-free, green renewable energy which the firms promoting and profiting from wind energy would have the general public believe.”

The court heard research suggested the complaints relate to the “amplitude modulation” (AM) of the aerodynamic noise from the turbine blades in certain conditions.

Mr and Mrs Davis, who have two grown-up children, were seeking an injunction to bring about modification of the operation of the wind farm, plus £400,000 damages to compensate them for the noise nuisance.

Mr Harrison said: “Their lives have been wholly disrupted by that noise.”

Alternatively the couple asked for damages plus a “like for like” replacement for their farm home they estimate is worth about £2.5 million.

Mrs Davis emphasised that her wish was to move back from rented accommodation into her home.

The couple said the “horrible” noise problem caused by the 320ft (100m) high turbines could be resolved by removing two of the turbines and limiting the hours of operation of a third.

Their QC told the court that, instead of experiencing trouble-free, green renewable energy when the wind farm started operations, Mr and Mrs Davis faced “an industry operator – a subsidiary of EDF – which has refused to acknowledge the noise their turbines make and the effect that has had on the lives of these claimants”.

Instead, the main operator “appears to have tried to impose a code of silence on those examining or recording the noise that these turbines in this location have caused”.

Mr Harrison added: “Further, at least until recently when their own recordings and monitoring have finally forced the defendants to acknowledge they are causing problems, their approach has been to try and shoot the messenger”.

NEXT STORY

BIRD SLAUGHTERHOUSE: REPOWERING ALTAMONT PASS WITH SMOKE AND MIRRORS

By Cathy Taibbi,

SOURCE  Wildlife Conservation Examiner, www.examiner.com

November 29 2011

If you love eagles and hawks, bats or gulls, or desire truly eco-friendly energy, this is a must-read.

Is wind energy the safe, sustainable ‘green’ energy solution we’ve been lead to believe it is? Has the repowering (using new, ‘safer’, more bird-friendly turbines) at Atlamont Pass, really a step in the right direction – Or has it resulted in an even bigger ‘eagle slaughterhouse’ in the guise of eco-friendly technology? And  how will this ‘new improved’ turbine design help – or decimate – wildlife populations?

This week we have a scathing report on the wind industry, well-known to be one of the LEAST ‘Earth-friendly’ of the so-called  ’green’ energy technologies – and breathtakingly inefficient as an energy source, as well.

In an industry as corrupt and lucrative as Big Oil, it should come as no shock that wind-farms (industrial utility installations often owned by fossil-fuel utility companies) are routinely pushed through using falsified or rigged environmental impact studies and outright deceptive impact reporting.

These vast, deadly installations not only destroy hundreds of acres of sensitive and critical habitats for wildlife, but they guillotine birds by the millions, and the change in air-pressure around the whirling blades actually causes the lungs of bats to explode.

Leading authority on birds-of-prey and the wind farm industry, Jim Wiegand, is my guest columnist this week.  Mr. Jim Wiegand is Vice President of Save The Eagles International. His meticulously researched report on the new “safer’ wind turbine installation at the infamous Altamont Pass in California is alarming.  It is shared, verbatim, below.

Repowering Altamont Pass with Smoke and Mirrors 

A few months back it was disclosed through the media that the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area was repowering with new safer turbines. With their new turbines Altamont was going to drastically reduce the bird mortality rate by 80 percent and raptors by 67 percent. We were led to believe that this major upgrade was going to drastically  reduce the number of bird kills in the Altamont region while increasing energy production.  This highly publicized move was received as good news across the world because thousands of eagles and tens of thousands of other raptors have been slaughtered at the wind turbines of Altamont Pass.

I began to think about it. The turbine designs haven’t really changed, they ‘re just bigger. I did not understand how this could be possible. So I set out on a journey to find out if the new turbines really are safer for birds and raptors.

Why is my opinion important? I am a wildlife biologist, an expert on birds of prey, and I tell it the way it is.  I have even done my own research in the Altamont pass area before wind turbines were installed.  The wind turbine issue has been of great concern to me because protected and rare species have been getting chopped up in great numbers at Altamont for over 30 years. Some will say this is not my business and they will be wrong.  Dead eagles are my business.    

Over the years I have seen the wind industry answer to this problem.  Environmental laws have been changed in their favor, the industry has virtually no regulations, they have their own army (of) biologists, and as far as they are concerned, wind turbines belong just about everywhere the wind blows. Their money has always won and the golden eagles as well as all other raptors, have always lost.

I now have a different story to tell.  It is important because the scientific studies that were used to bring us this good news are loaded with seriously flawed information. In addition, this false information is now being used to sell even more turbines to the ignorant across the world. Ignored is the fact that if something is not done,  we are going see major population declines of nearly every raptor species across the world.  This includes the extinction of several species. All caused  by the uncontrolled  installations of the propeller style wind turbine.

For this critique I have looked through decades of reports and studies on Altamont Pass. To sum it up, Altamont Pass  is one big mess and mortality is really much worse than what is being reported. I will explain why and hope to bring some clarity to a very complex set of circumstances. Some of what I have to say is quite tedious but in the end  I believe everyone that reads this, will never think of Altamont pass or any other wind farm, in the same light again.

The Golden Numbers

The industry numbers used to proclaim that the larger turbines used for the repowering of Altamont will be much safer, are presented in ratios comparing Fatalities/1 Megawatt /Per Year. Many charts and hundreds of ratios were used to compare the different species of birds killed at Altamont. I could tear apart any of these numbers but I will only illustrate and discuss a few of the key numbers. Those being the numbers used for the media reports, target species of raptors and those used for all native birds.  The target raptors are those species killed in the greatest numbers every year at Altamont. They are the Golden Eagle, the Red-tailed hawk,  the American kestrel, and the Burrowing Owl.  The all native birds category,  are all the many species of native birds killed at Altamont over the years.

The numbers from numerous studies show that raptor mortality since 2005 at Altamont has ranged from 4.035 fatalities per megawatt to .803 fatalities per megawatt per year according to the size class of turbine. The death rate for all native birds  range from 11.00 fatalities per megawatt a year down to 2.389 for the newly repowered Buena Vista wind farm.

The higher  mortality numbers were derived from the smallest 40-65 Kw class turbines in use at Altamont for over 20 years. The lower mortality figures were derived from studies conducted on much larger 1 MW turbines in the newer section of Altamont called Buena Vista. There were also comparisons to other progressively smaller turbine size categories as well.  The categories shown below illustrate a progressive increase in mortality per megawatt. These numbers can be seen below.

40-65 KW         95-200 KW             250kw-400kw            660 KW             1MW

Wind Turbines     Wind Turbines      Wind  Turbines    Wind Turbines    Wind  Turbines

4.035/MW/year3.243/MW/year1.579/MW/year2.117/MW/year0.748/MW/year11.000/MW/year8.140/MW/year4.111/MW/year3.512/MW/year2.389/MW/year

These are impressive numbers and it appears that Altamont is on its way to reducing yearly mortality and living up to the settlement agreement made with the Audubon society, Californians for Renewable Energy (“CARE”);  and Attorney General ( People of the State of California), to reduce mortality.  But there is a lot more to these numbers as I will illustrate and the agreement made to reduce mortality is not being met.

Rated Capacity and Actual Energy Production 

Altamont pass has a rated capacity of 580 MW. This number represents the theoretical total energy output of their 5000 or so turbines under high wind conditions. Every turbine depending on its size also has an industry given “rated capacity”. These turbines are represented in the different categories seen above.  For the sake of simplicity I will  compare just two different wind turbines. One from the from the lowest 40-65 KW category and one from the 1 MW category,. those being an older Windmatic  65 KW  will be compared with  one of the new Mitsubishi  1 MW turbines that have been installed in the Buena vista section of Altamont.  These can be seen in the images provided.

The average wind speed in the Altamont region is in the 12-16 mph range. At 12.5 mph the Windmatic wind turbine produces about 135,000 KWh  per year. According to the manufacturer the 1 MW turbine at the same wind speed produces about 1,000,000 KWh. This comes out  to a 7.4 to one ratio in energy production when compared to the smaller turbine.  The “rated capacity” for the smaller turbine is 65 KW  This industry rating when compared to the 1 MW Mitsubishi rating creates a  ratio that  is 15.4 to 1(65kw divided by1000kw).  With this disparity between “rated capacity” and actual energy production it more than doubles the number of wind turbines used to compare fatalities for the much higher 40-65Kw  mortality category. This  type of comparison can be used with any of the turbines installed at Altamont.

All the mortality numbers from Altamont were derived by using comparisons to “rated capacity”.  By using bird mortality and equating it to rated capacity, it creates a deception or trick of numbers because rated capacity is a subjective wind industry figure that refers to maximum energy potential of a turbine at a particular wind speed. The term rated capacity is so vague that it should NEVER be discussed in any mortality impact studies to protected species.

I know the State Of California  is well aware of this as well because twenty years ago the California Energy Commission made the following statement about rated capacity….. “Because the wind industry does not yet employ a standardized turbine rating system, much of the data reported is not directly comparable. Turbines are tested under different conditions and rated at widely varying miles per hour specifications. Evidence of the problem is indicated by the lack of correlation between blade swept area and turbine KW specifications.”  Yet the wind industry has created false correlations for their mortality studies.

Instead what should always be discussed in every scientific mortality study are total rotor sweep area, tip speed, and placement because these are the primary wind turbine factors that slaughter our birds.

Currently there is no data available from Altamont Pass or any other wind facility across America, equating actual energy production to raptor and bird mortality. If one understands the magnitude of what  I have just presented, then it becomes obvious that  that none of the wind industry mortality studies using rated capacity comparisons have  credibility.   Rated capacity, that vague term of potential, is also used in another deceptive manner,  it is used to embellish the energy projections of wind farms.

In the end, with these new turbines going into Altamont,  more energy will be produced and that is the real reason why they are repowering. It is not for the birds and never has been.  More energy will be produced because at 300 feet up in the sky these turbines reach into stronger winds and far more rotor sweep will be put into Altamont.  Likewise  if the same old turbines now on  60- 80 foot towers were placed at the same level, they too would produce far more energy.

Rotor Sweep

All things being equal,  if we look at rotor sweep comparisons to produce the equal amounts of energy (135,000 kwh)  it shows that at a 7.4 to 1 ratio Windmatic have a combined total rotor sweep of 1140 sq meters (7.4 x 154sq meters=1140). The new 1 MW Buena vista turbines reaching almost 300 feet into the air have a rotor sweep of 2959 square meters. Each of these turbines has a rotor sweep equal to the total sweep area of 19.2 of the smaller Windmatic turbines. They also a total rotor sweep of  2.6 times for the same energy production. But more importantly the mortality equivalent of 19.2 turbines in the numbers above, is being compared to just one 1 MW turbine when it should be compared to just 7.4 turbines. This creates a figure showing 2.6 times more fatalities for the smaller turbines. If this inflated 2.6 ratio is plugged into the industry numbers it drastically lowers the mortality numbers again for the smaller 40kw-65kw class of turbines.

Even so, there are far bigger problems with the wind industry mortality studies and their conclusions.

Proportional Rotor sweep and Search Areas 

In order to get the mortality data,  an area around each turbine must be searched. If we compare the areas searched between the different turbine types the results are shocking. Especially when comparing the search areas of the 1MW turbine to the smallest and supposedly most dangerous 40-65 KW turbines.

40-65 KW 95-200 KW            250kw-400kw             660 KW                   1MW

Wind Turbines       Wind Turbines          Wind  Turbines       Wind Turbines       Wind  Turbines

rotor sweep area 154 sq meters  1658 square feetrotor sweep areaapp. 350 sq m app.1734 sq feetrotor sweep areaapp. 800 sq m app. 1734 sq feetrotor sweep area1734 sq meter s18,664 sq feetrotor sweep area2960 sq meter 31,860 sq feet50 meter search50 meter search50 meter search60 meter search75 meter search

Published Scientific reports claim declining fatalities in the new larger turbines installed at Altamont but the data also shows something else if you look close. The data shows that there a direct association between the number of fatalities found in relation to turbine size. It is an illusion because from the highest number of fatalities found in the studies down to the lowest shows progressively smaller search areas for each of the five larger wind turbines categories.

The area searched for each of the smaller Windmatic turbines is 50 meters out from the base of each turbine.  The area searched looking for bodies around the 1 MW turbines at Buena Vista was 75 meters.  Since the 1 MW turbines are actually 19.1 times bigger we can multiply the 7850 square meter Windmatic search areas by that amount for comparison. This will give us an area of  149,935 square meters that was searched for the fatalities listed for the smallest turbines. Now if we look at the total area searched for the much larger 1 MW turbines it is just 17662 square meters

A total single search of the so called safer 38 turbines installed in the Buena Vista wind project,  covered  671175 square meters. The total search area of the same rotor sweep equivalent ( 726  40-65 Kw turbines)  of the smaller turbines was 5,699,100 square meters.   A difference of  5,028,735 square meters, or almost  2 square miles.

This is very important because wounded birds with severed limbs can travel for days before dying and smaller birds hit by blade tips can fly like a baseball upon impact.

The mortality figures given by the industry for the 1 MW turbines were derived from    search area equivalents 8.5 times smaller.  The new larger turbines with lower claimed fatalities had bird and bat mortality searches covering an area of  over 26  million less square feet every time searchers looked through the turbines.  What does this all really mean?  That if you do not look, you will not see.

Now that the wind industry undersized search radius ploy has been exposed, an argument can also be made that comparison search areas should be derived from the equal angles created from the outside edge  or the maximum height of the rotor  sweep to the outside edge of the search radius. I have looked into this and depending on tower height, it still creates a search area radius in the 130-142 meter range that should have been done for each of the Buena Vista 1 MW turbines. This is still 3 – 3.6 times too small.  But even if this had been done, the increased search areas would not account for the higher winds at the increased elevation of impact,  nor the greater impact to birds generated  from birds hitting blades with much faster tip speeds of the newly installed 1 MW turbines.

All Native Bird Comparisons                                                                                                     

The new turbines were said to drastically reduce the bird mortality rate by 80 percent. This statement is not true. Not only are the all native bird figures wrong from the result of  using distorted comparisons of rated capacity, rotor sweep, and search area sizes, but birds species that do not use the habitat, were used to create the low Buena Vista number of 2.389 bird fatalities/per MW/ per year.

Bird species that do not live in or use the habitat should not have ever been used. I’ve walked the Buena Vista habitat. The habitat where the Buena Vista wind turbines are placed, is a treeless semi desert grassland (see images).  You will not see wild turkeys, flickers, scrub jays, pelicans and many of the other bird species that were used to build the 80 percent reduction number. This is another trick of numbers used to create the safer turbine myth.

Other problems with the Turbine comparisons

Hidden in the numbers are several other facts that completely change the widely published repowering conclusions. With the largest 1MW turbines, is the terrible news that the golden eagle death rate went up over all other wind turbine categories from .043 fatalities to .084 per MW /per year. Even with the many flawed comparisons and conclusions the death rate still nearly doubled when compared to the 40-65 kw turbines. When accounting for these flaws, the death rate for the golden eagle becomes even more alarming because it easily escalates mortality to over 4 times as many golden eagles killed with the so called safer turbines.

Another fact buried in the 67% lower raptor mortality numbers is the fact that with the burrowing owl mortality category, no mortalities were reported because they also do not live around the turbines in Buena Vista 1 MW turbine habitat.  This lowered the overall raptor mortality of the raptor species. The closest and rare observations of this species were all about 1/2 mile away from the closest turbines.

Lastly it must be pointed out that the these same 1 MW Turbines put in other locations of  Altamont pass with better habitat would kill far more raptors, birds, and bats. In other words the bird and raptor mortalities reported would have been higher in nearly every category except for those species like the Horned lark and Prairie falcon that prefer this semi desert habitat. The death list from the Buena Vista turbines shows that their mortality numbers went up.

The only reasonable conclusions that can be made from the Buena Vista Mortality studies  is that the new larger turbines are far more dangerous to the golden eagle and wind turbines kill the indigenous species from the habitat where they are placed.

The Stark Reality

One of the reasons the new turbines are so dangerous to eagles is because the placement of the Buena Vista turbines now has the highest concentration of wind turbines in all of the Altamont region. In addition, for any bird species that pays a visit to the Buena Vista Wind farm, the chances of coming out alive are the worst in all of Altamont. Now within this .85 mile square mile area, anything that flies  must face 1,205,132 square feet of air space with spinning turbine blades. Their blade tip speed is 210 mph when spinning at 19.8 rpm.  The Buena Vista section of Altamont Pass now has more than three times the density of spinning blades (rotor sweep) found anywhere else in the entire Altamont wind resource area. In other words, the equivalent of 726 of the older Windmatic wind turbines have been crammed into one small area.

For the Buena Vista project 179 older turbines were taken out and this repowering project  added 441,320 more square feet of rotor sweep to the previous total. When the original 179 turbines that were pulled out, they also did not sit on .85 square miles, they were spread out over an area of 3.9 square miles. The untold truth is that the Buena Vista wind farm is now the most dangerous installment of turbines in the entire region of Altamont Pass and it is going get worse.

Why Altamont Death Rate is Really Much Higher                                                                        

When looking through the many studies conducted at Altamont over the years, I also saw mistakes  researchers we were making with their the studies under the turbines. I can report that mortality is much worse than anything reported and much higher than any of previous of estimates. Especially for the smaller birds and bats. This is because all the previous studies were set up to see only the leftovers from scavenging. Unreported in the studies is the fact that Ravens, sea gulls, vultures are picking the search areas clean long before the searchers arrive. Over the years I have spent time studying each of these species and from what I have seen of their behavior I know that most of the smaller species killed by the turbines are carried off or eaten from the turbines in a day or two after they hit the ground.

In all the studies researchers have been coming back to the turbines checking for bodies   two weeks, a month , or even 3 months later so they can tally up the fatalities. But its really old news and even if they checked everyday the ravens and gulls would make fools out of them.

A look at the many Altamont studies consistently shows that these species as a group are the most commonly seen birds in the Altamont Pass region. These species are tenacious scavengers equipped with very keen eyesight. Their eyesight may not equal that of  an eagle’s, but it is not far off. In addition there is another very important characteristic about raven behavior that plays a part in all of this. That is, they stash food. Hiding it away even if they do not need it or can ever possibly eat it all, they will fly off  and hide it.  I have witnessed ravens carry off and hide a months worth of food in a few hours. But due to spoilage much of the food taken could never be consumed.

Scavenger studies by researchers have been set up to account for the disappearance of fatalities, but as I have seen, they too are flawed. For example with the Buena Vista scavenger studies, the dead quail used in the scavenger studies were too big for gulls to swallow whole or for the ravens to carry away.

There are other very serious problems with all the mortality studies. These problems arise from deliberate  interference from those protecting the money. Lack of researcher access given by the wind companies, wind farm personnel picking up and hiding bodies, land owners with leases wanting to keep a lid on the bad publicity so their money will keep coming in. Then there are those endless studies generated from the wind industry experts.  As anyone can see from the results of the Altamont repowering studies, none have these have much merit.

I have a lot more I could say about Altamont but I will save it for another day. Right now I want the people in the Bay Area,  to understand the next ugly chapter of what is about to take place at Altamont Pass, more eagles will die.

The future

The result of the repowering of Altamont will bring many more fatalities to the golden eagle and all raptors.  Currently Altamont has a rated capacity of 580 Mw of which it has never come close to achieving.  With the new turbines and by using the obscure meaning of “Rated Capacity”,  I believe the industry is going to make it happen. In the process the total rotor swept area for Altamont will be increased by several million more square feet.  For Altamont the blood bath will not only continue, it will get much worse. If this happens a mortality decline for raptors will never be reported until there is a decline in the overall raptor populations or the media grabs a hold of a cooked-up wind industry report.

The repowering of Altamont is in it early stages. I know that 100 much larger 2.3 MW turbines are scheduled to be put in at Altamont by NextEra. The total rotor sweep of these turbines will equal 4400 of the early turbines 65 KW turbines (see image). Combine these turbines with the 38 1 MW turbines installed at Buena vista,  the 31 Diablo Winds 660 KW turbines and together they will total 5434 of the early 65KW turbines. I have been told that as many  as 700 of these huge new generation wind turbines are planned for the repowering of Altamont.

So I ask, at what point if ever, does any of this ever sink into the consciousness of  the Bay Area?

NEVER MIND THE PANORAMA - LISTEN TO THE TURBINES' NOISE

Western Morning News, www.thisisnorthdevon.co.uk

October 29, 2011 

Imagine never being able to open your windows at night, no matter how hot the weather…

It’s a problem some North Devon residents now claim they face since the blades of 22 giant wind-turbines at Fullabrook began to turn.

Sue Pike’s bungalow is just 600 metres from one of the 110-metre turbines at the new wind-farm and she says: “It is dreadful – the main sound is like a huge great cement mixer going around – then you get the loud whoosh and also whistles and hums.

“Altogether we have counted four different noises coming from it,” she told the Western Morning News. “Back in the warmer weather when the turbines were being tested we couldn’t open the bedroom or lounge windows – fortunately we are double-glazed so that helps cut out the noise – but we were stewing indoors.”

Retired farmer Brian Pugsley has lived in the Putsford area close to the centre of the wind-farm all his 67 years and he says his thoughts on the development are “unprintable”.

“It’s affected everybody in a large area, but we’re in the middle of it – you’ve got the drone of the motor and also the blade and its whooshing sound.

“I don’t know how loud it was – but it just went on and on and was definitely worst when all 22 were going round,” said Mr Pugsley referring to the recent turbine tests.

“It’s not too bad indoors, but you can’t go in your garden,” he added. “I was born here – and some of the things I want to say now I’ve heard the noise wouldn’t be printable.”

After meetings with local residents ESB, the Irish-based owner of the wind-farm, has commissioned experts to undertake noise monitoring tests at some neighbouring properties.

The measurements recorded will be in addition to the formal tests which ESB must undertake as part of the conditions set out in its planning permission. But the company points out the research can only be undertaken when the wind farm is fully operational.

“ESB will continue to work closely with the local community – particularly our immediate neighbours and North Devon Council – to ensure we not only meet all conditions of the planning permission, but that we are able to discuss local concerns and take what measures we can to address issues,” commented a company spokesman.

Local MP Nick Harvey is so concerned over noise complaints that he recently added a special online survey to his official website.

“This was launched three weeks ago after Nick visited residents up at Putsford who have been complaining about noise problems, vibration, loss of TV reception, flicker etc, now that the farm is almost completely operational,” said Mr Harvey’s press officer, Anthony Tucker-Jones.

He added that North Devon Council’s Environmental Health Department was about to conduct site analysis at five locations in response to residents’ concerns.

The results of Mr Harvey’s online survey will be collated soon, but the site is still getting about two returns a day and his office says the response has been huge.

Local artist Christine Lovelock launched her own website (artistsagainstwindfarms. com) when plans for the development were first mooted: “The scale of this development was always going to be far too large,” she told the WMN. “Now the 22 turbines are all up I would say it’s worse than I ever thought it would be.”

She added: “A lot of local people are very upset by the noise, but a lot of them are afraid to speak out because they are worried that will immediately reduce the value of their properties.”

However, Sue Pike said she and her partner John were only too keen to voice their concerns…

“We reckoned our property had devalued by 20 per cent without the noise – we worked that out when they went ahead with the wind-farm,” she said. “But, with the noise, it’s going to be worse. And no one has ever talked about compensation. We feel we’re under siege.”

Bob Barfoot, chairman of the Campaign for Preservation of Rural England’s North Devon branch, helped fight against the wind-farm and he commented: “At the public inquiry it was very clear from the evidence that the wind-farm would have massive landscape and visual impacts and that turbine noise would be a real problem. The inspector overrode all of these concerns…

“But it was made clear at the public inquiry that the turbines would breach the accepted noise guidelines and now that the turbines are operating the local people are reporting problems, especially at night when it appears that the classic ‘swish and thump’ of ‘amplitude modulation’ is preventing some of them from sleeping with their bedroom windows open.

“The Fullabrook situation should be a lesson to us all,” added Mr Barfoot, who is now preparing to rejoin the fight against a proposed wind-farm at Batsworthy Cross, also in North Devon.

Developers of that scheme recently decided to appeal against a North Devon Council decision earlier this year to refuse permission for the wind-farm, and Mr Barfoot says: “I hope the inspector at the forthcoming public inquiry will dismiss the appeal and save the people in the Batsworthy Cross area from the same sad fate as those living close to the Fullabrook turbines.”

The newly completed Fullabrook wind-farm does find support in some areas… Barnstaple town councillor and Green Party candidate Ricky Knight says he’s been to the site to hear the “so-called” noise and was left mystified.

“I have thought long and hard as to what they (people protesting against the noise) are talking about. I stood in a friend’s garden near the turbines and essentially all we heard was the wind, birds and farm machinery. I was not able to discern any sound coming from the turbines.

“I am in receipt of criticisms (from people who don’t like the wind-farm) but I get far more support from people who simply register confusion about this subject,” added Mr Knight.

All eyes – and ears – will now be on Fullabrook on November 18 when the wind-farm is due to become fully operational.

ESB claims each turbine will have a three megawatt capacity and that collectively the 22 turbines will power 30,000 homes and help keep people warm. Ironically, local residents like Sue Pike and Brian Pugsley could be using some of that power in summer to run air-conditioning units.

NEXT STORY

MASSIVE BIRD KILL AT WEST VIRGINIA WIND FARM HIGHLIGHTS NATIONAL ISSUE

SOURCE American Bird Conservancy, www.abcbirds.org

October 18, 2011

WASHINGTON D.C. --With the deaths of nearly 500 birds at the Laurel Mountain wind facility earlier this month, three of the four wind farms operating in West Virginia have now experienced large bird fatality events, according to American Bird Conservancy (ABC), the nation’s leading bird conservation organization.

“Wind energy has the potential to be a green energy source, but the industry still needs to embrace simple, bird-smart principles that would dramatically reduce incidents across the country, such as those that have occurred in West Virginia,” said Kelly Fuller, ABC’s Wind Campaign Coordinator.

There were three critical circumstances that tragically aligned in each of the three West Virginia events to kill these birds. Each occurred during bird migration season, during low visibility weather conditions, and with the addition of a deadly triggering element – an artificial light source. Steady-burning lights have been shown to attract and disorient birds, particularly night-migrating songbirds that navigate by starlight, and especially during nights where visibility is low such as in fog or inclement weather. Circling birds collide with structures or each other, or drop to the ground from exhaustion.

At the Laurel Mountain facility in the Allegheny Mountains, almost 500 birds were reportedly killed after lights were left on at an electrical substation associated with the wind project. The deaths are said to have occurred not from collisions with the wind turbines themselves, but from a combination of collisions with the substation and apparent exhaustion as birds caught in the light’s glare circled in mass confusion.

On the evening of September 24 this year at the Mount Storm facility in the Allegheny Mountains, 59 birds and two bats were killed. Thirty of the dead birds were found near a single wind turbine that was reported to have had internal lighting left on overnight. This incident stands in stark contrast to industry assertions that just two birds per year are killed on average by each turbine. Data from Altamont Pass, California wind farms – the most studied in the nation – suggest that over 2,000 Golden Eagles alone have been killed there.

On May 23, 2003 at the Mountaineer wind farm in the Allegheny Mountains, at least 33 birds were killed. Some of the deaths were attributed to collisions with wind turbines and some to collisions with a substation.

“The good news is that it shouldn’t be hard to make changes that will keep these sorts of unnecessary deaths from happening again, but it’s disturbing that they happened at all. It has long been known that many birds navigate by the stars at night, that they normally fly lower during bad weather conditions, and that artificial light can draw them off course and lead to fatal collision events. That’s why minimizing outdoor lighting at wind facilities is a well-known operating standard. And yet lights were left on at these sites resulting in these unfortunate deaths. This reinforces the need to have mandatory federal operational standards as opposed to the optional, voluntary guidelines that are currently under discussion,” Fuller said.

A fourth wind farm in West Virginia, the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project in Greenbrier County, has not experienced large mortality events, likely because it is currently prohibited by a court order from operating during nighttime between April 1 and November 15.

“Some West Virginia conservation groups have suggested that other wind farms in the state should shut down their wind turbines at certain times and seasons to protect birds. Given the recurring bird-kill problems, that idea needs to be seriously considered, at least during migration season on nights where low visibility is predicted. A wind farm in Texas is doing just that, so it is possible.” said Fuller.

ACOUSTIC TRAUMA:

HOW WIND FARMS MAKE YOU SICK

SOURCE: The Register, www.theregister.co.uk

August 3, 2011

By Andrew Orlowski

Industrial wind installations are creating a serious health issue, and comprehensive research is urgently needed, says a former Professor of Public Health.

“There has been no policy analysis that justifies imposing these effects on local residents. The attempts to deny the evidence cannot be seen as honest scientific disagreement, and represent either gross incompetence or intentional bias,” writes Carl Phillips, formerly Professor of Public Health at University of Alberta, now an independent researcher.

“There is ample evidence that turbines cause a constellation of health problems, and attempts to deny this involve claims that are contrary to proper methods of scientific inference,” Phillips writes in a paper published in the Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society. It’s one of several interesting papers in the journal, which is devoted to wind health issues.

Industrial wind installations produce audible and non-audible noise, and optical flicker. But campaigners are fragmented, and face a daunting alliance of big eco-business and government. The academic establishment, which is quick to leap upon public health issues, is strangely inert.

“There is a huge amount of evidence, and it’s incredibly convincing,” Phillips told us by phone, “but it takes a different form to what industry consultants present.”

Empirical studies are rare. Renewable UK, the wind and wave industry lobby group, cites research by the Noise Working Group for the UK business department on its web page devoted to noise issues. The 1996 study, known as ETSU-R-97 (10-page PDF/1.8MB), recommended “Noise from the wind farm should be limited to 5dB(A) above background for both day-time and night-time”, and in the Renewable UK portrait, wind farms sound idyllic; like nature, only more so.

“Outside the nearest houses, which are at least 300 metres away, and more often further, the sound of a wind turbine generating electricity is likely to be about the same level as noise from a flowing stream about 50-100 metres away or the noise of leaves rustling in a gentle breeze,” the group writes.

Yet the ancient study, completed in 1996 and now so old it’s actually in the national archive – has been heavily criticised. Sleep expert Dr Christopher Hanning has written:

“Its major flaws include the use of averaged noise levels over too long a time period and using a best fit curve, thus ignoring the louder transient noise of AM which causes awakenings and arousals. It ignores also the property of low frequency noise to be audible over greater distances than higher frequency noise. By concentrating on sound pressure alone, it ignores the increased annoyance of particular noises, especially that associated with AM. It is also the only guidance anywhere in the world which permits a higher sound level at night than during the day, completely contrary to common sense, noise pollution legislation and WHO guidelines.”

Reality bites blows…

People living near wind farms – and near can be quite a long way away – find the reality far different to Renewable UK’s pastoral idyll.

Dr Michael M Nissenbaum, a radiologist at Northern Maine Medical Center, has new work imminent on the study. He says “significant risk of adverse health effects is likely to occur in a significant subset of people out to at least 2,000 meters away from an industrial wind turbine installation. These health concerns include: sleep disturbance and psychological stress.”

He continues: “Our current knowledge indicates that there are substantial health risks from the existing exposure, and we do not know how to reduce those risks other than by keeping turbines several kilometers away from homes.”

Consultant Mike Stigwood, who has testified before public enquiries, points out that since ETSU-R-97 was published, the World Health Organization has twice lowered its recommended limits for night-time noise.

Currently there’s no solution other than to site the wind turbines further away. But how far?

The Planning Policy Statement on Renewable Energy (PPS22) is often cited here, obliging local planning authorities to “ensure that renewable energy developments have been located and designed in such a way to minimise increases in ambient noise levels.” It doesn’t specify a distance, though.

Hanning notes that: “Proposals that site wind turbines within 1.5km of habitation will not keep wind turbine noise to an acceptable level and are therefore in contravention of PPS22.”

Even at 2km, there are noticeable health consequences.

But there are signs the mood has shifted from one of acquiescence to Big Eco-business – with local authorities judging that they’re accountable to the communities they’re supposed to serve. In June, Highland Council temporarily shut down a 23-turbine installation in Sutherland after persistent complaints by residents. The operator, SSE, had failed to test noise levels at properties 2km away and failed to produce a noise mitigation plan. The stop notice has since been lifted. More are planned nearby.

Related Link

Properly Interpreting the Epidemiologic Evidence About the Health Effects of Industrial Wind Turbines on Nearby Residents – Carl Phillips (43-page PDF/1.2MB)

FROM CALIFORNIA:

FEDERAL OFFICIALS INVESTIGATE EAGLE DEATHS AT DWP WIND FARM

SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, www.latimes.com

August 3, 2011

By Louis Sahagun

Pine Tree facility in the Tehachapi Mountains faces scrutiny over the deaths of at least six golden eagles, which are protected under federal law. Prosecution would be a major blow to the booming industry.

Federal authorities are investigating the deaths of at least six golden eagles at the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power’s Pine Tree Wind Project in the Tehachapi Mountains, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said Tuesday.

So far, no wind-energy company has been prosecuted by federal wildlife authorities in connection with the death of birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. A prosecution in the Pine Tree case could cause some rethinking and redesigning of this booming alternative energy source. Facilities elsewhere also have been under scrutiny, according to a federal official familiar with the investigations.

“Wind farms have been killing birds for decades and law enforcement has done nothing about it, so this investigation is long overdue,” said Shawn Smallwood, an expert on raptor ecology and wind farms. “It’s going to ruffle wind industry feathers across the country.”

Wildlife Service spokeswoman Lois Grunwald declined to comment on what she described as “an ongoing law enforcement investigation regarding Pine Tree.”

Joe Ramallo, a DWP spokesman, said, “We are very concerned about golden eagle mortalities that have occurred at Pine Tree. We have been working cooperatively and collaboratively with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game to investigate these incidents.

“We have also actively and promptly self-reported raptor mortalities to both authorities,” he said. “Moving forward, we will be ramping up further our extensive field monitoring and will work with the agencies to develop an eagle conservation plan as part of more proactive efforts to monitor avian activities in the Pine Tree area.”

An internal DWP bird and bat mortality report for the year ending June 2010 indicated that compared to 45 other wind facilities nationwide, bird fatality rates were “relatively high” at Pine Tree, which has 90 towers generating 120 megawatts on 8,000 acres.

Golden eagles weigh about 14 pounds and stand up to 40 inches tall. Their flight behavior and size make it difficult for them to maneuver through forests of wind turbine blades spinning as fast as 200 mph — especially when they are distracted by the sight of prey such as squirrels and rabbits.

DWP officials acknowledged that at least six golden eagles have been struck dead by wind turbine blades at the two-year-old Kern County facility, about 100 miles north of Los Angeles, which was designed to contribute to the city’s renewable energy goal of 35% by 2020.

Although the total deaths at Pine Tree pale in comparison with the 67 golden eagles that die each year in Northern California’s Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, the annual death rate per turbine is three times higher at the DWP facility. The Altamont Pass facility has 5,000 wind turbines — 55 times as many as Pine Tree.

Nationwide, about 440,000 birds are killed at wind farms each year, according to the Wildlife Service. The American Wind Energy Assn., an industry lobbying group, points out that far more birds are killed by collisions with radio towers, tall buildings, airplanes and vehicles, and encounters with household cats.

Attorney Allan Marks, who specializes in renewable energy projects, called the Pine Tree deaths “an isolated case. If their golden eagle mortality rate is above average, it means the industry as a whole is in compliance.”

About 1,595 birds, mostly migratory songbirds and medium-sized species such as California quail and western meadowlark, die each year at Pine Tree, according to the bird mortality report prepared for the DWP last year by Ojai-based BioResource Consultants.

BioResource spokesman Peter Cantle suggested that those bird deaths may be unrelated to Pine Tree’s wind turbines.

“It’s hard to tease out those numbers,” he said. “Basically, we walked around the site to find bird mortalities, which could have been attributable to a number of things including natural mortality and predators.”

The death count worries environmentalists because the $425-million Pine Tree facility is in a region viewed as a burgeoning hot spot for wind energy production.

“We believe this problem must be dealt with immediately because Pine Tree is only one of several industrial energy developments proposed for that area over the next five to 10 years,” said Los Angeles Audubon President Travis Longcore. “Combined, they have the potential to wipe this large, long-lived species out of the sky.”

SECOND STORY

From CANADA

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: The wind turbine related bat kill rates mentioned in the piece below are alarming and newsworthy. What's more alarming and newsworthy is that the bat kill rates in Wisconsin are nearly twice as high. As far as we know, environmental groups in our state have said  nothing about it.

TRANSALTA URGED TO SHUT DOWN WIND FARM DURING MIGRATION SEASON

SOURCE The Globe and Mail, www.theglobeandmail.com

August 2, 2011

Richard Blackwell

A major conservation group is calling on TransAlta Corp. TA-T to periodically turn off turbines at its Wolfe Island wind farm in Ontario to cut down on the number of birds and bats killed by the machines.

Nature Canada says the project’s 86 turbines are among the most destructive of wildlife in North America. The organization argues TransAlta should shut down parts of the wind farm – one of the biggest in the country – during high-risk periods in the late summer and early fall, when swallows congregate in the region and bats migrate.

“That period is when the vast majority of birds seem to be killed,” said Ted Cheskey, manager of bird conservation programs at Nature Canada. “The evidence is there, and now there is an obligation for [TransAlta] to act.”

The controversy over bird deaths is just one of the many challenges facing Canada’s wind industry, which has run up against by increasingly vocal opponents who say turbines are ugly, cause health problems, and do not contribute to reduced carbon emissions.

The Wolfe Island site, near Kingston, Ont., began generating power in 2009, and an ongoing count of bird and bat deaths has been conducted by a consulting firm since then. Nature Canada says that while bird deaths have been in line with other wind farms on the continent, those numbers are far too high.

The bird death rates from the turbines “are consistently high,” Mr. Cheskey said. He is particularly concerned with the deaths of tree swallows and purple martins – which are in decline in the province – along with bat fatalities.

Mr. Cheskey said his comparison of the numbers in the Wolfe Island report shows the turbines generate one of the highest rates of casualties – about 1,500 birds and 3,800 bats in a year – of any wind farm.

But TransAlta disagrees with Nature Canada’s views. The numbers suggest that the Wolfe Island wind farm is no worse that most others, and is well within limits set by federal environmental regulators, said Glen Whelan, TransAlta’s manager of public affairs.

“The mortality rates that we are seeing in birds and bats are within ranges reported for other wind farms across North America,” he said. For bats, the death rate is well below what is often reported in the eastern United States, he added.

While “bird and bat mortality is unfortunately inevitable at wind power facilities, we are seeing numbers that are within the ranges that are called for by regulators,” Mr. Whelan said.

TransAlta is researching ways to mitigate bat deaths, possibly by turning off turbines at certain times, but the results are not in yet, he said.

Nature Canada is not opposed to wind farms in principle, but it thinks they should be in locations where birds and bats are not at serious risk. Because of its location on a migratory route at the eastern end of Lake Ontario, Wolfe Island is one of many spots where the risk of killing migrating birds and bats is particularly high, Mr. Cheskey said.

Other groups base their opposition to wind farms on other factors. Wind Concerns Ontario, one of the most vocal of the anti-wind groups, claims that noise and vibration from turbines causes sleep deprivation, headaches and high blood pressure. It is demanding independent studies of health impacts.

Anti-wind groups were outraged by a decision two weeks ago from Ontario’s Environmental Review Tribunal which ruled that a wind farm near Chatham, Ont., being developed by Suncor Energy Inc. can go ahead because opponents – who made detailed presentations at a lengthy hearing – did not prove that it would cause serious harm to human health.

Some groups also worry about the aesthetic issues that arise from the erection of thousands of new turbines across the country, while others suggest wind power is expensive, unreliable and needs fossil-fuel-generated back-up.

 

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

WISCONSINS DIRTY GREEN SECRET: The most recent post construction mortality studies confirm that Wisconsin's wind turbine related bat-kill rate is the highest in North America and is considered to be unsustainable.

Aside from a single article by Tony Walter in the Green Bay Press Gazette, the media has been silent on this issue. (The article by Tony Walter is no longer available on the Press Gazette website (why?) but you can read it HERE.)

State and local environmental groups are taking a strict hands-off approach to this subject and have not spoken out, allowing the slaughter to continue with no complaint.

If you are a member of a Wisconsin environmental group, please urge them to look into this issue and speak up.

HOW BAD IS IT?

Wind developers claim turbine related bat mortality will cause about four deaths per turbine per year.

Pennsylvania is making headlines with a bat kill rate of 25 kills per turbine per year.

In Wisconsin, the most recent post construction mortality study puts the kill rate at over fifty bats per turbine per year.

Larry Roberts/Post-Gazette

Suzanne B. McLaren, the collection manager in the Carnegie Museum of Natural History's section of mammals, extends the wing of an approximately 3-inch specimen of a Seminole bat, rare in Pennsylvania, which was reportedly killed in the vicinity of a wind turbine.

The butterfly effect suggests the flapping of a tiny insect's wings in Africa can lead to a tornado in Kansas.

Call this the bat effect: A bat killed by a wind turbine in Somerset can lead to higher tomato prices at the Wichita farmers market.

Bats are something of a one-species stimulus program for farmers, every year gobbling up millions of bugs that could ruin a harvest. But the same biology that allows the winged creatures to sweep the night sky for fine dining also has made them susceptible to one of Pennsylvania's fastest-growing energy tools.

The 420 wind turbines now in use across Pennsylvania killed more than 10,000 bats last year -- mostly in the late summer months, according to the state Game Commission. That's an average of 25 bats per turbine per year, and the Nature Conservancy predicts as many as 2,900 turbines will be set up across the state by 2030.

This is a bad time to be a bat.

It may seem like a good thing to those who fear the flying mammals, but the wind farm mortality rate is an acute example of how harnessing natural energy can lead to disruptions in the circle of life -- and the cycle of business. This chain of events mixes biology and economics: Bat populations go down, bug populations go up and farmers are left with the bill for more pesticide and crops (which accounts for those pricey tomatoes in Kansas).

Wind industry executives are shelling out millions of dollars on possible solutions that don't ruin their bottom line, even as wind farms in the area are collaborating with the state Game Commission to work carcass-combing into daily operations.

"If you look at a map and see where the mountains are, everything funnels through Somerset," said Tracey Librandi Mumma, the wildlife biologist who led the March commission report on bird and bat mortality. "If I'm out driving ... I wonder, 'How many are being killed at that one?' "

Bats are nature's pesticide, consuming as many as 500 insects in one hour, or nearly 3,000 insects in one night, said Miguel Saviroff, the agricultural financial manager at the Penn State Cooperative Extension in Somerset County.

"A colony of just 100 little brown bats may consume a quarter of a million mosquitoes and other small insects in a night," he said. "That benefits neighbors and reduces the insect problem with crops."

If one turbine kills 25 bats in a year, that means one turbine accounted for about 17 million uneaten bugs in 2010.

Bats save farmers a lot of money: About $74 per acre, according to an April report in Science magazine that calculated the economic value of bats on a county-by-county basis.

In Allegheny County, bats save farmers an estimated $642,986 in a year. That's nothing compared with more agricultural counties in the region such as Somerset ($6.7 million saved), Washington ($5.5 million) or Westmoreland ($6.1 million).

Lancaster County? You owe bats $22 million.

In all of Pennsylvania, bats saved farmers $277.9 million in estimated avoided costs.

Initially, the "Economic Importance of Bats in Agriculture" article was meant to attract attention to the white-nose fungus virus that is wiping out entire colonies of bats across the country.

"We were getting a lot of questions about why we should care about white-nose syndrome," said author Justin Boyles, a post-doctoral fellow in bat research at the University of Tennessee. "Really, it's the economic impact that makes people listen."

The white-nose syndrome is compounding the wind turbine problems, having killed more than a million bats in the northeastern United States since 2006. It surfaced in Pennsylvania in 2008 and has killed thousands of in-state bats.

Meanwhile, the same creatures that save Pennsylvania farmers millions of dollars each year are also costing energy companies some big bucks as they try to stave off a mass execution beneath the blades.

Technology is being developed on sound generators that would deter the creatures from getting too close with a high-pitched noise only heard by bats. Some studies suggest that a slowdown in blade speed would reduce mortality.

But new technology is expensive and a blade slowdown would reduce the number of megawatts produced.

"All these options cost money," said Ms. Librandi Mumma, and it can be a tough sell to the private industry handing over the information that helps in the research. "You don't want to penalize the hand that's giving you the data."

Companies that have signed a Game Commission cooperation agreement must foot the bill for the commission's pre-construction reconnaissance and post-construction monitoring. The cost of the process varies, but the research can last several months and involve extensive habitat monitoring.

Under the agreement, each site conducts two years of mortality monitoring, sending a lucky employee out every day from April to November to comb the six meters around each turbine for carcasses. The employees are tested to see "how good they are at finding dead things," said Ms. Librandi Mumma.

"We got a dead snake once, because it was on the road and they were just collecting everything dead," she said. "It wasn't because the wind turbine killed it. The guy was just being thorough."

Some retrievers aren't so good.

"The average person finds 30 percent of the carcasses that are under a turbine," said Ms. Librandi Mumma, so the commission has come up with an algorithm that accounts for the missing bodies.

Agents will leave a carcass on the ground and note how long it takes to disappear -- this provides some insight on how many carcasses are unaccounted for because of living animals that have a taste for decomposing flesh.

Some wind companies with Pennsylvania operations have already seen seven-figure expenses on account of the bat problem.

NextEra Energy Resources, which operates the Somerset wind farms visible from the Pennsylvania Turnpike, has five active sites in Pennsylvania but did not participate in the Game Commission study.

The company monitors its mortality rates in house and funds outside research to reduce bird and bat deaths at its sites, said Skelly Holmbeck, environmental business manager at the Juno Beach, Fla.-based firm.

The funding program involving nine different research facilities is "in the millions overall," she said.

Migratory research that precedes any construction can employ bird watchers, nets or tape recorders designed to read the local ecosystem.

PPL Renewable Energy LLC of Allentown had planned on installing four turbines at its Lancaster County wind farm, but went with only two after sensitive avian populations were found nearby.

"There were design aspects that we elected not to use," said spokeswoman Mimi Mylin. "Some construction sites use lattice towers, but those can become roosting sites" for birds.

It's not just bats that are dying around wind turbines. An estimated 1,680 birds were killed by turbines last year, according to the state Game Commission report.

The disparity in mortality stems from biology. Birds typically crash into the blade and die from blunt force trauma, while bats suffer from a condition called barotrauma. It's the bat equivalent of the "bends" that scuba divers can suffer if they surface too quickly.

The rapid drop in air pressure around the blades causes the bats' lungs to burst, and they collapse with no ostensible lacerations or scars on the body.

"They just look like they're sleeping," said Ms. Librandi Mumma.

Bats must fly very close to the blades for their lungs to burst, and some researchers say the lights around the turbines might attract insects, which in turn attract bats.

Barotrauma in bats was only discovered in 2008, when a Canadian biologist thought to dissect one of the unblemished carcasses turning up at wind farms across North America.

"It was an 'a-ha' moment," said Ms. Librandi Mumma.

The turbine problem has yielded some other, unexpected contributions to bat research.

One carcass hunter in central Pennsylvania found a Seminole bat felled by barotrauma under the blades. Seminole bats live in the southeastern United States and rarely show up in Pennsylvania.

"It's like a double-edged sword," said Ms. Librandi Mumma. "You're excited because it's a new bat, but it's a dead one."

The Seminole specimen was kept on dry ice in a small styrofoam container by a commission employee and handed over to Suzanne McLaren, the collection manager at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History's research center in East Liberty. They met in the Ligonier Diamond town square -- home to a postcard-perfect gazebo and lots of sunlight -- for the transfer.

The bat, which may have traveled here from as far as Florida, found its final resting place in a freezer in East Liberty.