Report - The Energy Collective: More Realistic Costs for Wind Energy
Conclusions
According
to the American Tradition Institute, there are numerous hidden costs to
wind power, including the cost of back-up power, the cost of extra
transmission, and the cost of favorable tax benefits. And, the
assumption of a 30-year life used in government calculations for wind
power is optimistic, based on reports from European countries regarding
the useful service lives of their wind turbines.
Including
these hidden costs in calculating the cost of wind energy increases its
cost by a factor of 1.5 or 2, depending on the power system that is
used as back-up. The Institute calculates that ratepayers are paying an
extra $8.5 to $10 billion a year for wind energy compared to natural
gas-fired generation, and this will only increase as more capacity is
added. Add to this the more than $12 billion that the American taxpayer
is paying for the ‘one-year’ extension for the PTC, and one can see that
the wind industry is a boondoggle at the expense of taxpayers and
ratepayers, that is making the US economy less competitive.
Read the entire report at:
Even though Glenn Schleede wrote his "Homes Served" paper back in 2009, at which time he optimistically predicted that, "The facts about wind energy are beginning to show up in the
media" - sadly, the wind industry's "homes served" claims continue to be reported in many "news" outlets today (2013) - unquestioned.
Beware Windpower's "Homes Served" Claims, by Glenn Schleede
People who use the phrase “homes served” to describe the potential
output from one or more wind turbines either do not understand the facts
about wind turbines, believe false claims put forth by the wind
industry, or are trying to mislead their reader or listener.
False statements about “homes served” by wind developers and their
lobbyists are bad enough, but it is discouraging to hear politicians,
reporters, and others adopt and regurgitate them.
The concept of “homes served”
The concept of “homes served” has long been used in the electric industry as a way of giving some idea of the amount of electricity that would be produced by a proposed generating plant without using such terms as megawatt- or kilowatt-hours, which mean little to most people. The concept is always misleading since residential users of electricity (i.e., “homes served”) account for only 37% of all U.S. electricity use. [i]
The concept of “homes served” has long been used in the electric industry as a way of giving some idea of the amount of electricity that would be produced by a proposed generating plant without using such terms as megawatt- or kilowatt-hours, which mean little to most people. The concept is always misleading since residential users of electricity (i.e., “homes served”) account for only 37% of all U.S. electricity use. [i]
Claims about “homes served” by a proposed “wind farm” or other generating unit are usually based on a three-step calculation:
Start with an assumption (i.e., a guess) about the amount of electricity that would be produced annually by a “wind farm” or other generating unit, in kilowatt-hours (kWh) or megawatt-hours (MWh).[ii]
Employ an estimate (in kWh) of the amount of electricity used annually by an average residential customer in the area or state where their “wind farm” is located. [iii]
Divide the assumed annual production of electricity by the estimated annual average residential electricity use.
“Homes Served” can be useful when talking about reliable generating units
Although misleading, the concept of “homes served” has some validity when used to describe the output from a reliable, “dispatchable” electric generating unit, that is, one that can be called upon to produce electricity whenever it is needed. Such generating units are the ones that are counted on by the electric industry to provide a reliable supply of electricity for customers every day, at all hours of the day, year round.
Although misleading, the concept of “homes served” has some validity when used to describe the output from a reliable, “dispatchable” electric generating unit, that is, one that can be called upon to produce electricity whenever it is needed. Such generating units are the ones that are counted on by the electric industry to provide a reliable supply of electricity for customers every day, at all hours of the day, year round.
“Homes served” is NOT a valid concept when referring to wind turbines and “wind farms”
Using “homes served” when talking about wind turbines and “wind farms” is both false and misleading for several reasons.
Using “homes served” when talking about wind turbines and “wind farms” is both false and misleading for several reasons.
1. NO homes are really served by wind.
No homes are served by wind energy because wind turbines produce electricity only when wind speeds are in the right speed range (see below). Homes using electricity from wind must always have some reliable energy source immediately available to provide electricity when there is insufficient wind unless the residents are content to have electricity only when the wind is blowing in the right speed range – a condition that few in America are willing to tolerate.
No homes are served by wind energy because wind turbines produce electricity only when wind speeds are in the right speed range (see below). Homes using electricity from wind must always have some reliable energy source immediately available to provide electricity when there is insufficient wind unless the residents are content to have electricity only when the wind is blowing in the right speed range – a condition that few in America are willing to tolerate.
2. Electricity from wind turbines is inherently intermittent, volatile, and unreliable.
Wind turbines produce electricity only when the wind is blowing within the right speed range. Wind turbines typically start producing electricity at about 6 mph, reach rated capacity at about 32 mph, and cut out at about 56 mph. Unless a home owner has an expensive battery storage system, such volatile and unreliable output wouldn’t be suitable for lights, heating, computers, appliances, or many other purposes.
Wind turbines produce electricity only when the wind is blowing within the right speed range. Wind turbines typically start producing electricity at about 6 mph, reach rated capacity at about 32 mph, and cut out at about 56 mph. Unless a home owner has an expensive battery storage system, such volatile and unreliable output wouldn’t be suitable for lights, heating, computers, appliances, or many other purposes.
3. Electricity from “wind farms” is seldom available when most needed by home users.
Again, the output of wind turbines is dependent on wind conditions. Depending on the specific area, winds tend to be strongest at night in cold months. However, electricity demand in most areas of the United States is heavily concentrated during daytime and early evening hours. Even worse, wind turbines cannot be counted on to produce at the time of peak electricity demand, which often occurs in late afternoon on hot weekdays in July and August. At the time of peak electricity demand, wind turbine output may be in the range of 0% to 5% of rated capacity.
4. The electricity produced by wind turbines is low in value compared to electricity from reliable generating units.
That’s because it is inherently intermittent, volatile, unreliable, and not available when most needed—as described in points 2 and 3 above.
Again, the output of wind turbines is dependent on wind conditions. Depending on the specific area, winds tend to be strongest at night in cold months. However, electricity demand in most areas of the United States is heavily concentrated during daytime and early evening hours. Even worse, wind turbines cannot be counted on to produce at the time of peak electricity demand, which often occurs in late afternoon on hot weekdays in July and August. At the time of peak electricity demand, wind turbine output may be in the range of 0% to 5% of rated capacity.
4. The electricity produced by wind turbines is low in value compared to electricity from reliable generating units.
That’s because it is inherently intermittent, volatile, unreliable, and not available when most needed—as described in points 2 and 3 above.
5. Not all the electricity produced by a wind turbine actually reaches customers or serves a useful purpose.
Some electricity is lost as it is moved over transmission and distribution lines that carry the electricity from generating units to homes, offices, stores, factories and other users. The amount of electricity that is lost depends on the distance and the condition of lines and transformers. These “line losses” are a significant issue for wind energy because huge, obtrusive wind turbines (often 40+ stories tall) and “wind farms” are not welcome near metropolitan areas that account for most electricity demand. Therefore, they are often located at some distance from the areas where their electricity is needed and so require expensive transmission-line capacity, which they use inefficiently. (Ironically, the lucrative federal tax credits provided to “wind farm” owners are based on electricity produced, not the lesser amount that actually reaches customers and serves a useful purpose.)
Some electricity is lost as it is moved over transmission and distribution lines that carry the electricity from generating units to homes, offices, stores, factories and other users. The amount of electricity that is lost depends on the distance and the condition of lines and transformers. These “line losses” are a significant issue for wind energy because huge, obtrusive wind turbines (often 40+ stories tall) and “wind farms” are not welcome near metropolitan areas that account for most electricity demand. Therefore, they are often located at some distance from the areas where their electricity is needed and so require expensive transmission-line capacity, which they use inefficiently. (Ironically, the lucrative federal tax credits provided to “wind farm” owners are based on electricity produced, not the lesser amount that actually reaches customers and serves a useful purpose.)
6. Claims of “homes served” by wind energy are additionally
misleading because of the high true cost of electricity from wind
turbines.
Claims that the cost of electricity from wind turbines is “competitive” with the cost of electricity from traditional sources are false. Such claims typically do not include the cost of (a) the huge federal and state tax breaks available to “wind farm” owners,[iv] or (b) the cost of providing the generating capacity and generation that must always be immediately available to “back up” intermittent, unreliable wind turbine output and keep electric grids reliable and in balance.
Claims that the cost of electricity from wind turbines is “competitive” with the cost of electricity from traditional sources are false. Such claims typically do not include the cost of (a) the huge federal and state tax breaks available to “wind farm” owners,[iv] or (b) the cost of providing the generating capacity and generation that must always be immediately available to “back up” intermittent, unreliable wind turbine output and keep electric grids reliable and in balance.
Claims of “homes served” should always be challenged
Any use of the “homes served” assertion in connection with a “wind farm” should be challenged, whether the assertion is from a wind industry lobbyist, other wind energy advocate, political leader, other government official, or reporter. They should be required to explain each of their assumptions and calculations, and admit that industrial scale wind turbines are useless unless reliable generating units are immediately available to supply electricity when wind is not strong enough to produce significant electricity. Almost certainly, their assertions will be false.
Any use of the “homes served” assertion in connection with a “wind farm” should be challenged, whether the assertion is from a wind industry lobbyist, other wind energy advocate, political leader, other government official, or reporter. They should be required to explain each of their assumptions and calculations, and admit that industrial scale wind turbines are useless unless reliable generating units are immediately available to supply electricity when wind is not strong enough to produce significant electricity. Almost certainly, their assertions will be false.
What valid claim could wind industry officials make?
As explained above, wind industry developers, promoters, and lobbyists – and politicians and reporters — should never use the false and misleading “homes served” metric. In theory, they could justify an assertion that the estimated amount of electricity produced by a “wind farm” – once discounted for line losses which are likely to be in the range of 5% to 10% — may be roughly equal to the amount of electricity used annually by X homes – after doing a calculation such as that outlined earlier. However, as indicated above, even this assertion would be misleading because it ignores the fact that the output from wind turbines is intermittent, volatile, unreliable, and unlikely to be available when electricity is most needed.
As explained above, wind industry developers, promoters, and lobbyists – and politicians and reporters — should never use the false and misleading “homes served” metric. In theory, they could justify an assertion that the estimated amount of electricity produced by a “wind farm” – once discounted for line losses which are likely to be in the range of 5% to 10% — may be roughly equal to the amount of electricity used annually by X homes – after doing a calculation such as that outlined earlier. However, as indicated above, even this assertion would be misleading because it ignores the fact that the output from wind turbines is intermittent, volatile, unreliable, and unlikely to be available when electricity is most needed.
Other false and misleading claims about wind energy
As shown above, “homes served” is not the only or the most important false claim made about wind energy. Other false claims about wind energy include the following:
As shown above, “homes served” is not the only or the most important false claim made about wind energy. Other false claims about wind energy include the following:
It is low or competitive in cost. In fact, its cost is high when all true costs are counted.It is environmentally benign. In fact, it has significant adverse environmental, ecological, scenic, and property value impacts.It avoids significant emissions that would otherwise be produced. In fact, it avoids few.It provides big job and economic benefits. In fact, there are few such benefits.It reduces U.S. dependence on imported oil. In fact, it does not.It reduces the need for building reliable generating units in areas experiencing growth in peak electricity demand or needing to replace old generating units. The opposite is true.
Such claims as these have been made often during the past decade and
more by the wind industry and other wind advocates. Only during the past
3–4 years have these claims begun to be demonstrated as false and
misleading. The facts about wind energy are beginning to show up in the
media but, unfortunately, have yet to be understood by most political
leaders and regulators.
See the entire article at:
http://www.masterresource.org/2009/02/windpowers-homes-served-misdirection-media-beware/
"Wind Turbines are Climate Change Scarecrows" by Robert Bryce
For years, the wind-energy sector and renewable-energy advocates have repeatedly claimed that wind turbines are essential to the fight against carbon dioxide emissions and catastrophic climate change. Here’s the reality: Wind turbines are nothing more than climate-change scarecrows.
The proliferation of wind turbines over the past few years has not, and will not, result in statistically significant reductions in global carbon dioxide emissions. That point can easily be proven with a bit of simple math....
The hard truth is that renewable energy cannot even keep pace with soaring global energy demand, much less replace significant quantities of hydrocarbons. That’s not an opinion. It’s basic math.....
Over the past few years, the U.S. and other countries have been
subsidizing the paving of vast areas of the countryside with
500-foot-high bird- and bat-killing
whirligigs that are nothing more than climate talismans. Wind turbines
are not going to stop changes in the earth’s climate. Instead, they are
token gestures — giant steel scarecrows — that are deceiving the public
into thinking that we as a society are doing something to avert the
possibility of catastrophic climate change.
Read the entire article at:
MAIN REASONS PEOPLE OPPOSE INDUSTRIAL WIND:
Special political favor at the local, state, and federal levels has created an artificial industry: industrial windpower. Industrial wind is "a political agenda" being pushed by 'green' lobbyists under the premise that it will reduce CO2 emissions, and thus, help abate Global Warming (aka: Climate Change). However, the reality is that with approximately 250,000 industrial wind turbines installed worldwide today (45,100 of those in the U.S. according to AWEA), and with multi-$Billions of taxpayer and ratepayer dollars already thrown into the wind - ultimately “skyrocketing” our electricity rates, CO2 emissions have NOT been significantly reduced anywhere, nor has any conventional power generators been shuttered thanks to wind. In fact, rounded to the nearest whole number, worldwide electricity generation from wind is still ZERO. Our environment and our rural communities are being destroyed for NOTHING!
Special political favor at the local, state, and federal levels has created an artificial industry: industrial windpower. Industrial wind is "a political agenda" being pushed by 'green' lobbyists under the premise that it will reduce CO2 emissions, and thus, help abate Global Warming (aka: Climate Change). However, the reality is that with approximately 250,000 industrial wind turbines installed worldwide today (45,100 of those in the U.S. according to AWEA), and with multi-$Billions of taxpayer and ratepayer dollars already thrown into the wind - ultimately “skyrocketing” our electricity rates, CO2 emissions have NOT been significantly reduced anywhere, nor has any conventional power generators been shuttered thanks to wind. In fact, rounded to the nearest whole number, worldwide electricity generation from wind is still ZERO. Our environment and our rural communities are being destroyed for NOTHING!
Industrial wind is NOT
civilly, technically, economically,
nor environmentally
sound energy policy.
1.) Civilly – and
Most Importantly: Jesus commanded us to, “Love God with your whole heart, soul
and mind,” and “Love your neighbor as yourself,” (aka: The ‘Golden Rule’ – “Do
unto others as you would have them do unto you.”)
The only thing that has ever been reliably generated by industrial
wind is complete and utter civil discord. Neighbor is pitted against
neighbor, and even family member against family member - totally dividing
communities. It is the job of good government to foresee and prevent this
degree of civil discord, not to promote it. Adhering to the ‘Golden Rule’
would have halted the wind issue in its tracks.
2.) Technically: Large
400 - 500 foot machines that depend on hundreds of gallons of oil and thousands
of pounds of rare earth elements (mined in China) per MW, with their spinning
160-foot long, 22,000 pound (11 TONS) carbon-filament blades, on their
CO2-emitting, 350+ ton concrete bases, have limited life-spans of only 10 - 13
years. These machines are notorious for frequent break-downs. Their
blades often break even when they are new - endangering anyone TOO CLOSE (ie:
Invenergy's GE 1.6 blade break in Orangeville – the 3rd one for GE in the past
few weeks)
3.) Economically:
Because wind provides NO Capacity Value, or firm capacity (specified amounts of
power on demand), wind can NOT replace our reliable, dispatchable baseload
generators. Thus, wind needs constant "shadow capacity" from
our reliable, conventional generators – a redundancy which Big Wind CEO,
Patrick Jenevein admitted “turns ratepayers and taxpayers into
double-payers for the same product.”
ONE single 450 MW gas-fired combined cycle generating unit located
at New York City (NYC) - where the power is needed in New York State (NYS) -
operating at only 60% capacity factor, would provide MORE electricity than all
of NYS’s wind factories combined, at about 1/4 of the capital costs – WITHOUT
all the negative civil, economic, environmental, human health (www.WindTurbineSyndrome.com) and property value impacts caused
by industrial wind factories and all their added transmission lines to NYC.
Wasting money on the wishful thinking of wind has contributed to
NYS earning the dubious distinction of having the highest electricity rates in
the continental United States – a whopping 53% above the national average.
A NYS resident using 6,500 kWh of electricity annually will pay about $400 per year more per year for their electricity than if our electricity prices were at the
national average - over $3.2 BILLION dollars that will not be spent in the rest of the
economy.
The Institute for Energy Research tallied the numbers and found
that each wind job costs $11.45 Million Dollars,
and as a result, costs more than four (4) jobs lost elsewhere in the conomy.
4.) Environmentally:
The sprawling footprints of industrial wind factories cause massive Habitat
Fragmentation, and kills hundreds of
thousands of eagles, whooping cranes, bats, and other endangered avian life
every year, while failing to significantly lower CO2 emissions. The
Presidents of the American Eagle Foundation and SaveTheEaglesInternational.org have both spoken out against
this massive avian slaughter. A recent study has shown that as many as 900,000 bats were killed just
last year! It has been predicted that when the bats become extinct, man is
next.
William Tucker explained in his essay, Understanding
E = mc2, that the standard candle for
an electricity generating facility is 1000 MW. Since wind turbines operate only 30% of the time [Here in NY they averaged a pathetic 23% in 2012], trying
to equal 1000 MW really means
covering more than 375 square miles with wind turbines. Even after
carpeting over 375 sq miles with industrial wind turbines in a futile attempt
to equal just ONE reliable generating facility, those wind turbines still would not work at all much of the time - highlighting
Big Wind's inability to successfully replace our reliable, dispatchable power
generators.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the fact that industrializing 375 sq miles -- to try and equal what just ONE RELIABLE, conventional generating facility could provide (in a fraction of the space) – is NOT “sustainable”!
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the fact that industrializing 375 sq miles -- to try and equal what just ONE RELIABLE, conventional generating facility could provide (in a fraction of the space) – is NOT “sustainable”!
Learn more at: www.WiseEnergy.org, www.wind-watch.org,
www.windaction.org, www.MasterResource.org
Mary Kay Barton, Friend and supporter of Clear Skies Over Orangeville
Mary Kay Barton, Friend and supporter of Clear Skies Over Orangeville
Explicit Warning Notice from the Waubra Foundation
To Planning Authorities, Departments of Health, Environmental Protection
Agencies, Federal, State and Local Governments, Wind Industry Developers
and Acoustic Consultants
Our Explicit Cautionary Notice dated 29th June, 20111 warned of the emerging serious health
problems with large industrial scale wind turbines, with adverse health impacts including repetitive
sleep disturbance and physiological stress having been reported at that time out to 10km.
Over two years have passed since that caution, and none of the above addressees has taken any
substantive action. The wind industry, its supporters, and its paid acoustic consultants remain in
active denial.
In recent months, thorough and definitive acoustic field and laboratory studies performed by Dr Neil
Kelley 2, 3, 4, 5 and others in the 1980s have been “rediscovered”. The studies identified a direct
causal link between wind turbine infrasound and low frequency noise and neighbours’ health
problems including sleep disturbance, collectively described as “annoyance”. The research was
presented at the American Wind Energy Association conference in California in 1987. 6
The wind industry, specifically wind turbine manufacturers and wind developers, therefore knew
about the direct causal relationship between these specific sound frequencies and health damaging
“annoyance” symptoms, which included repetitive sleep disturbance.
Not only does this body of research clearly identify infrasound and low frequency noise (ILFN) as the
direct causal agent,7, 8 at levels well BELOW the threshold of audible perception,9 but it also
nominates evidence based maximum tolerable noise limits in the ILFN frequency range the
researchers considered necessary to protect health, based on their field data. 10
The subsequent failure by the wind industry and government noise pollution authorities to ensure
these health protective guidelines were incorporated into wind turbine noise pollution regulations,
and then properly monitored and enforced, has directly resulted in the serious harm to the health of
thousands of rural residents around the world. The harm is now predictably increasing, as the size of
the wind turbines increases. 11
This is a global disgrace.
This has happened because wind turbine product manufacturers have failed to present the truth about the existence and cause of adverse health impacts known to them for nearly thirty years from Dr Kelley’s research. Wind industry excuses that the research “did not apply to modern upwind turbines” have been dismissed by Dr Kelley, 12 a view supported by the growing number of concerned senior acousticians such as Dr Paul Schomer, current Director of Acoustic Standards in the USA. 13, 14, Furthermore the acoustic field research findings of a growing number of independent acousticians
working in Australia, and North America 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 are entirely consistent with Kelley’s work.
Who Needs to Consider Their Part in This Extraordinary Failure ?
Acoustic engineers working with the wind industry have failed to abide by their professional codes of
conduct 22, 23, 24 to place the protection of the health of the community above commercial interests.
Acoustic engineers who advised or wrote the government wind turbine noise pollution guidelines
subsequent to the Kelley research, ensured that the very sound frequencies below 200 Hz known in
1985 to cause adverse health effects and symptoms known as “annoyance” were not included, and
were never measured.
Government bureaucracies including departments of health, planning and noise pollution have
consistently failed to protect the health of residents, and failed to investigate and act when serious
health problems including exhaustion, and home abandonment were reported by residents and their
health practitioners. The first medical practitioner to report health problems to the authorities in
Australia was Dr David Iser, in 2004. 25
RECOMMENDATIONS
-
The Kelley evidence-based health protective criteria for wind turbine noise in the infrasound and low frequency noise range must be immediately implemented, monitored and actively enforced, with priority attention to those residents who are reporting serious harm to health and sleep.
-
Those guidelines will require ongoing field research as they may prove insufficient to protect health, especially as wind turbine size increases, and the numbers of turbines per development increase the cumulative impact and the extent of the project footprint.
-
Acoustic models and acoustic standards MUST be regularly updated to reflect the latest developments in knowledge about infrasound and low frequency noise attenuation, and new dose response information relating to adverse health impacts resulting from chronic exposure.
-
Multidisciplinary acoustic and physiological research must be urgently conducted in order to determine the acoustic and perception thresholds at which sleep disturbance is occurring, with particular reference to residents “sensitized” to the sound energy with chronic exposure.
Read the entire Warning Notice at: www.waubrafoundation.org.au
info@waubrafoundation.org.au
"According to the IEA, “modern energy access” is defined at 500 kWh/year
for an urban household of five people. That’s only 100 kWh per person
for an entire year. For rural households, the IEA threshold is half as
much. Roger Pielke and Morgan Bazilian have a terrific essay in the
National Academy of Sciences’ Issues in Science and Technology that
points out how absurdly far these are from being meaningful targets.
To illustrate the disparity of consumption, we calculated how long it would take an average American to use up 100kWh. The answer: 66 hours."
To illustrate the disparity of consumption, we calculated how long it would take an average American to use up 100kWh. The answer: 66 hours."
Read the entire article at:
http://www.cgdev.org/blog/how-long-can-you-live-kind-“modern”-energy
http://www.cgdev.org/blog/how-long-can-you-live-kind-“modern”-energy
Sign Americans For Prosperity's Petition to END the PTC! Washington has given tax breaks to wind energy for over 20 years, and the industry clearly has very little to show for it. Despite the poor performance, Congress is poised to extend it. Currently, lobbyists for the wind industry are roaming the halls of Capitol Hill, trying to convince members of Congress to extend the lavish handouts. That's why they need to hear from you. Tell your representative to go on record that that he opposes wasteful wind energy subsidies. Urge him to sign Rep. Pompeo's letter. Right now Rep. Pompeo of Kansas is circulating a letter that calls on his colleagues to oppose extending this wasteful handout for the wind energy industry. This is a great way for House members to go on record that they oppose government meddling in the energy market. A bipartisan group of nearly 40 members have already signed on to the letter, but this group needs to grow if we're to be successful. That's where you come in. Send an email or a tweet to your member letting him or her know that you oppose using the tax code to prop up inefficient wind energies like wind. Urge them to avoid repeating the mistakes from the past and end this wasteful handout for a favored industry, once and for all. You didn't send him to Washington to extend handouts to special interests, which is why your member should stand with Rep. Pompeo in opposing the wind PTC. Tell your member to go on record that that he opposes wasteful wind energy subsidies. Urge them to sign Rep. Pompeo's letter. Thank you for your help! Sincerely,
Christine Harbin Hanson
Federal Affairs Manager Americans for Prosperity |
SCIENCE NEWS: Wind turbines blamed in death of estimated 600,000 bats in 2012
0 comments Posted by Unknown at 3:56 PMWind turbines blamed in death of estimated 600,000 bats in 2012
Wind turbines killed at least 600,000 -- and possibly as many as 900,000 -- bats in the United States in 2012, researchers say.
Bats, which play an important role in the ecosystem as insect-eaters, are killed at wind turbines not only by collisions with moving turbine blades but also by the trauma resulting from sudden changes in air pressure that occur near a fast-moving blade, the study said.
Study author Mark Hayes of the University of Colorado notes that 600,000 is a conservative estimate -- the true number could be 50 percent higher than that -- and some areas of the country might experience much higher bat fatality rates at wind energy facilities than others.
Hayes said the Appalachian Mountains have the highest estimated fatality rates in his analysis.
With
bats already under stress because of climate change and disease, in
particular white-nose syndrome, the estimate of wind turbine deaths is
worrisome, he said -- especially as bat populations grow only very
slowly, with most species producing only one young per year.
Read more: http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2013/11/08/Wind-turbines-blamed-in-death-of-estimated-600000-bats-in-2012/UPI-64421383946549/#ixzz2kBSdGFsi
Over 100 Oragnization Coalition sends Letter to Congress demanding END to PTC
0 comments Posted by Unknown at 3:46 PMOver 100 Oragnization Coalition sends Letter to Congress demanding END to PTC Wind Welfare -- #GoneWithTheWindPTC
http://
GoneWithTheWindPTC.com
STUDY: Wind farms killed at least 67 eagles in 5 years
WASHINGTON (AP) — Wind energy facilities have killed at least
67 golden and bald eagles in the last five years, but the figure could
be much higher, according to a new scientific study by government
biologists.
The research represents one of the first tallies of
eagle deaths attributed to the nation's growing wind energy industry...
The vice president of the American Bird Conservancy, Mike Parr, said the tally was "an alarming and concerning finding."
A
trade group, the American Wind Energy Association, said in a statement
that the figure was much lower than other causes of eagle deaths. The
group said it was working with the government and conservation groups to
find ways to reduce eagle casualties.
Still, the scientists said
their figure is likely to be "substantially" underestimated, since
companies report eagle deaths voluntarily and only a fraction of those
included in their total were discovered during searches for dead birds
by wind-energy companies. The study also excluded the deadliest place in
the country for eagles, a cluster of wind farms in a northern
California area known as Altamont Pass. Wind farms built there decades
ago kill more than 60 per year.
Continue reading at:
Fox and Friends News Provides Platform For Al Cecere To Discuss Effects Of Wind Turbines On Wildlife
On
September 14, 2013, Al Cecere of the American Eagle Foundation (AEF), and Bald Eagle Challenger appeared on Fox
& Friends News in New York. In this interview, Al talked about the
dangers of wind turbines to birds and other wildlife, pointing out that
alarming number of Bald and Golden eagles are now being killed by wind
farms.
Al
was asked, "Since it's a federal crime to kill a Bald Eagle, how can
this be allowed?" Al explained, "The wind farms are being given a 5-year
grace period...and they shouldn't be. The Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act of 1940 is the law of the land that applies in this case.
To make matters worse, a 20-year extension of the grace period for wind
farms is currently being considered by the Federal Government."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)