[SustainableTompkins] more on that article in the Nation on wind power

[GayNicholson at aol.com]

I posted the questionable article in the Nation (Big is Beautiful) on  
windpower a few days ago as a heads up.  Bill Evans, a noted bird  researcher on 
this topic, posted this reply to the TREEA listserv.  And  then Greg Pitts added 
some points on tip speed of blades.  Bill said it was  okay to share with this 
listserv.  You may find the following of  interest.
 
---------------------------
 
Greetings renewophiles,

In response to Gay's question, I found that  The Nation's "Big is Beautiful" 
article has alot of misinformation and a prowind  spin that could chop up the 
critical thinking of those who can't see around  it.

For example:

1) The following statement is incorrect: "as the  turbines get bigger and 
more efficient, they move more slowly and do less damage  to migrating birds and 
bats"

In fact: All the evidence points to the  opposite. I'm happy to send anyone 
the recent Canadian study by Barclay et al.  that found positive correlation 
between height of wind turbines and quantity of  bat kills. The few wind turbine 
mortality studies we have in the eastern US  support this finding for bats as 
well as birds. The widely held view that modern  tubular wind turbines with 
their larger, "slower spinning" blades are safer for  birds and bats is not 
supported by studies. For example, the Maple Ridge  project, with 195+ modern 
wind turbines was found to have the highest bird  mortality per turbine of any 
wind project yet studied in the US and the study  only focused on three months 
during the fall migration period. I can provide  several other references for 
anyone interested in studies comparing mortality at  the older versus newer =
towers. These data do not support the claim made in  the The Nation article.

2) The following statement is misleading: "the  environmental threat of 
windmills has always been exaggerated by wind's  opponents, usually rich rural 
landlords who find wind technology  unsightly."

In fact: The environmental threat from wind turbines is  largely unknown. 
Wind developers tend to downplay it; NIMBYs tend to overplay  it. Until more is 
known, we should proceed cautiously and the initial buildout  of wind projects 
should proceed in areas that are theoretically not an  environmental problem. 
These initial projects should have careful and extensive  preconstruction 
environmental impact assessments and careful and thorough flying  animal mortality 
studies. These recommendations are echoed in the National  Research Council 
report "Environmental Effects of Wind Projects", which was  released yesterday 
and is available for download at:  http://www.eswr.com/latest/307/nrcwind.htm. 
The report raises questions on the  effectiveness of utility-scale wind 
energy production in the mid-Atlantic  highlands with regard to reducing CO2, and 
this raises questions about it's  benefit for that purpose in other regions of 
the Appalachians.

In  contrast, The Nation article totally downplays any environmental threat 
from  utility-scale wind projects. Even from a wind developer's standpoint this 
should  be of concern. A few poorly sited wind projects and subsequent major 
flying  animal mortality could really put a damper on wind development in the 
east. The  large bat kills at the Mountaineer wind project in West Virginia 
are not an  exageration. But the fact that this wind project's owner, Florida 
Power &  Light, has prevented bat experts from further research on the bat kill 
problem  at that project should be a wake up call for folks regarding the 
nature of some  sectors of the the commercial wind industry.

In New York state there are  at least 45 utility-scale wind projects in 
various stages of development. In no  case that I am aware of could the opposition 
be characterized as "rich rural  landlords". The opposition is from a broad 
spectrum of the populace with a  unique character dependent on the specific 
site. The "rich rural landlord"  stereotype comes from the Cape Wind offshore wind 
project, a single project,  which happens to have a large number or rich 
people on Nantuckett who are  stakeholders.

3) The dig on solar in the Nation article is misleading.  The article states: 
"These 'rooftop' systems are highly efficient--no energy is  lost in 
transmission--but such systems typically can't supply more than 15  percent of a 
client's energy needs."  But a windpower system for a home or  business also has 
limitations on what it can supply, for example when the wind  isn't blowing. 
Obviously, the degree to which either could supply clients would  depend on the 
size of the system implemented for each. Most wind and solar  energy goes into 
the grid and, therefore, to speak of solar only in terms of  supplying clients 
is misleading. Also, from my understanding, the silicon  shortage is likely 
going to be short-lived. Some analysts have predicted that in  2008 we will see 
a flood of silicon on the market, which will bring solar prices  down, and 
may actually put some solar firms out of business.

It is hard  to know the facts about everything and one is susceptible to 
"spin" when one  doesn't known the facts. When I read an article like this one in 
The Nation,  that has obvious misinformation about things that I am informed 
on, it makes me  suspicious that the facts presented about things that I don't 
know about may  also be inaccurate.

Before you buy into the article's suggestion of  "aggressive state action ... 
to sweep away NIMBYs who oppose wind farms on  aesthetic grounds", keep in 
mind that you could be one of those NIMBYs sometime  soon. Or should I assume 
that everyone on this list is so dedicated to reducing  global warming that they 
are willing to live within a wind project? Or are we  truely cognizant that 
other people would have to live in one (or relocate it  they don't want to)? 
For me, having seen the Maple Ridge wind project, I know  that if I was moving 
to that region, my only consideration in whether I would  choose to live within 
the wind project would be cost. If the cost of the  property and taxes, etc. 
was much cheaper, I might have to consider it. I would  not choose to live 
within a wind project solely out of a commitment to  supporting an alternative 
energy lifestyle.

The hike up to Conn Hill is a  great idea. As a compliment to this I suggest 
folks who haven't experience a  wind project take a field trip up to the Maple 
Ridge. I'm not talking about just  going up there to see the wind turbines 
for an hour, but an overnight visit to  try to take in a better sense of what it 
would be like to live within such a  project on a daily basis -- seeing the 
flashing lights at night, hearing the  sound, seeing the flicker. There is a 
place called the Flat Rock Inn  (flatrockinn.com) smack in the middle of the 
Maple Ridge wind project that has  three double occupancy rooms and a campground. 
It largely serves the ATV &  snowmobile crowd, who come from all around for 
recreation in the Tug Hill  wilderness area. It is about a 2.5 hour drive north 
of Ithaca and you can see  170 turbines from the site, some of which are 
quite close. I stayed there last  week and it gave me a better perspective of the 
impact to residents living  within a wind project, on the challenges of 
building wind projects for wind  developers, and how such projects can potentially 
divide communities (and even  families -- the proprietor of the Flat Rock Inn 
is against the wind project, but  his father who lives nearby is for it and has 
turbines on his  property).

Bill Evans
Danby


I would also add that while  larger wind turbines 'appear' to move  
more slowly, the tip speeds are  generally greater than smaller  
turbines.  At the same rotational  speed (e.g. 10 rpm), a blade that  
is twice as long has a tip speed  greater than 6 times as fast.  In  
other words, they may look  slower, but the tips scribe a huge circle  
at pretty high  speed.

-Greg


----------------------------------------------------
Gay  Nicholson, Ph.D. 

607-533-7312 (home office)
607-279-6618  (cell)

1 Maple Avenue
Lansing, NY  14882
gaynicholson at aol.com

Sustainable Tompkins 
Program  Coordinator 
w_ww.sustainabletompkins.org_ (http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/) 

Southern Tier Energy$mart Communities
Regional  Coordinator
Cornell Cooperative Extension of Tompkins County
615 Willow  Ave., Ithaca, NY 14850
agn1 at cornell.edu




************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.