I would like to draw your attention to some research concerning raptors and wind turbines and why you should not choose a wind turbine for the Audubon Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary. We are sure some of you think this is a broken record….but we wish to convince you with HARD FACT that wind turbines have a dramatic impact on wildlife and that the wind turbine lobby has been successful so far in soft pedaling the dramatic impact.
"Overall raptor abundance was on average 47% lower post-construction"
"Although we predicted abundance would remain relatively constant, raptor abundance was lower post-construction compared to pre-construction levels."
This from A pre- and post-construction study conducted to determine the impact of a windfarm on the abundance and behaviour of raptors in Wisconsin, USA.
Garvin, J. C., Jennelle, C. S., Drake, D. and Grodsky, S. M. (2011), Response of raptors to a windfarm. Journal of Applied Ecology, 48: 199–209. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01912.x
Once again the prediction that wind turbines won’t have an effect on animals and once again animals are impacted. A Wind Turbine is an extremely poor choice to have at the Audubon Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary. Please, we ask you to send us any data you have on Wind Turbines not impacting animals…beyond anecdotal …I visited a turbine and it didn't look that bad…or someone I know has one and he says is isn’t bad or we didn’t look for any dead animals so we didn’t find any. The evidence of 50% avoidance is horrific for an Audubon Wildlife Sanctuary.
Dear Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary (Soon to be Wind turbine testing area),
Here is a recent study of the impact of the LEWES, DE Turbine(a large industrial wind turbine) located in a not dissimilar environment as the proposed Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary…though even they didn’t have the gall to erect their turbine in a WILDLIFE SANCTUARY. This is their second turbine as the first one was destroyed by lightening within the first year or two of operation. Hopefully this will clarify some misconceptions about when and what is killed by wind turbines.
1) This study concludes 82 birds and bats were killed in one year by one turbine about 1 every 4 days!(I do not know the pre construction estimate…but most likely they said a few or the AWEA estimate of 1-2 animals after spending thousands of dollars guessing, as you are doing) …it includes the 2 gulls observed beingkilled during day light searches, that laughably the searchers couldn’t find after being observed killed!!! Here is a list of found dead
TWO OSPREY
Many EASTERN BAT
Many HOARY BAT
many SILVER HAIRED BAT
1 COMMON GRACKLE
2 GULL (NEVER FOUND, makes you wonder what else wasn’t found)
1 TRICOLORED BAT
1 YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO
Recall they only find a fraction of the actual total as the Gulls killed obviously show
A refresher on what was found at the Atlantic City, NJ wind turbines with their estimated 76 birds and bats killed per turbine per year: Found 25 different species killed including: Dunlin, Barn Swallow, Laughing Gull, Osprey, Green Heron, Eastern Red Bat, Hoary Bat, American Wood cock, Baltimore Oriole, Blue Gray Gnatcatcher, Greater Black-Blacked Gull, Gray Catbird, Herring Gull, Peregrine Falcon(only 25 nesting pair entire state), Ruby Crowned Kinglet, Red-eyed Vireo, Red Winged Blackbird, Short-billed dowitcher, swamp sparrow, etc…again only a fraction of the total killed are found!
2) The supposed unbiased authority on wind energy, the GE & Vestas backed American Wind Energy Association or AWEA lobbyists group winning billions in contracts for their backers who regularly have their “unbiased” information published via the US Department of Fish and Wildlife Service…has many people quoting that wind turbines kill between 1-2 animals per year. That estimate is 40-80 times less than in this real world implementation!!! One note about turbine size and height….at California’s notorious Altamont wind farm where many Golden Eagles are killed EVERY YEAR the supposed cure to avoid the continued slaughter of raptors is…to raise the height(with a costly new turbine) as the lower turbines with lattice supports were felt to do more harm, also locate the turbine away from bird areas as well. I suppose a Sanctuary would attract birds?
3) From the Lewes Study “More recent studies have documented that considerably more bats have been killed than expected based on early monitoring studies where birds have been the focus (NRC 2007).” “Bats comprised 89% of estimated fatalities” I believe you currently have a colony of bats at the “Sanctuary”. Once you have spent your multi hundreds of thousands of dollars on tailor made studies from professional wind energy consultants looking to encourage wind energy for their next job, tell us everything is going to be just fine and the animals start turning up dead regularly as can be seen in this report….When will you have the stomach to remove something that so much money and personal capital will be invested in? What is the number of DEAD?
4) Can I make a suggestion, as any clear minded person would not erect a known bird and bat hazard at a WILDLIFE SANCTUARY….Can you erect the turbine in your personal back yard as electricity doesn’t really care where it is generated? Or at the very least ANYWHERE THAT ISN’T A SANCTUARY. I am certain that people do not go to a Wildlife Sanctuary to observe the latest in modern power technology. Can we all agree on the definition of the word SANCTUARY NounA place of refuge or safety. LET KEEP IT THAT WAY!
I encourage you to read the attached report. It clearly states that 82 animals were estimated to be killed and many of those killed weren't even found. Conservation starts at home and being so caviler as to say we are fine with killing 1, 2, 40, 80 birds and bats per year at a SANCTUARY for a tiny amount of energy makes a particularly bad statement. Wind Turbines were the NUMBER ONE KILLER of protected Golden Eagles in a wide ranging study in California over cars, building, cats, poisoning, shooting, etc. 10% of the Golden Eagle population in California is killed by wind energy every year. Soon we are going to be saying that for many birds and bats across the country as each wind energy installation says, well a little harm won’t add up to much. Just think if every wind energy installation is 40 times worse than estimated? The guesstimate that building, cars, cats are large killers is that….a guesstimate put out by wind energy developers to say their harm wasn’t that bad. IT IS!
We beg you to not consider a wind turbine at your Mass Audubon Wellfleet home! We have read of too many tragedies with birds and bats being killed with this machinery.
An aquarium in Devon has taken down two wind turbines after seagulls were killed when they collided with the blades.
2) Near Atlantic City NJ 5 industrial wind turbines were erected which are killing an average of 76 birds and bats per year per turbine(not the 1-2 that AWEA and US Fish and Wildlife publicize). This has been documented by the local Audubon society. Though to make sure not too information is known…they only study for 2 years after installation then after that….It is a shameful secret! These killed a Peregrine Falcon of which there are only 25 breeding pair in the entire state, also numerous Osprey, a Green Heron, a Dunlin and many others….is not worth it for these highly variable power producers which require full CO2 emitting backup and power shadowing. Money would be much better spent on conservation and efficiency…which have been shown to be ten times more cost effective thereby doing more for our planet
My understanding is that the Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary of the Audubon is moving ahead with it Wind Energy Plan. WBWS is funded by well-meaning people that are concerned about wildlife and the environment and have entrusted the managers to spend that money to benefit wildlife. I encourage you to look at the below fact sheet concerning Wind Energy and Wildlife. Though a lot is still unknown about the damage being done by wind energy to wildlife, it is 100% certain that wind turbines kill wildlife. It is also well known there have and are efforts to hide and ignore the damage. The Atantic City, NJ 5 wind turbine array is documented to kill an avg. of 76 birds and bats per turbine per year isn’t even in evidence. We all know the well worn promises “to do better” and “the next revision will mitigate impact” by developers that rarely turn out true. A basic finding in the attached factsheet on wind energy and wildlife, conclude
“Most birds killed at wind turbines are songbirds.” So my question is how can managers of a wildlife sanctuary make a singular effort to install one of the most wildlife harmful machines at a facility entrusted to them? What will you do when you find dead animals? Will you tell the truth? How many dead are too many?
It is shameful to pretend that installation of industrial wind turbines will benefit wildlife. It shows the same arrogance of vanity of a person warning of the ills of global warming while flying in a private jet. Sadly we believe it is ugly vanity and a need to have a show-piece to brag to the world your supposed concern for environmental change. We are at a loss to understand how well-meaning people demonstrate this concern by erecting an industrial machine in open nature! We all know for a fact much more could be accomplished with impactless projects such as high efficiency equipment, smart architecting, or insulation than erecting a large industrial machine at a WILDLIFE SANCTUARY. A simple exercise, what could be changed to remove one light bulb, A/C, heater or computer. What really is the mission of this modern harmful show piece? Is it to showoff or is it a project to benefit the environment, because no honest assessment can back a large harmful machine over an impactless projects delivering better value. I assume you have read of the other nature oriented entities that have had to remove wind turbines as they could no longer face the truth of dead birds.
It is 100% certain that wildlife will be killed in this project of the EGO!
Dear Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary - Mass Audubon,
We would like to question you on the campaign to erect a wind turbine at the Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary. We find it distressing that current managers at an Audubon SANCTUARY that so many have worked on and donated to, to make a “SANCTUARY”…would now erect a known bird & bat hazard. How many birds and bats do you estimate the wind turbine will kill? What is the typical avoidance by birds and other wildlife from the motion and noise? Director Prescott is quoted as saying certain types of birds give wide berth to wind turbines. What is the area that is acceptable to drive wildlife away from within “sanctuary”? Will there be an honest study of avoidance of the machine? That is, if they don’t just get chopped up. Director Prescott is quoted as well, saying they don’t get chopped up…does he still hold that view? We both know that statement is wrong. Can you please explain what led to that falsehood in 2003, was it ignorance or idealism? How much power do you guarantee from this wind turbine? It seems many times the estimates for wind power production are over stated in an attempt to convince others as to the benefits. Do you have facts and figures for the impact and benefits?
What is the plan when the first dead bird or bat is found? Will Director Prescott remove the wind turbine and resign in shame or just ignore it tell everyone it is for the great good?
Would you care to share why other micro(small) wind turbines kill animals and need to be removed or tethered but the "Sanctuary's" won’t?
Here are some reported deaths from a while back in the UK.
Micro-turbine bat mortality incidents, received by the Bat Conservation Trust
Devon A Rutland Windcharger Furlmatic FM910, diameter approx 900mm, was mounted on a 4m high pole; the top of the Windcharger was just above the top of an adjacent high hazel hedgeline. It provides power to a nearby motorhome.
August 2003, a bat was found decapitated adjacent to Windcharger.
Over the next month about five more dead bats were found in the garden, some with apparent injuries, others not.
September 2004, a stunned bat was found in the garden, then a dead bat found the next day (presumably the same one?) with an injury inside its ear.
September 2004, a pipistrelle bat was seen flying into the Windcharger blades; its wings were so badly injured that it had to be put down.
September 2004, the Windcharger was taken down when the owner noticed bat(s) swooping around Windcharger.
The owner has since constructed a cage around the Windcharger, but has found the energy generation severely compromised as a result.
Moffat Early 2005 a small wind turbine was attached to a National Trust for Scotland visitor centre that is 10 miles from Moffat. The building is in the uplands, and the nearest woodland is 600 metres away. A male pipistrelle hibernated in the centre during the winter.
30th May 2005 a male Pipistrellus pygmaeus was found dead directly below the turbine. No obvious cause of death, the finder considers the bat must have hit the turbine.
Kent A wind turbine was installed in the middle of Shorne Wood Country Park in Kent in March 2006. The site is within ancient woodland and is a SSSI. Rangers have surveyed underneath the turbine every day since the turbine’s installation and up to October 2006 have only found one dead pipistrelle bat the night after particularly strong winds.
Lancashire In June 2007 a dead bat (pipistrelle?) was found on a houseboat installed with a Rusland 918 mini turbine. The boat was moored on the Lancaster Canal. The mini turbine is now ‘tethered’ between dusk and dawn between April and September inclusive to avoid further mortality.
(Durham 11th July 2006, bird observation, a pigeon was observed flying into a micro-turbine at Harehope Quarry. The bird’s wing was cut off, it lost an eye and received other major trauma to its head and body. The bird was put down.)
A more recently headline
Bat Conservation Trust - Small wind turbines have big impact on bats 3 August 2012
Dear Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary (Mass Audubon),
Our apologies for contacting you twice in a day., but the impending open house concerning the WBWS wind turbine requires it. We are wondering whether at the open house tomorrow whether you would be willing to highlight the risk to people working and visiting the Sanctuary from tower collapse and blade failure both not uncommon. Here are two relevant examples. The first was Bartlett Farms on Nantucket where a 20-30 foot section of blade from their two blade wind turbine broke off sending the blade sailing 175 feet in a modest wind after 10 months of operation. Fortunately no one was injured. The second is a Gaia-Wind tower collapsing Jan 30 2013 in Cornwall England. Will people be allowed within blade throw and tower collapse distance? Before you assure me this model is safe….we can tell you these were not sold telling the customer that these machines stand a good chance of breaking in a year or two and possibly kill someone if they are nearby…never mind animals. These are new technologies with large moving parts that put people’s lives at risk, especially because they are overhead. Any chance of responsible wind energy development is far away from people and a low density animals area. Would you describe the Wildlife Sanctuary that people regularly visit in this way?
With its new 100-foot-tall windmill still broken and idle, Bartlett’s Ocean View Farm has sued its manufacturer and the company which installed the turbine in Nantucket Superior Court, seeking $1.5 million in damages.
One of the windmill’s 40-foot-long blades broke in half in moderate winds some time after dark Jan. 18 2010, the broken piece plummeting to the ground where it landed nearly 175 feet away from the turbine. No one was hurt in the nighttime incident
Wind turbines alert after Cornwall collapse
The manufacturer of a wind turbine(GAIA-Wind) which collapsed in north Cornwall has written to other owners over concerns about the turbine towers' construction.
Gaia-Wind said the "issue" affected the foundations
We have yet to hear anything concerning the plan to build a wind turbine at the Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary. Please read the following from the US department of the Interior/ U.S. Geological Survey Fort Collins Science Center concerning wind turbines impact on bats @ http://www.fort.usgs.gov/BatsWindmills/
Dead bats are turning up beneath wind turbines all over the world. Bat fatalities have now been documented at nearly every wind facility in North America where adequate surveys for bats have been conducted, and several of these sites are estimated to cause the deaths of thousands of bats per year. This unanticipated and unprecedented problem for bats has moved to the forefront of conservation and management efforts directed toward this poorly understood group of mammals. The mystery of why bats die at turbine sites remains unsolved.
We find it troubling that in a well-intended effort to lower WBWS’ impact, that anyone could choose Wind Energy of any size. Repeatedly we see the words “unanticipated and unprecedented” when speaking of the damage to animals from wind energy machinery. Why is it “unanticipated and unprecedented” that putting high speed blades of industrial machines in open nature where the animals live would kill them? We have provided information on wind energy machinery killing, maiming and driving away animals.
Can you clarify that Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary is a Sanctuary run by a conservation group and not a wind energy or renewable test facility?
Can your organization please let us know what information they have to rebut the information provided by government scientists at USGS Fort Collins Science Center? Does the Audubon have a body of scientific evidence showing that wind turbines don’t kill, maimed or drive away wildlife?
FAIRHAVEN — Fairhaven's two industrial-sized wind turbines are in violation of Massachusetts noise regulations, according to preliminary results of a sound study conducted by the state Department of Environmental Protection.
The announcement at a meeting Tuesday night prompted opponents to demand the turbines be shut down.
DEP Deputy Commissioner Martin Suuberg told the Board of Health that noise from the turbines exceeded state regulations in five of the 24 periods during which the DEP conducted testing.
DEP started its sound study in August to determine whether the turbines were more than 10 decibels louder than ambient noise at homes of residents who had complained about the turbine noise.
Five different locations were tested overall but the five periods of noncompliance came from only single locations on Little Bay Road, Peirces' Point Road and Teal Circle.
Winds were blowing from the northwest and northeast, at varying speeds, when the turbines were found to be exceeding noise regulations by differences of .7 to 1.5 decibels, according to DEP data presented Tuesday night.
The DEP still needs to collect more noise samples at varying wind speeds before the test is complete, but Suuberg said the state agency would work with the town and developers to "mitigate the problem."
Developer Gordon Dean said he disputed some of the methodology used in the DEP's study but agreed to work with the town and DEP to "see what might be done in a cost-effective manner."
He said he hoped a solution could be found before winter, when many of the violations were found.
That response was not good enough for the more than 30 members of the turbine opposition group Windwise who were in attendance and cheered and booed various speakers throughout the meeting.
At one point, many in the audience began shouting for Board of Health Chairman Peter DeTerra to make a motion to shut down the wind turbines until Fairhaven Wind presented the board with a mitigation plan.
"Until you find a way to fix this, it's only fair to shut them down," Grant Menard said.
Lisa Plante agreed, saying "the burden of proof is on the developers to prove they can be in compliance."
Planning Board Chairman Wayne Hayward warned the Board of Health against taking any action "without the advice of counsel," saying "don't allow yourself to be pressured by the 35 people here."
His comments were met with boos and yells from Windwise members.
DeTerra said he would wait to make a decision until the Board of Health could meet with selectmen and town counsel.
Hundreds of wind farms around the world have slowed operations after huge turbine blades fell in Southern California and Iowa.
U-T San Diego reports that a 170-foot blade fell last week at a wind farm in Ocotillo, 70 miles east of San Diego.
The U-T's report said turbine-maker Siemens confirmed Monday that its sent a team of experts to the wind farm in San Diego county to determine what happened and whether it's related to an April incident in central Iowa when the same type of blade snapped off.
Siemens also said it's curtailing operations for turbines with the B53 blade type around the world.
The estimated 700 turbines - 600 of them in the U.S. - will mostly continue operating but at slower speeds. However, the Ocotillo unit is completely shut down.
U-T San Diego reports that on April 5, a blade broke on the same model turbine at MidAmerican Energy's Eclipsewind farm in Iowa's central Audubon and Guthrie counties.
The paper said the turbine blades at Ocotillo are made of a glass fiber-reinforced epoxy resin and are attached to a rotor suspended about 240 feet from the ground.
10News in San Diego reported last week that some residents expressed concern after the blade from the Ocotillo wind turbine broke off and fell to the ground.
Dead bats are turning up beneath wind turbines all over the world. Bat fatalities have now been documented at nearly every wind facility in North America where adequate surveys for bats have been conducted, and several of these sites are estimated to cause the deaths of thousands of bats per year. This unanticipated and unprecedented problem for bats has moved to the forefront of conservation and management efforts directed toward this poorly understood group of mammals. The mystery of why bats die at turbine sites remains unsolved. Is it a simple case of flying in the wrong place at the wrong time? Are bats attracted to the spinning turbine blades? Why are so many bats colliding with turbines compared to their infrequent crashes with other tall, human-made structures?
In the push to develop new forms of sustainable energy, the wind power industry is at the forefront. Turbines that harness the power of wind already serve as effective power sources across the globe, and this proven effectiveness has led to vast increases in the number of turbines currently under construction. The general impact of wind turbines on the environment is likely far less than that of conventional power sources. However, recent evidence shows that certain species of bats are particularly susceptible to mortality from wind turbines. Bats are beneficial consumers of harmful insect pests, and migratory species of bats cross international and interstate boundaries.
Dead bats are turning up beneath wind turbines all over the world. Bat fatalities have now been documented at nearly every wind facility in North America where adequate surveys for bats have been conducted, and several of these sites are estimated to cause the deaths of thousands of bats per year. This unanticipated and unprecedented problem for bats has moved to the forefront of conservation and management efforts directed toward this poorly understood group of mammals. The mystery of why bats die at turbine sites remains unsolved. Is it a simple case of flying in the wrong place at the wrong time? Are bats attracted to the spinning turbine blades? Why are so many bats colliding with turbines compared to their infrequent crashes with other tall, human-made structures?
Hoary bats (Lasiurus cinereus; left) and Silver-haired bats (Lasionycteris noctivagans; right) are showing up dead beneath wind turbines all across North America. Photos by Paul Cryan and Keith Geluso.
USGS Research Biologist Paul Cryan takes a female hoary bat out of a net. This bat was intercepted during its spring migration through New Mexico. Photo by Leslie Cryan.
Like this hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), most of the bats killed by wind turbines roost in trees during summer. Photo by Paul Cryan.
Although these questions remain unanswered, potential clues can be found in the patterns of fatalities. Foremost, the majority of bats killed by wind turbines are species that rely on trees as roosts throughout the year and migrate long distances; we call these species “migratory tree bats.” Currently, migratory tree bats compose more than three quarters of the bat fatalities observed at wind energy sites. The other striking pattern is that the vast majority of bat fatalities at wind turbines occur during late summer and autumn. This seasonal peak in fatalities coincides with periods of both autumn migration and mating behavior of tree bats. Seasonal involvement of species with shared behaviors indicates that behavior plays a key role in the susceptibility of bats to wind turbines, and that migratory tree bats might actually be attracted to wind turbines.
Despite patterns indicating that bat fatalities at turbines are somehow associated with migration and mating behavior, and that attraction may occur, these hypotheses have not been tested. At present, it is unclear whether bats killed by turbines are local residents, migrants moving through the area, bats actively mating, or some combination of these things. Further complicating matters is the fact that some of the species that die in smaller numbers at wind turbines are not known to migrate, although migratory habits of many bat populations are unknown and some of these species may actually do so. Addressing these important topics is crucial to future efforts aimed at mitigating the impact of wind turbines on bat populations. Knowing whether most of the bats killed by wind turbines are actively migrating, mating, or attracted to turbines will make it easier to direct effective mitigation efforts and assess risk before turbines are built.
The USGS is well-poised to answer questions regarding tree bat migration, behavior, and geographic origins. A cross-disciplinary (biology, geology, and geography) approach has put USGS scientists at the forefront of research into bat migration, behavior, and distribution (see Paul Cryan publications). For example, prior work by the USGS on the three bat species that die most frequently at wind turbine sites in North America has provided the most comprehensive picture, to date, of their migratory movements across the continent. These distributions have been mapped, as documented in the following links:
One research tool that is particularly well-suited to studying the origins of bats killed at wind turbines is stable isotope analysis. USGS scientists recently pioneered the application of stable hydrogen isotope analysis to the study of migration in terrestrial mammals and proved the efficacy of the technique for studying the continental movements of bats. Coincidentally, this groundbreaking research focused on the very same species of bat (the hoary bat, Lasiurus cinereus) that is killed most frequently at wind turbine sites across North America. Efforts are now underway at USGS to expand the existing framework of stable isotope data on migratory tree bats and apply this technique toward uncovering some of the mystery surrounding bat fatalities at wind turbines.
Continuing on this prior trajectory, USGS scientists at the Fort Collins Science Center developed an active research program to investigate the causes and consequences of bat fatalities at wind turbines. Our specific focus is on (1) determining the geographic origins of killed bats and (2) assessing the potential roles of mating and feeding behaviors in the susceptibility of tree bats to deadly encounters with wind turbines. With expertise and experience studying bat migration and behavior, combined with an existing infrastructure that promotes collaboration between disciplines, the USGS is well-equipped to effectively address the problem of bat mortality at wind power facilities. Only through further research will we make progress toward minimizing the impact of this new form of sustainable energy on our Nation’s wildlife.
To learn more about this work or opportunities to collaborate, contact
SOSS Editor Note - Sadly Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary once again is pushing to use wildlife killing wind energy. The previous larger project was killed, but now there is attempt at a smaller version which will still kill local wildlife without even admitting the first effort was wrong headed. We find it unseemly and irresponsible that current management of the wildlife sanctuary built by many, with donation from many, to protect the environment and wildlife..would turn to wind energy which 100% guaranteed to kill wildlife. Pretty much every wind energy project makes lowball estimates of how many animals will killed and find the actual harm is MANY FOLD WORSE! This is SHAMEFUL. A number of wildlife entities have erected wind turbines finding they have to be removed once they have to deal with the ugly reality that wind energy kills. If this gets built, will they even have the integrity remove it when the the killing begins? We all know for a fact much more could be accomplished with impactless projects such as high efficiency equipment, smart architecting and materials than erecting a wind energy machine at a WILDLIFE SANCTUARY. A simple exercise should be what could be changed to remove one light bulb, A/C, heater or computer. Wonder how much industrial noise this machine will be introducing to the sanctuary?
Gull killer micro turbines are removedin Devon, England The 15m (50ft) high 6kW turbines at the National Marine Aquarium in Plymouth were installed in 2006 for a £3.6m sustainable energies project. But the Hoe-based attraction has taken them down after several birds died, it said. The aquarium also said they had not produced as much electricity as hoped.
What is the current management's forecast for how many deaths they will be responsible for and how much energy they can guarantee. I think they need to make a public forecast.
Wellfleet Bay Audubon proposes a Micro-Wind Turbine
As the next phase of its ongoing plan to promote the generation of practical green energy, Mass Audubon’s Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary is seeking to erect a
micro-wind turbine near existing solar panel arrays adjacent to the sanctuary’s parking lot.
The wildlife sanctuary in South Wellfleet is hosting a community open house Thursday, May 23 from 5–7 PM to provide more information about the project, including images of the proposed turbine and to answer questions.
The proposed 120-foot, two-bladed turbine is an example of micro-wind technology as categorized by government and industry and is not comparable to the much larger industrial-sized turbines erected in other areas of the Cape. Its modest scale has been designed to generate only enough power for the sanctuary to return to the regional grid as much power as it uses and has been sited to minimize visual and other impacts, both on and off the sanctuary.
Sanctuary director Bob Prescott said adding wind power to the sanctuary’s green energy mix is a logical next step following the installation of solar panels at the sanctuary in 2006 and 2011 and the 2008 construction of the award-winning LEED Platinum-certified nature center, an energy-efficient building incorporating recycled materials.
“This proposal dovetails with Mass Audubon’s organization-wide commitment to demonstrate affordable, practical ways to reduce one’s carbon footprint and help to offset emissions contributing to climate change,” Prescott noted. “We also anticipate using the turbine as part of our education programs and to further engage the greater community to which we belong.”
The turbine will require approval by Wellfleet’s Zoning Board of Appeals. Mass Audubon will also conduct environmental studies to ensure the turbine will not have adverse impacts. If approved, the turbine would be constructed in the off-season to minimize impact on visitors and wildlife.
“We hope people will join us for what I expect to be an informative and productive session,” Prescott said.
SOSS Editor Notes: In a week of shocking actions by the current administration...sadly this is just one of many! This is appalling! And clearly shows they fully expect to kill one of the worlds rarest birds with Wind Turbines! Industrialization of our open spaces accelrates!
In a reversal that has outraged environmentalists, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) announced it will not penalize a Southern California wind operator if its turbines kill or injure one California condor. One of the world's most critically endangered animals with fewer than 250 birds in the wild, the condor's range in the Tehachapi Mountains is being encroached on by intensive wind turbine development.
FWS biologist Ray Bransfield told ReWire that FWS has completed its Biological Opinion (BiOp) on condors for Google and Citicorp's Alta East project, which would be built and operated by wind developer Terra-Gen. Occupying 2,592 acres, mostly on public lands, near the intersection of state routes 14 and 58 in Kern County, Alta East would generate a maximum of 318 megawatts of electrical power with 106 wind turbines, each with 190-foot-long blades.
FWS's BiOp for Alta East includes an "incidental take statement" that in effect allows one "lethal take" of a California condor. "Incidental take" of a protected species is a term of art covering any kind of injury, harassment or disturbance, or even habitat damage that a project causes inadvertently. "Lethal take" is when the species in question dies. If the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) approves the project, FWS would require formal re-review of the project's impact on condors if a single condor is killed over the 30-year operating life of the facility.
According to FWS, other wind developers are welcome to apply for similar permits. "This is the first time we've authorized incidental takes of California condors -- and we're approaching them very cautiously," said FWS Director Dan Ashe in an interview with Louis Sahagun of the Los Angeles Times.
According to FWS press spokesperson Stephanie Weagley, the BiOp was issued approximately a week ago and delivered to the BLM, which is in the process of determining whether to approve Alta East. Standard practice dictates that BiOps for a project are made public when the lead agency -- the BLM, in this case -- issues a Record Of Decision on the project. Attempts by ReWire to obtain an advance copy of the Alta East condor BiOp have so far been unsuccessful.
Condors are especially threatened by the new generation of wind turbines because they fly slowly, their 9-foot wingspans making them somewhat slow to maneuver. They tend to soar while watching the ground, searching for activity of other scavengers. This habit makes them vulnerable to injury from blade tips approaching from above, often at speeds exceeding 150 miles per hour.
Alta East has come under heavy scrutiny for its threat to condors in the east Tehachapis. It's far from the only wind facility that poses such a threat: the area has seen startling growth in wind installations in the last four years, many of those installations every bit as much a threat to California's largest bird. According to Bransfield, the Alta East facility is the first to come up for incidental take consideration because it occupies BLM land. Asked in email whether this pending incidental take permit offered a precedent for neighboring facilities, Bransfield told ReWire:
Our biological opinion (and the incidental take statement included in the biological opinion) are specific to this project. We would need to evaluate any future projects on their own merits; therefore, I do not have an answer to that question. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that numerous wind projects are already in operation in this area; none of them applied for an incidental take permit from the Service; also, none of them are on Federal land, so this is the first to undergo consultation.
Of the 132 free-flying condors in California as of March 2013, nearly half -- 65 birds -- live in the Tehachapis, well within an easy day's flight of the burgeoning wind developments in the vicinity of Alta East. And according to telemetry from the transmitters worn by many of the birds, they're moving right up against the Tehachapi Wind Energy Area -- and in many cases flying across it.
Recent condor GPS locations mapped near wind development areas in the Western Mojave | Map: FWS
The revelation of the pending take permit caught many wildlife protection activists by surprise, and several told ReWire that it was difficult to offer a measured response on behalf of their organizations without access to the text of the BiOp. But the reaction of Center for Biological Diversity attorney Adam Keats quoted in Friday's Times article aptly summarized most of the sentiment ReWire found among activists: "This is a sad day for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service," Keats told the Times. "We're talking about perhaps one of the most endangered species on the planet, let alone in this country."
"It's premature and inappropriate," said condor expert Sophie Osborn, wildlife program director for the Wyoming Outdoor Council and author of "Condors in Canyon Country: The Return of the California Condor to the Grand Canyon Region." Osborn, who managed the Peregrine Fund's involvement with the Grand Canyon condor reintroduction for many years, told ReWire that the incidental take permit flies in the face of what we know about how to help birds survive wind energy development. "Proper siting means finding out which areas pose less threat to birds. It means not putting turbines in high use areas, not allowing development in places that have heavy wildlife traffic."
"This just seems like a recipe for losing condors," she added.
Osborn also took issue with a statement by Dan Ashe quoted in Louis Sahagun's Los Angeles Times piece, in which the FWS chief said "The good news is that we have an expanding population of condors, which are also expanding their range."
"The reason we have an expanding population is that we're breeding and releasing condors," said Osborn. "That doesn't offer an accurate picture of how they're doing once they're released."
If a condor is killed at Alta East during that 30-year period, the BLM will have to do what's known in the endangered species business as "reinitiating formal consultation" -- essentially restarting the process by which FWS determines whether a project will jeopardize the existence of an endangered species.
That's a reassuring-sounding prospect: FWS will assess whether a project that has killed an endangered animal poses further threat to the species. The process is often less reassuring in practice than it is in theory. Endangered species advocates were hoping for a "jeopardy" finding when solar developer BrightSource started finding hundreds more federally threatened desert tortoises on the site of its Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System than were forecast in that project's BiOp. The original BiOp and take permit allowed BrightSource to kill, harm, harass, or disturb no more than 40 tortoises. Once it was clear there were a lot more tortoises than that onsite, BLM estimated as many as 2,862 tortoises (including eggs) could be harmed by the project. Despite the 70-fold increase in potential "takes," FWS merely required a few changes to the project's tortoise relocation plan and issued a revised BiOp that allowed construction to proceed.
Reviewing a project's impact on condors after a single death may seem fairly stringent by comparison to the Ivanpah tortoise example, but compared to a year in prison and a fine of $100,000 -- the existing penalties under the Endangered Species Act for killing a condor -- it's definitely getting off easy. And the number of remaining tortoises in the Ivanpah Valley, as beleaguered as they are, is many times higher than the entire population of California condors worldwide.
This is an abrupt about-face for FWS, whose representatives were stating as recently as last year that issuing lethal take permits for the California condor to wind developers -- or anyone -- was out of the question. In a 2011 letter regarding Alta East sent to Jacqueline Kitchen of the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department -- and included as a public comment in the project's Final Environmental Impact Statement -- FWS's Assistant Field Supervisor Carl Benz said that "we consider avoidance of mortality of California condors to be the only acceptable conservation strategy at this point in time." That was the same point in time in which FWS was rebuking Kern County for downplaying the existence of condors on the site of a different proposed wind project. In a letter to the county's Board of Supervisors, Diane Noda -- Field Supervisor of the FWS Ventura office -- warned the county that careless approval of enXco's 350-megawatt Catalina wind project could land the county in hot water with regard to illegal take of condors, adding "We cannot envision a situation where we would permit the lethal take of California condors."
The decision also marks a change from policy stated recently in the behemoth Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP), an overarching Habitat Conservation Plan in the works for the California Desert, being prepared by FWS in cooperation with the California Energy Commission (CEC), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). As recently as this past January, this is what the DRECP's planning documents had to say about the idea that wind developers would be granted permission to "take" condors:
Based on best available information for the California condor, it is anticipated that no lethal take would be authorized for condor, but that the DRECP would promote conservation of the species.
So what prompted this volte-face on FWS's part? It's hard to tell without looking at the Biological Opinion, which has not so far been made publicly accessible. Stephanie Weagley told ReWire that a commitment by Terra-Gen to implement a condor warning system played a role in FWS writing the first-ever incidental take statement for California condors.
"These measures include... a system to detect condors flying in the vicinity of the project [and] curtailment of operation prior to any bird entering the area of the wind turbines," Weagley told ReWire.
What this likely means, given the flaws inherent in standard detection tech such as bird radar, is that Terra-Gen has agreed to use a system that will detect the radio transmitters worn by many condors and slow their turbines when the alarm signals the birds' approach.
Those transmitters are worn by many condors. They are not worn by every condor. A double-digit percentage of condors in California may be without transmitters, and those with them may stop signaling due to equipment failure. "Transmitters often have failed batteries," Sophie Osborn points out. "They fall off. It's a hell of a lot of work to capture condors to attach new transmitters, especially if the condors in question aren't habituated to food subsidies. It can take weeks or months to recapture a condor whose transmitter has failed, or to capture a fledgling that's never had one attached. It takes a big commitment of people on the ground to do the work."
Condors' social behavior may offer some level of "herd immunity" to windmill strikes in that radio-silent condors will often be accompanying those with transmitters. But that's not by any means a certainty. Eventually, Terra-Gen will have to find some other way of detecting condors, and no reliable way other than constant live observation really exists.
FWS's Stephanie Weagley points out that this reality is in part what drove the Alta East BiOp's findings. "Because the detection system is not fool-proof," said Weagley, "the Service's biological opinion on the proposed action anticipates the lethal take of a single condor over the 30 year life of the project."
If condors do move into the area in increasing numbers, that poses another problem with mitigation through detection. Wind turbine operators are in business to sell power. If they're obliged to cut their output drastically every time a condor flies by, and if condors start flying by more than a few days a year, that cuts into profits, and into investors' income, and into the creditworthiness of the operator. The temptation to err on the side of threat to condors will grow with the local condor population.
And that threat may involve a single condor only rarely. Condors are intensely social animals -- one biologist has called them "primates with feathers." The birds tend to gather in huge flocks at a carcass, and they can assemble those huge flocks quickly, as shown in these camera trap images caught just a few moments apart:
Photo: FWS
Photo: FWS
It may turn out to be hard to kill only one California condor by accident.
Fish and Wildlife Director Daniel Ashe said the decision reflects a difficult reality. The threat of prosecution jeopardized the construction of large-scale alternative energy facilities... in the wild and windy places preferred by condors.
Which observation prompted one commenter on social media to point out in exasperated all-caps: "YES THAT IS WHAT IT IS SUPPOSED TO DO."
Credit: By TIM FAULKNER/ecoRI News staff | May 14, 2013 | www.ecori.org ~~
PORTSMOUTH — It’s status quo for the Portsmouth High School wind turbine. On Monday night, town planner Gary Crosby informed the Town Council that negotiations ceased with two possible developers interested in fixing or replacing the 336-foot-high turbine, which has been broken since June 2012.
The council allowed Crosby to issue a formal request to seek other bidders for the project.
The town is considering three options: replace the turbine’s broken gearbox; replace the entire turbine with a new, more reliable model; and take down the turbine and sell if for scrap.
“We’re asking to review the process and start again,” Crosby said.
Without the revenue from the sale of electricity, the townt is still paying for the turbine. It has two loans to pay for construction of the turbine. Quarterly interest payments of $4,983 are paid toward the $2.6 million Clean Renewable Energy bond. A principal payment of $173,333 is also due Dec. 15 for the bond.
A $400,000 loan from the state Economic Development Corpration is due a principal payment of $26,380 and interest payment of $3,079 on June 15.
When running, the wind turbine earned the town about $160,000.
Removing and replacing the gearbox costs some $780,000. It would likely require the town to maintain ownership of the turbine and make the debt payments.
Selling the turbine to a developer would likely mean the new owner would make the interest payments, with little to no revenue heading to the town.
Scrapping the turbine, which Crosby has called the “nuclear option,” would only generate a small, one-time payment from the sale of the scrap metal, and likely leave the town with a large portion of the debt.
There was little discussion by the Town Council or from the public at the May 13 meeting. “I think we’ve got to look over every stone in the landscape before we get to it,” council President James Seveney said.
The 1.5-megawatt turbine was commissioned in March 2009. The turbine had a 20-year life expectancy but was shutdown June 18, 2012 after the gearbox showed significant wear. An independent investigation blamed the damage on a faulty gearbox. The gearbox, however, was no longer covered by warranty, and the manufacturer of the turbine, AAER Wind Energy of Quebec, is no longer in business. Three of five turbines of the same make and model erected in California and Templeton, Mass., also suffered gearbox failure.
The manufacturer of the gearboxes, Jahnel Kestermann of Germany, had offered to sell two replacement gearboxes to the town for $203,000. It would cost the town an additional $407,000 to remove the old gearbox and install a new one. The two-for-one deal, however, no longer exists.
Crosby said at least one developer is interested in responding to the new request for proposal.
Source: By TIM FAULKNER/ecoRI News staff | May 14, 2013 | www.ecori.org
Obama administration allows wind farms to kill eagles, birds, despite federal laws
The Associated Press
Wind farms in this corner of Wyoming have killed more than four dozen golden eagles since 2009, one of the deadliest places in the country of its kind.
But so far, the companies operating industrial-sized turbines here and elsewhere that are killing eagles and other protected birds have yet to be fined or prosecuted - even though every death is a criminal violation.
The Obama administration has charged oil companies for drowning birds in their waste pits, and power companies for electrocuting birds on power lines.
But the administration has never fined or prosecuted a wind-energy company, even those that flout the law repeatedly.
"What it boils down to is this: If you electrocute an eagle, that is bad, but if you chop it to pieces, that is OK," said Tim Eicher, a former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service enforcement agent based in Cody.
It's a double standard that some Republicans in Congress said Tuesday they would examine after an Associated Press investigation revealed that the Obama administration has shielded the wind power industry from liability and helped keep the scope of the deaths secret.
"We obviously don't want to see indiscriminate killing of birds from any sort of energy production, yet the administration's ridiculous inconsistencies begs questioning and clarity— clarity on why wind energy producers are let off the hook," said Sen. David Vitter, R-La.
The House Natural Resources Committee, which was at the beginning stages of an investigation, vowed to dig deeper Tuesday.
"There are serious concerns that the Obama administration is not implementing this law fairly and equally," said Jill Strait, a spokeswoman for the committee's chairman, Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash.
Wind power, a pollution-free energy intended to ease global warming, is a cornerstone of President Barack Obama's energy plan. His administration has championed a $1 billion-a-year tax break to the industry that has nearly doubled the amount of wind power in his first term.
"Climate change is really greatest threat that we see to species conservation in long run," said Fish and Wildlife Service director Dan Ashe in an interview with the AP on Monday. "We have an obligation to support well-designed renewable energy."
But like the oil industry under President George W. Bush, lobbyists and executives have used their favored status to help steer U.S. energy policy.
The result is a green industry that's allowed to do not-so-green things.
More than 573,000 birds are killed by the country's wind farms each year, including 83,000 hunting birds such as hawks, falcons and eagles, according to an estimate published in March in the peer-reviewed Wildlife Society Bulletin.
Getting precise figures is impossible because many companies aren't required to disclose how many birds they kill. And when they do, experts say, the data can be unreliable.
When companies voluntarily report deaths, the Obama administration in many cases refuses to make the information public, saying it belongs to the energy companies or that revealing it would expose trade secrets or implicate ongoing enforcement investigations.
Nearly all the birds being killed are protected under federal environmental laws, which prosecutors have used to generate tens of millions of dollars in fines and settlements from businesses, including oil and gas companies, over the past five years.
"We are all responsible for protecting our wildlife, even the largest of corporations," Colorado U.S. Attorney David M. Gaouette said in 2009 when announcing Exxon Mobil had pleaded guilty and would pay $600,000 for killing 85 birds in five states, including Wyoming.
The large death toll at wind farms shows how the renewable energy rush comes with its own environmental consequences, trade-offs the Obama administration is willing to make in the name of cleaner energy.
"It is the rationale that we have to get off of carbon, we have to get off of fossil fuels, that allows them to justify this," said Tom Dougherty, a long-time environmentalist who worked for nearly 20 years for the National Wildlife Federation in the West, until his retirement in 2008. "But at what cost? In this case, the cost is too high."
The Obama administration has refused to accept that cost when the fossil-fuel industry is to blame. The BP oil company was fined $100 million for killing and harming migratory birds during the 2010 Gulf oil spill. And PacifiCorp, which operates coal plants in Wyoming, paid more than $10.5 million in 2009 for electrocuting 232 eagles along power lines and at its substations.
But PacifiCorp also operates wind farms in the state, where at least 20 eagles have been found dead in recent years, according to corporate surveys submitted to the federal government and obtained by the AP. They've neither been fined nor prosecuted. A spokesman for PacifiCorp, which is a subsidiary of MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. of Des Moines, Iowa, said that's because its turbines may not be to blame.
By not enforcing the law, the administration provides little incentive for companies to build wind farms where there are fewer birds. And while companies already operating turbines are supposed to avoid killing birds, in reality there's little they can do once the windmills are spinning.
Wind farms are clusters of turbines as tall as 30-story buildings, with spinning rotors as wide as a passenger jet's wingspan. Though the blades appear to move slowly, they can reach speeds up to 170 mph at the tips, creating tornado-like vortexes.
Flying eagles behave like drivers texting on their cellphones; they don't look up. As they scan for food, they don't notice the industrial turbine blades until it's too late.
The rehabilitation coordinator for the Rocky Mountain Raptor Program, Michael Tincher, said he euthanized two golden eagles found starving and near death near wind farms. Both had injuries he'd never seen before: One of their wings appeared to be twisted off.
"There is nothing in the evolution of eagles that would come near to describing a wind turbine. There has never been an opportunity to adapt to that sort of threat," said Grainger Hunt, an eagle expert who researches the U.S. wind-power industry's deadliest location, a northern California area known as Altamont Pass. Wind farms built there decades ago kill more than 60 per year.
Eagle deaths have forced the Obama administration into a difficult choice between its unbridled support for wind energy and enforcing environmental laws that could slow the industry's growth.
Former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, in an interview with the AP before his departure, denied any preferential treatment for wind. Interior Department officials said that criminal prosecution, regardless of the industry, is always a "last resort."
"There's still additional work to be done with eagles and other avian species, but we are working on it very hard," Salazar said. "We will get to the right balance."
Meanwhile, the Obama administration has proposed a rule that would give wind-energy companies potentially decades of shelter from prosecution for killing eagles. The regulation is currently under review at the White House.
The proposal, made at the urging of the wind-energy industry, would allow companies to apply for 30-year permits to kill a set number of bald or golden eagles. Previously, companies were only eligible for five-year permits.
In exchange for the longer timetable, companies agree that if they kill more eagles than allowed, the government could require them to make changes. But the administration recently said it would cap how much a company could be forced to spend on finding ways to reduce the number of eagles its facility is killing.
The Obama administration said the longer permit was needed to "facilitate responsible development of renewable energy" while "continuing to protect eagles."
A similar explanation was given when the Fish and Wildlife Service recently authorized the killing of a single California condor, an endangered species, by a proposed wind farm in California. It also authorized a real estate developer to disturb four birds for its project.
That's because without a long-term authorization to kill eagles, investors are less likely to finance an industry that's violating the law.
Typically, the government would be forced to study the environmental effects of such a regulation before implementing it. In this case, though, the Obama administration avoided a full review, saying the policy was nothing more than an "administrative change."
"It's basically guaranteeing a black box for 30 years, and they're saying 'trust us for oversight.' This is not the path forward," said Katie Umekubo, a renewable energy attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council and a former lawyer for the Fish and Wildlife Service. In private meetings with industry and government leaders in recent months, environmental groups have argued that the 30-year permit needed an in-depth environmental review.
The tactics have created an unexpected rift between the administration and major environmental groups favoring green energy that, until the eagle rule, had often been on the same side as the wind industry.
Those conservation groups that have been critical of the administration's stance from the start, such as the American Bird Conservancy, have often been cut out of the behind-the-scenes discussions and struggled to obtain information on bird deaths at wind farms.
"There are no seats at the exclusive decision-making table for groups that want the wind industry to be held accountable for the birds it kills," said Kelly Fuller, who works on wind issues for the group.
The eagle rule is not the first time the administration has made concessions for the wind-energy industry.
Last year, over objections from some of its own wildlife investigators and biologists, the Interior Department updated its guidelines and provided more cover for wind companies that violate the law.
The administration and some environmentalists say that was the only way to exact some oversight over an industry that operates almost exclusively on private land and generates no pollution, and therefore is exposed to little environmental regulation.
Under both the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the death of a single bird without a permit is illegal.
But under the Obama administration's new guidelines, wind-energy companies — and only wind-energy companies — are held to a different standard. Their facilities don't face additional scrutiny until they have a "significant adverse impact" on wildlife or habitat. But under both bird protection laws, any impact has to be addressed.
The rare exception for one industry substantially weakened the government's ability to enforce the law and ignited controversy inside the Interior Department.
"U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not do this for the electric utility industry or other industries," Kevin Kritz, a government wildlife biologist in the Rocky Mountain region wrote in government records in September 2011. "Other industries will want to be judged on a similar standard."
Experts working for the agency in California and Nevada wrote in government records in June 2011 that the new federal guidelines should be considered as though they were put together by corporations, since they "accommodate the renewable energy industry's proposals, without due accountability."
The Obama administration, however, repeatedly overruled its experts at the Fish and Wildlife Service. In the end, the wind-energy industry, which was part of the committee that drafted and edited the guidelines, got almost everything it wanted.
"Clearly, there was a bias to wind energy in their favor because they are a renewable source of energy, and justifiably so," said Rob Manes, who runs the Kansas office for The Nature Conservancy and who served on the committee. "We need renewable energy in this country."
The government also declared that senior officials in Washington, many of whom are political appointees, must approve any wind-farm prosecution. Normally, law-enforcement agents in the field have the authority to file charges with federal attorneys.
While all big cases are typically cleared through headquarters, such a blanket policy has never been applied to an entire industry, former officials said.
"It's over," Eicher said. "You'll never see a prosecution now."
Not so, says the Fish and Wildlife Service. It said it is investigating 18 bird-death cases involving wind-power facilities, and seven have been referred to the Justice Department. A spokesman for the Justice Department declined to discuss the status of those cases.
Ashe said his agency always made it clear to wind companies that if they kill birds they could still be liable.
"We are not allowing them to do it. They do it," he said of the bird deaths. "And we will successfully prosecute wind companies if they are in significant noncompliance."
But officials acknowledge that their priority is cooperating with companies before wind farms are built to encourage them to be put where they won't harm birds. Once they are built, there is little companies can do except shut down turbines or remove them — and that means reducing the amount of electricity they generate and violating deals struck with companies purchasing their electricity.
By contrast, there are easy fixes for oil companies and companies operating power lines to stop killing birds. The government often requests companies take such steps before it decides to prosecute.
"We just can't be bringing a criminal case against a company that is up and running if there is not a solution," said Jill Birchell, head of the Fish and Wildlife Service law enforcement office in California and Nevada. "We can fine them, but that doesn't help eagles."
In the meantime, birds continue to die. The golden eagle population in the West, prior to the wind energy boom, was declining so much that the government's conservation goal in 2009 was not to allow the eagle population to decrease by a single bird.
The reason boils down to biology. Eagles take five years to reach the age when they can reproduce, and often they only produce one chick a year.
In its defense, the wind-energy industry points out that more eagles are killed each year by cars, electrocutions and poisoning than by turbines.
Ashe noted that the government doesn't require other industrial facilities to disclose the numbers of birds they kill.
Documents and emails obtained by the AP offer glimpses of the problem: 14 deaths at seven facilities in California, five each in New Mexico and Oregon, one in Washington state and another in Nevada, where an eagle was found with a hole in its neck, exposing the bone.
Unlike the estimates, these are hard numbers, proof of deaths, the beginnings of a mosaic revealing the problem.
One of the deadliest places in the country for golden eagles is Wyoming, where federal officials said wind farms have killed more than 50 golden eagles since 2009, predominantly in the southeastern part of the state. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to disclose the figures.
At a different facility, Duke Energy's Top of the World wind farm, a 17,000-acre site with 110 turbines located about 35 miles east of Casper, 10 eagles have been killed in the first two years of operation. It is the deadliest of Duke's 15 wind power plants for eagles.
The company's environmental director for renewable energy, Tim Hayes, said Duke is doing all it can, not only because it wants to fix the problem but because it could reduce the company's liability. Two of the company's wind farms in Wyoming — Top of the World and Campbell Hill — are under investigation by the federal government for the deaths of golden eagles and other birds, according to a report the company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission last week. The report was filed after the AP visited a Duke facility in Wyoming and asked senior executives about the deaths.
Duke encourages workers to drive slower so as not to scare eagles from their roosts. They remove dead animals that eagles eat. And they've removed rock piles where the bird's prey lives. They also keep internal data on every dead bird in order to determine whether these efforts are working. The company is also testing radar technology to detect eagles and is considering blaring loud noises to prevent the birds from flying into danger.
The only other option is shutting off the turbines when eagles approach. And even that method hasn't been scientifically proven to work.
At Top of the World, Duke shut down 13 turbines for a week in March, often the deadliest time for eagles. The experiment, the company says, paid off. Not a single eagle was killed that month.
Hayes says the company has repeatedly sought a permit from the federal government to kill eagles legally, but was told it was killing too many to qualify.
When an eagle is killed, Duke employees are also prohibited by law from removing the carcass.
Each death is a tiny crime scene. So workers walk out underneath the spinning rotors and cover the dead bird with a tarp. It lies there, protected from scavengers but decaying underneath its shroud, until someone from the government comes to get it.
Editor's Note: In the original version of this story, the last name of Patricia Johnson, a zoning board of appeals member, was incorrect.
FALMOUTH — The zoning board of appeals declared two town-owned wind turbines a nuisance in a 4-1 vote Thursday night
The decision overturned Building Commissioner Eladio Gore's determination that noise from the turbines did not constitute a nuisance. Turbine abutter Neil Andersen, of 211 Blacksmith Shop Road, appealed that decision in November, and the board closed that hearing last week.
"I personally feel like this is a nuisance to Mr. Andersen," said board member Scott Zylinski. "Otherwise, why would he put himself through all this?"
Andersen's appeal complained about the noise at the town's wastewater treatment facility on Blacksmith Shop Road, which contains two 1.65-megawatt turbines, Wind 1 and Wind 2. Since the first turbine began spinning three years ago, abutters have complained they create excessive noise and cause health problems such as headaches and vertigo.
The zoning board has no enforcement authority, and its decision now goes to Gore's office, which will draft the decision to be signed by board members.
It was not immediately clear on Thursday what Gore's options are with regard to enforcement action.
Gore did not return a voicemail left at his home after the decision Thursday night.
"I'm surprised by the decision," said Selectman Douglas Jones. "I guess I'm a little surprised that the ZBA would step in to countermand what the building commissioner wanted to do."
The decision, which required four votes to pass, came after the board spent about 45 minutes discussing the vague guidelines in town bylaws for what amounts to a nuisance. Bylaws define a noise nuisance as "offensive, obnoxious and objectionable."
Gore's ruling that the turbines do not create a nuisance was based on a November report by the state Department of Environmental Protection that the turbines do not exceed daytime noise limits, board Chairman Matthew McNamara said. But the DEP limit is out of date and does not properly address noise created by turbines, he said.
"I don't believe there is a standard," said McNamara, who added that the DEP is considering revisiting its noise standards. "What is obnoxious, what is objectionable really comes down to our sensibilities."
The one dissenting board member, Patricia Johnson, said the complaints were not based on fact, and that the nuisance guidelines are too vague for the zoning board to use in the case.
"I just don't get this nuisance standard that you're using," Johnson said to McNamara. "I don't think you can establish (what is a nuisance)."
The vote comes as Falmouth residents prepare to vote on whether the town will fund the removal of the two town-owned turbines.
Selectmen placed a question on the May 21 election ballot that asks voters to allow a Proposition 2½ debt exclusion to fund the decommissioning, dismantling and removal of the turbines and to repay grants, prepaid renewable energy credits and other costs associated with removal.
If voters say yes, any debt incurred to remove the turbines would be exempt from the limits of Proposition 2½, which caps property tax increases at 2.5 percent above the tax base.
The question does not specify the cost of removal.
State officials last month told the town there would be no forgiveness for about $1 million in prepaid renewable energy credits and nearly $5 million in stimulus grants used to construct the turbines.
Town Manager Julian Suso has estimated removing the turbines will cost a total of $14 million.
Walkers had a narrow escape as blades on a wind turbine ripped off in high winds across common moor land.
The 17m turbine blades split and scattered across Ovenden Moor Wind Farm, Cold Edge Road, Wainstalls, Halifax.
Walkers and local residents were stunned at what could have been a nasty accident and fear for further blade breakages.
Energy provider E-on has a total of 23 wind turbines which tower at 32 metres tall on Ovenden Moor Wind Farm.
After the accident, a workman erected a safety fence around the turbine and a sign saying “danger, falling objects” was attached to the moor entrance gate.
But local resident Ann Arran, 64, of Lower Hazel Hurst Farm, Wainstalls, Halifax, who discovered blade debris said: “The safety fence they’re erecting after the carnage is inadequate as broken blade pieces could fly and land anywhere in high winds.”
Sue Midgley, 37, of Spring Mill Fold, Wainstalls, was out walking with Ann. “I couldn’t believe what we saw, it was frightening having to continue walking across the land.”
Ann said: “At any minute more of the blades could shatter and who knows how long it will be until other turbine blades break - with disastrous consequences.
“It’s public land. More must be done to protect the people.”
E-on issued the following statement: “We can confirm that one of the turbines at our Ovenden Moor Wind Farm has suffered damage due to a technical issue and is under further investigation.
“Health and safety is of utmost importance to us. A fence has been erected to secure the area as a precaution with a 24 hour security presence on site.”
The wind power farm has been in operation since 1993. In 2012, Calderdale Council Planning permitted the construction of nine turbines, up to 115 metres to blade tip, on Ovenden Moor Wind Farm.
SOSS Editor Note Here is how your $117 Million is being spent to enrich First Wind on its Kahuku Hawaii project. I assume this includes lots of travel to hawaii to make sure things are going smooth.
Step 1(The Promise) Secretary Chu Announces Closing of $117 Million Loan Guarantee for Kahuku Wind Power Project July 27, 2010
... Before the recent fire, the Kahuku wind farm only produced an average of 36 megawatt-hours a day of energy during the first half of this year, according to Josh Strickler, chief researcher at the PUC.
But the wind farm is supposed to be producing about 250 megawatt-hours a day, according to PUC documents.
In an email to Civil beat, First Wind blamed the poor output on HECO maintenance work, which shut down the wind farm for part of this summer. ...
...In May 2011, less than two months after the wind farm was up and running, an inverter caught fire, destroying one of 10 modules that are critical components of the energy storage system that smooths out power to HECO’s electric grid, according to a lawsuit filed by Xtreme Power Solutions, a First Wind contractor that manufactured the battery storage system.
The battery storage facility will be demolished after hazardous material from the facility is removed and shipped to the mainland, according to Galvez.
Repairs to the Kahuku wind farm are not expected to be completed until the third quarter of 2013, according to Siegel, who said that a decision had not yet been made as to whether it will again include battery storage.
Step 4(The abandonment) Xtreme Power to Sell Battery Factory, Focus on Software
Xtreme Power, the Lyle, Texas-based startup with a decades-old advanced lead-acid battery technology and about 77 megawatts of grid-scale storage deployed around the world, is getting out of the battery-making business to focus on a less capital-intensive field -- building and managing the software platforms that integrate these expensive batteries into the grid.
If you had told environmentalists on Election Day 2008 that four years later there’d be no successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol, that a Democratic Congress would not have enacted any meaningful climate legislation, that domestic oil production would be soaring even after a catastrophic offshore oil spill, and that the environmental community would be having a lively internal debate about whether it should support reviving nuclear power, most might have marched into the ocean to drown themselves. Yet that’s the state of play four months into President Obama’s second term.
Start with climate change. Early in March, the hacker or leaker of the two email caches from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia that rocked the climate science world in 2009 and again in 2011 released the remaining batch of material. The news produced barely a shrug even among climate skeptics, partly because the file contains 220,000 emails and documents (as opposed to about 1,000 in round one, and 5,000 in round two), making it impossible to review comprehensively. But it also appears unnecessary, as the climate change story has been overtaken by facts on the ground. Most significant: The pause in global warming—now going on 15 years—has become so obvious that many of the leading climate scientists are grudgingly admitting that global warming has stopped. James Hansen, who recently stepped down as NASA’s chief climate scientist to become a full-time private sector alarmist, is among those admitting that the recent temperature record has flatlined.
After two decades of steady and substantial global temperature increase from 1980 to 1998, the pause in warming is causing a crisis for the climate crusade. It wasn’t supposed to happen like this. The recent temperature record is falling distinctly to the very low end of the range predicted by the climate models and may soon fall out of it, which means the models are wrong, or, at the very least, something is going on that supposedly “settled” science hasn’t been able to settle. Equally problematic for the theory, one place where the warmth might be hiding—the oceans—is not cooperating with the story line. Recent data show that ocean warming has noticeably slowed, too.
These inconvenient data are causing the climate science community to reconsider the issue of climate sensitivity—that is, how much warming greenhouse gases actually cause—as I predicted would happen in these pages three years ago: “Eventually the climate modeling community is going to have to reconsider the central question: Have the models the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] uses for its predictions of catastrophic warming overestimated the climate’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases?”
A steady stream of scientific studies (often government-funded) published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that conclude climate sensitivity is overestimated were ignored by the media, with the notable exception of New York Timesscience blogger Andrew Revkin. But the media blackout was broken in dramatic fashion by the Economist in its March 30 edition, with a long feature about the growing doubts over the catastrophic warming projections that have been the lifeblood of the climate campaign. The Economist reviewed a number of new findings that conclude the likely range of future warming will be much more modest—and manageable—than the Al Gores of the world have been claiming.
That the Economist would break with the pack is significant because the august British newsweekly had been among the most prominent media voices beating the drum for climate catastrophe and radical action to suppress hydrocarbon energy. Now it offers this zinger: “If climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, climate sensitivity would be on negative watch.” A Reuters story last week notes that scientists are “struggling” to explain the pause in warming. Expect other media to follow—if they continue to give the issue much coverage at all. The New York Times shut down its environment news desk in January and discontinued its Green Blog in March, concessions to the fact that readers are thoroughly bored with the issue. Recent opinion surveys find that public concern about climate change is at 20-year lows, not just in the United States but almost everywhere.
But it may not have mattered whether these troubles came to the climate campaign. Even if the full-monty doom and gloom case still looked persuasive, the massive and unexpected resurgence of hydrocarbon energy over the last few years has made the green dream of hydrocarbon energy suppression more implausible than ever, chiefly because the “renewable” alternatives are still so much more expensive, inferior in performance, and inadequate to our energy needs. The boom in natural gas production is being accompanied by an equally substantial boom in domestic oil production for the same reason—advances in directional drilling technology and hydraulic fracturing.
Domestic oil production has reversed its long slow decline—heretofore thought irreversible by every public and private forecast—and is at its highest level in more than 20 years. The International Energy Agency forecasts that the United States is on its way to becoming the world’s top oil producer, without, it is worth noting, opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or large new areas of offshore reserves that have been the center of contention for the last 30 years. Barack Obama has done what any clever politician would do: claim credit for the boom, even though most of the new activity has occurred on private and state land. Obama’s regulators are still slow-walking permit applications for drilling on federal land. It has to be awfully discouraging for environmentalists to have won most of those access fights but still find U.S. oil production soaring.
The consequences for the U.S. energy picture are staggering. Oil imports have fallen by one-third over the last five years; the sour economy accounts for less than half of this decline. The United States is within striking distance of doing without Middle Eastern oil if it wishes. Although Europe and Asia have lagged the United States in deploying new technology to unlock oil and gas, they are catching up quickly. The “peak oil” hypothesis looks more and more like the population bomb, imminent resource exhaustion, and other busted Malthusian forecasts of the 1970s.
Meanwhile, renewable energy—wind, solar, and biofuels—is sputtering everywhere, as one would expect of any product wholly dependent on subsidies in a time of budgetary constraints. Tax credits and subsidies for wind and solar power survived the fiscal cliff deal on January 1, the result of some fancy footwork by renewable lobbyists months before, but aren’t likely to survive much longer. In Europe, subsidies for renewable energy are being cut just about everywhere. Britain, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain, the Czech Republic, Romania, Bulgaria, and Poland have all announced cuts in renewable energy subsidies; South Africa, India, and China, too. At the same time, Europe’s carbon emissions trading scheme—the cornerstone of its climate policy—is near collapse. On April 16, the European parliament narrowly voted down a last-minute attempt to rescue the sagging carbon-trading system. Most investment banks that jumped on the carbon-trading bandwagon have closed their carbon desks. It may yet survive, but it has almost no enthusiastic support. On top of everything else, coal use in Europe is actually on the rise, some of it imported from the United States.
Despite these relentless setbacks for the climate campaign, environmentalists are not going gentle into this well-lit night, nor will they abandon their decades-old crusade to kill off hydrocarbon energy. The movement is too well funded, and has established ample footholds in the policy machinery stretching down to the local level in the United States. Having a “climate action policy” is de rigueur for just about every self-respecting city council and county commission in the country, typically raising numerous regulatory hurdles for new development. Moreover, the fallback position for the climateers—Environmental Protection Agency regulation under the Clean Air Act—is just getting into high gear, though “high gear” for the EPA is an excruciatingly slow process.
And that process just got a bit slower. Last year the EPA announced a draft of “new performance standards” for power plant greenhouse gas emissions that would have the practical effect of making it impossible to build new coal-fired power plants, except with unproven and uneconomical carbon sequestration technology. Only natural gas plants could meet the new standard. The EPA was supposed to finalize the rule a week ago, but withdrew it at the last minute, probably because the proposed rule was unlikely to survive a legal challenge. The EPA has solid legal ground to develop greenhouse gas regulations (unfortunately), but an arbitrary anti-coal rule might have been tossed out in court just about the time a new president arrives in town four years from now—perhaps a Republican who would scupper the whole thing. The EPA has not announced a timetable for a revised rule, but the new EPA administrator-designate, the true-believing Gina McCarthy, will no doubt push hard for aggressive regulations. The EPA is already talking about tough new performance standards for existing coal plants over the next 18 months.
The most high profile energy controversy remains the Keystone XL pipeline. Obama punted on a decision before the election, and now that the State Department’s latest environmental review gave the project a thumbs up, he’s in a difficult political spot. If he okays the pipeline, his vocal environmental supporters, such as Tom Steyer, the anti-Keystone San Francisco billionaire who hosted a fundraiser for the president two weeks ago, will go berserk. But the business community, organized labor, a solid Senate majority, and, according to polls, a solid majority of the public, favor Keystone. The Canadian government, after observing a cautious stance of staying out of domestic American politics, has started making unusual public noises that a denial of Keystone will strain relations. Obama can’t vote “present” on Keystone forever.
What he may do is tentatively approve Keystone along with a major policy shift that will please environmentalists and subject Keystone to further and perhaps fatal delays. There is talk that the administration may expand the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to require that proposed projects like Keystone document their impact on global warming in the permit approval process. It would be a bonanza for environmental lawyers, who would have new grounds for filing lawsuits to challenge the adequacy of environmental impact statements. Activists have implicated global warming in everything from AIDS to zoonotic diseases (see The Warmlist, www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm, for a complete dossier), so environmental impact statements could become multivolume affairs with endless court challenges and costly “mitigation” steps required for permits.
While this might thrill environmentalists, it risks a major backlash. The problem with environmental statutes such as NEPA, the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act is that taken literally they could prohibit almost all human activity. Environmental regulation has always been subject to realistic political constraints, though regulators strain at the leash to see how much they can get away with. This slow, insidious process tends to go on regardless of which party occupies the White House. But an overreach by Obama could finally prompt Congress to consider revising the basic statutes that give regulators so much leeway. The landmark environmental statutes of the 1970s have been politically sacrosanct, but red state Democrats would surely not be fond of a dramatic expansion of environmental regulation.
The final unexpected aspect of the global hydrocarbon renaissance is that it is starting to cause a few environmentalists to have second thoughts about . . . nuclear power. For nearly 30 years nuclear power was the only form of energy environmentalists despised more than hydrocarbons. But even with Japan’s nuclear power plant disaster of 2011, some environmentalists have come to see a positive tradeoff of nuclear power over coal and natural gas. James Hansen recently co-authored a paper concluding that nuclear power has saved 1.8 million lives over coal and gas-fired alternative electricity sources since 1970, and will prevent 7 million deaths by midcentury if it supplants a significant portion of fossil fuel electricity. In June a new documentary film, Pandora’s Promise, will feature prominent environmentalists, such as Stewart Brand, who have changed their mind on nuclear power. The film was screened to good reviews at the most recent Sundance Film Festival; apparently the resolutely anti-nuke host, Robert Redford, hadn’t noticed it on the program. But there’s a lot the old fossils of environmentalism don’t notice these days, starting with the dead-end road they’ve hit.
Steven F. Hayward is the Thomas Smith fellow at the Ashbrook Center, and the William Simon distinguished visiting professor at Pepperdine University’s Graduate School of Public Policy.
More than half the U.S. states with laws requiring utilities to buy renewable energy are considering ways to pare back those mandates after a plunge in natural gas prices brought on by technology that boosted supply.
April 22 (Bloomberg) -- Jack Gerard, chief executive officer of the American Petroleum Institute, talks about factors which may lead to U.S. energy independence. Gerard, speaking to Alix Steel on Bloomberg Television's "Lunch Money," also discusses the natural gas market and the impact of energy policy on the U.S. economy. (Source: Bloomberg)
Sixteen of the 29 states with renewable portfolio standards are considering legislation that would reduce the need for wind and solar power, according to researchers backed by the U.S. Energy Department. North Carolina lawmakers may be among the first to move, followed by Colorado and Connecticut.
“We’re opposed to these mandates, and 2013 will be the most active year ever in terms of efforts to repeal them,” said Todd Wynn, task force director for energy of the American Legislative Exchange Council, or Alec, a lobby group pushing for the change. “Natural gas is a clean fuel, and regulators and policy makers are seeing how it’s much more affordable than renewable energy.”
Conference Discussion
President Jack Gerard of the American Petroleum Institute, a trade group for the oil and gas industry, along with the former governors of Colorado and New Mexico will speak about the issue today in New York at a conference hosted by Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
Hydraulic-fracturing technology opened aging reservoirs for natural gas drilling, driving prices down about 72 percent from their record 2005 high. That’s making more expensive wind and solar power projects harder for utility regulators to justify, according to Alec and its allies, which include the Heritage Foundation in Washington.
“The shale revolutions are not just having ramifactions politically and economicaly in the U.S. but also around the world,” said Michael Liebreich, chief executive officer of Bloomberg New Energy Finance. “In 17 years, not that far away, we could reach peak energy use. This is not generally accepted.”
The push at the state level replicates efforts in Washington. Opposition from Republican lawmakers delayed the extension of a federal tax credit for wind power, prompting Vestas, the biggest turbine maker after GE, to fire 10 percent of its workforce at two Colorado factories.
“There haven’t been any outright repeals yet, but we’ve seen some watering-down,” said Justin Barnes, senior policy analyst at the North Carolina Solar Center. “Activity against renewable portfolio standards has been increasing in the past year. Their arguments are mostly on cost.”
The Raleigh, North Carolina-based research group is supported by the Energy Department and operates the DSIRE database of state incentives.
U.S. Renewables
U.S. investment in renewable power and energy efficiency fell 54 percent last year to $4.5 billion as government support waned, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The level may slip again this year if states dilute their requirements, which have pushed utilities to contract power from renewable providers and scale-back use of coal- and natural gas-fired generation.
Alec wants to repeal state mandates, arguing that the free market is a better way to determine the most cost-effective source of power, Wynn said. It typically drafts model legislation for state lawmakers to use as a blueprint when drafting bills, including the Electricity Freedom Act, which was published in October.
The anti-renewable mandate effort is also fueled by the Heartland Institute, the lobby group that’spushing to repeal clean-energy goals that it says increase power prices, cost jobs and do little to improve the environment, according to Heartland’s website. Officials from the organization weren’t available for comment.
North Carolina
North Carolina’s renewable requirements will cost state ratepayers as much as $1.8 billion from 2008 to 2021, the Heartland Institute said in an April 2 policy statement, citing a report from the John Locke Foundation and Beacon Hill Institute.
Repealing the state’s RPS policy “would help increase disposable income, attract more business investment and make energy more affordable for consumers,” according to the statement.
“We expect in the next year or two that state-based incentives will disappear,” said SolarCity Chief Executive Officer Lyndon Rive. “Whenever you see the effort, peel the onion and find out who’s behind it, who’s funding the effort. It’s very annoying that people can get away with the shell efforts and call it the people’s voice when it’s funded by coal.”
Legislative Debate
North Carolina lawmakers began debating this month a bill that would cap utilities’ required purchases of renewable energy at 6 percent of demand in 2015, half the current target, and eliminate the requirement in 2021.
“North Carolina is leading the nation in protecting consumers from the mandates for high-cost energy,” Wynn said in an interview. “It will show other states how to follow suit.” North Carolina’s bill revises the targets in the existing 2007 law and isn’t based on Alec’s template legislation.
A House committee already approved it and General Assembly Majority Whip Mike Hager, who introduced the legislation in March, said he expects it will pass this year.
“We could never have imagined in 2007 such an abundance of domestic natural gas,” Hager said in an interview. “We need that Marcellus shale gas to offset the high cost of renewables and prevent electricity prices from rising further. It’s like raising children: they need to grow up learn to live in the real world.”
Republican Push
Hager is a Republican whose top campaign donors include Duke Energy and the Charlotte, North Carolina-based utility owner’s Progress Energy (PGN) unit, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics, a Helena, Montana-based non-profit group. He expects the bill to pass through the GOP- controlled legislature, and that Governor Pat McCrory, also a Republican, will sign it.
Duke hasn’t taken a position on the North Carolina bill, said Jeff Brooks, a spokesman who confirmed the company has supported Alec.
Colorado’s state senate passed a bill April 16 that would increase the amount of energy utilities must get from renewable sources, and also expands the definition to include non- renewable sources such as methane produced from coal mining.
Connecticut is following a similar strategy, by including large hydroelectric plants in its definition of renewable energy. That will help utilities meet the state’s goal of 20 percent renewable energy by 2020, said Nick Culver, an analyst at New Energy Finance in New York.
“Connecticut has thrown up the white flag on its ambitious renewable targets, and is now negotiating its terms of surrender,” Culver said. “Instead of simply easing back targets, they intend to widen eligibility criteria to include imported hydropower from Canada that would have been built regardless, which amounts to pretty much the same thing.”
Proposed Bills
Other states considering similar policies include Missouri, Ohio and Kansas. Thirty of the proposed bills in those states were deemed “significant,” meaning they have the potential to affect demand for renewable power, by the North Carolina Solar Center, a partnership between the Energy Department and North Carolina State University that tracks such activity for the U.S. Energy Department.
Alec’s Wynn said groups in six additional states are planning attacks on renewable-energy policies.
The wind and solar industries are beating back efforts to reduce demand with their own lobbying, said Carrie Hitt, vice president of state affairs at the Washington-based Solar Energy Industry Association.
“This is a deliberate campaign by conservative think- tanks, the Heartland Institute and Alec to overturn renewable energy policy that threatens the fossil industry,” Hitt said in an interview.
To contact the reporter on this story: Christopher Martin in New York atcmartin11@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Reed Landberg at landberg@bloomberg.net
Posted April 23, 2013, at 11:38 a.m.
Last modified April 23, 2013, at 4:30 p.m.
Jim Anderberg
A fire on Jan. 16, 2013, destroyed this turbine at TransCanada's Kibby Mountain wind farm. A cause of the fire is still unknown, according to a company spokesman.
Jim Anderberg
A fire on Jan. 16, 2013, destroyed this turbine -- one of 44 at TransCanada's Kibby Mountain wind farm in northern Franklin County.
A fire destroyed a multimillion-dollar wind turbine at the Kibby Mountain wind farm in northern Franklin County, which has generated concern about the safety and reliability of turbines, and the process by which these fires are reported to government officials and the public.
Companies that operate wind farms in Maine are not currently required to report turbine fires to any state agency.
TransCanada, the Calgary-based energy company that built the 44-turbine Kibby Mountain wind farm in 2010, confirmed for the Bangor Daily News that a fire in the early morning hours of Jan. 16 destroyed one of its wind turbines — primarily the nacelle, which is the rectangular structure behind the blades that holds the gearbox and electrical components. With the capacity to generate 132 megawatts of electricity, Kibby Mountain is the largest wind farm in New England. (TransCanada is also the company behind the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline proposal.)
The fire’s aftermath troubles Bob Weingarten, president of the Friends of the Boundary Mountains, an organization that has fought against the Kibby Mountain project since the beginning. He calls the company’s handling of the event a “cover-up” and believes there should be an official notification system to inform all stakeholders, including the public, when such an incident occurs.
“The permitting agencies haven’t done anything to establish a system of responsibility,” he said. “If there was a tragedy, everyone would say, ‘Why didn’t everybody know about this?’ To me, that’s irresponsible.”
The turbine fire did not affect other nearby turbines or spread to the surrounding forest, according to Grady Semmens, a TransCanada spokesman.
“The Kibby turbines have built-in fire detection systems,” Semmens wrote in an email to the BDN. “In the event of a fire, a smoke alarm detects this and automatically shuts off the turbine. That is what happened in this case. Our power system operators identified a problem at the facility and when TransCanada’s employees arrived at the site the following morning, the fire was out.”
Whether the company will replace the turbine depends on the results of the insurance claim and other economic considerations, according to Semmens.
This is the first reported case of a turbine fire at a Maine wind farm, according to Samantha Warren, a Maine Department of Environmental Protection spokeswoman.
The threat of turbine fires to the surrounding forest has received cursory attention during past public hearings on Maine wind farms, but never much serious scrutiny, Warren told the BDN.
That could change.
Are turbines more dangerous than logging equipment?
The DEP has looked into the issue “quickly as a formality,” Warren said. “Given this latest incident, we’ll look into it more seriously in the future.”
But advocates for Maine’s wind farm industry argue turbine fires are extremely rare, and that the Kibby Mountain fire should not cause a knee-jerk reaction from state regulators.
“Applications for wind projects in Maine are already highly scrutinized,” said Jeremy Payne, executive director of the Maine Renewable Energy Association. “Every wind development in Maine has to develop a preparedness plan, which includes public safety setbacks. … In addition, the clearing done to build the turbines and the pads that they are built upon limit the ability of fire to spread.”
Maine law already requires a licensed civil engineer’s recommendations be considered when determining setbacks and gives the siting authority, whether the DEP or the Land Use Planning Commission, the chance to ask for additional information as part of any application process, Payne said.
Paul Williamson, director of the Maine Ocean & Wind Industry Initiative, points out that wind turbines are not the only pieces of machinery operating in Maine’s woods.
“Where is the concern for fires in logging operations? Where is the concern for fires in machinery operated at ski areas? These are all common uses that require machinery in a forested area,” Williamson said. “This is really not dramatically different than those other uses.”
The cause of the Kibby Mountain fire is not yet known, Semmens said. Vestas, the turbine manufacturer, is leading an investigation, which also involves an independent third party, to determine the cause. Semmens said the third party is an “approved fire investigator,” but wouldn’t disclose a name. The investigation is anticipated to be complete by June, he said.
Andrew Longeteig, a Vestas spokesman, would not comment on the potential causes of the fire.
“Until the root-cause analysis is complete, we cannot speculate on the cause of the incident,” Longeteig wrote in an email to the BDN.
When asked whether the investigation’s findings will be made public, Longeteig wrote: “We can’t determine who will receive the results of the investigation until the root cause is found.”
Turbine fires rare, but expensive
The turbines installed at Kibby Mountain are the Vestas V90-3.0 MW model. Immediately after the Kibby Mountain fire, the company reviewed 1,000 turbines of the same model that are deployed in the United States and Canada, according to Longeteig. All were found to be operating normally.
Vestas has nearly 50,000 installed turbines worldwide, including nearly 14,000 in North America, “and fires are a rare occurrence,” Longeteig said.
Turbine fires are rare, agreed Paul Veers, chief engineer at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s National Wind Technology Center. “But when they do happen, it’s a big deal,” he said.
TransCanada wouldn’t reveal the cost of the damage, but Veers estimates that a single turbine costs in the vicinity of $4 million.
“These are capital-intensive investments,” Veers said. “You pay for everything upfront except for minor maintenance costs and expect to get revenue to pay for that over 20 years, so the loss of a turbine is a big deal for the industry.”
There are no incident reporting requirements for wind farm operators, so no reliable data exist on just how rare these fires are or what causes them, Veers said. He believes the most likely causes of turbine fires are lightning strikes and electrical shorts, but no matter the cause, figuring out a way to help prevent them should be given more attention, he said.
“The objective of these machines is to make them operate flawlessly for their lifetime, and a failure in a system or a couple of systems that allows a fire to begin is a huge deal,” Veers said. “It hasn’t risen as an important element across the industry because they’re so rare, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not important.”
On April 2, just two weeks after Longeteig’s comments to the BDN, another Vestas turbine, though of a different model from those installed at Kibby Mountain, caught fire at a wind farm in Ontario. In October 2012, another Vestas turbine — again, a different make than the ones at Kibby — caught fire at a wind farm in Nebraska. While the cause of the Ontario fire is still unknown, an investigation discovered the source of the Nebraska fire, but Longeteig wouldn’t disclose its findings.
Following the disclosure, Vestas identified 10 turbines at Kibby Mountain that needed new gearboxes. Longeteig said five were replaced last year, with five more scheduled for replacement this summer. When asked whether the turbine that caught fire was identified as having a gearbox with faulty bearings, he replied in an email: “I don’t know.”
In December 2011, high winds caused a turbine fire in Scotland. The incident was caught on video and the images have been used by anti-wind activists as evidence of the threat wind farms pose.
Clyde MacDonald of Hampden is one such activist who has testified at public hearings on Maine wind farms several times — and wrote opinion pieces for the BDN — about the threat turbine fires pose to Maine’s wilderness. He maintains regulators weren’t aware of turbine fires when he first raised the issue. He hopes this incident will bring the issue to the forefront.
“I’m not castigating them for not knowing, but once I showed them the evidence, I got hot under the collar because they didn’t take it seriously,” MacDonald said.
While TransCanada is not required to report a fire to state officials, companies are required to report any potential spills of oil or other hazardous materials to the DEP. Because a wind turbine contains some oil and other potentially hazardous materials, TransCanada did file an oil and hazardous material spill report with the DEP on Jan. 23, seven days after the fire. The DEP determined the fire did not cause enough of a hazardous material spill that required a response, Warren said.
“There were follow-up communications with the department and the [Land Use Planning Commission] in early February as we got more details on the event, not because it is mandatory that they be reported to us, but because we think it is important to track these incidents so we can develop regulations in the future that mitigate their environmental impact,” Warren wrote in a follow-up email.
Other state agencies reported being told of the fire, but possessed no authority over the event or its aftermath.
The Office of the State Fire Marshal wouldn’t get involved in a wind turbine fire unless criminal activity were suspected, according to Stephen McCausland, spokesman for Maine’s Department of Public Safety, which includes the fire marshal’s office.
Bill Hamilton, chief forest ranger for the Maine Forest Service, the state agency tasked with fighting forest fires, didn’t hear about the fire until several days after the fact. And he learned about it not from TransCanada, but because he was copied on a complaint about the fire that was emailed to the fire marshal’s office.
But Hamilton wasn’t worried that the company didn’t immediately notify the Maine Forest Service about the fire because, he said, there was never any danger that it would spread to the nearby forest.
“In mid-January, I don’t think — or, I know — it’s not possible for a fire to spread to nearby forests when there’s 3 feet of snow up there,” he said.
However, a different season would be a different story.
“In the summertime, if there was a windmill that burned and spread to nearby timber, we’d certainly need to be notified about it.”
There are no specific laws that require a company such as TransCanada to notify the Maine Forest Service if its turbine is on fire, just like a timber company wouldn’t be required to call the forest service if a piece of its machinery caught fire. However, if that fire spread to the forest, then law would kick in, Hamilton said.
“The law that would be most appropriate is Title 17-A, Section 804, Failure to Report or Control a Dangerous Fire,” Hamilton said after looking through statutes.
This law wouldn’t apply to the Kibby Mountain turbine fire, he pointed out, because there was no risk of it spreading. He added also there’s no evidence TransCanada would not have contacted the Maine Forest Service if the fire had spread.
Nevertheless, having a more structured notification system in place would make sense, he said.
“I think it would be a good idea for — and we probably should have done this before — but it would probably be a good idea to have a mechanism for them to notify us of any fire in what I would call the summer-fire season,” Hamilton said. “It would make good business practice to let us know.”
Even though the January fire doesn’t worry him, Hamilton did take a helicopter to Kibby Mountain to get a closer look at the burned-out turbine and to learn what he could do to help prepare the forest service and himself in the event of a future turbine fire.
“My concern is not elevated dramatically, but I do think it’s a good opportunity to look at it and improve our communication network with the windmill company and get an on-the-ground look around and increase our situational awareness of what may happen,” he said. “I’m not expecting problems, but it’s not a bad idea to take a look around and understand what’s going on.”
Regulators have asked the Maine Forest Service about the risk of turbine fires in the past, but it has always regarded the risk as very low, according to Doug Denico, the agency’s director.
“We haven’t seen anything there that is inordinately risky that we can’t take care of with the equipment we’ve got and the policies and procedures in place,” Denico said.
Denico said he wasn’t aware of the forest service participating in any joint training exercises with TransCanada on handling a turbine fire that spreads to the surrounding woods. TransCanada said it has emergency procedures in place, but wouldn’t offer details on them.
Turbine fires have been known to start forest fires, according to the Confederation of Fire Protection Associations in Europe, which in September 2012 released a document of best practices and guidelines of how to handle fires at wind farms. A search for a similar document among the codes and standards issued by the U.S. National Fire Protection Association produces no results.
The European document warns that these type of forest fires can be difficult to extinguish. “Very often long distance between the wind energy plant and the fire station, and the strong wind prevailing in these places, are both factors that can promote the quick spreading of forest fires,” the document reads.
Sprague Wise, fire chief in Eustis, the closest town to the Kibby Mountain wind farm, said he heard about the fire “maybe a week or two after it happened.” Even if his fire department had been notified, there’s not much it could have done, Wise said. Not only does it lack firefighting equipment that could reach the turbines, which are 260 feet above the ground, but the roads to the wind farm weren’t plowed, he said.
TransCanada doesn’t expect local fire departments to fight blazes at the wind farm, Semmens said.
“We do not expect local fire departments to risk the safety of their firefighters by going up a tall turbine tower in the event of a fire that does not pose a risk to people,” he wrote. “Most fire equipment is not designed to manage fires at such a height, and common industry practice is to allow wind turbine fires to burn out on their own.”
Warren at the DEP said it’s possible the expedited pace of past wind farm approvals could have led to the issue of turbine fires receiving less attention than it deserved. While Gov. John Baldacci was a strong supporter of wind energy and helped put in place an expedited permitting process, Gov. Paul LePage has criticized wind energy for being too expensive and preventing job creation.
“These are things we’re learning as we go along,” she said. “This industry is evolving and so is our regulatory review of it as a result. Previous administrations were really gung-ho about wind and put in place expedited permitting processes. That came at the expense of review sometimes, perhaps like this fire suppression issue. So we’re trying to not put on the brakes, but subject this sort of industrial project to the same review as other industrial development in the state.”
In January 2005, legendary car designer Henrik Fisker founded a company to bring innovative new thinking to the automobile industry.
Between that date and today, Fisker Automotive would create perhaps the most beautiful car ever made, raise almost $1.4 billion dollars from investors as diverse as Leonardo di Caprio and Kleiner Perkins, obtain a $528 million loan from the U.S. Department of Energy, balloon to 600+ employees, default on loans or investment conditions at least four separate times, spend $535,000 on a website, get sued by its own employees, get evicted from its primary business location, and be investigated by the government — apparently for its incredible ability to burn a billion dollars while delivering only a few thousand actual completed cars.
What a wild, crazy ride it’s been.
“Fisker spent a stunning $900,000 for each vehicle it produced,” PrivCo chief executive Sam Hamadeh told me. “Then they sold them to dealers for an invoice price of just $70,000.”
PrivCo, the intelligence source on non-public companies, has compiled an exhaustive dossier on Fisker, its cash, its commitments, and its massive failure to produce anything like a functional, profitable business. While burning through $1.4 billion dollars, it produced fewer than 2,200 cars, PrivCo data shows, 600 of which remain unsold on dealers’ lots. And 1,200 investors, which include university endowment funds and company pension plans, are learning that their cash has been completely wiped out.
Even worse?
The government was grossly negligent in both its issuing of the Fisker loan — the biggest public loss since the infamous Solyndra Solar debacle, which cost the government as much as half billion dollars. Not only did the U.S. Department of Energy apply “negligent underwriting standards” in granting the Fisker loans, it also failed to enforce the loan conditions as Fisker breached the loan terms, PrivCo says. That failure cost the U.S. taxpayer an extra $192.3 million.
That’s bad enough. But sadly, it gets even worse.
Even as Fisker continued private fundraising efforts, when the DOE privately issued a Drawdown Stop Notice to halt payments to the stumbling car company, it failed to warn future investors that Fisker was in default. As PrivCo writes in its report:
U.S. Department of Energy made no announcement to the public that Fisker was in Default of Its Loan and Credit Agreements and no longer had access to the remaining balance of $336.4 Million, resulting in continued reliance on hundreds of additional individual investors purchasing Fisker stock in the hundreds of millions of dollars through the Advanced Equities “Fisker Funds” limited partnerships as well as reliance on that reasonable assumption that Fisker had continued and substantial access to the remaining $336.4 Million of credit line liquidity through the U.S. government.
At the end of the long, sad story, Hamedeh says, Fisker has less than $20 million cash in hand, has stopped paying all creditors, and faces multiple lawsuits.
“Fisker Automotive may well go down as the most tragic venture capital-backed debacle in recent history,” Hamadeh said in a statement. “The sheer scale of investment capital and government loan money — over $1.3 billion in all — was squandered so rapidly and with so little to show for it that the wreckage is breathtaking. Bankruptcy will be the end of Fisker, but for the taxpayers, venture capital firms, individual investors, and Fisker’s suppliers, it will all be too little too late.”
SOSS Editor Note: $2 Trillion in Renewable Energy has failed....and the eco-powers can not admit that conservation, efficiency and nuclear power are the only way of making a difference in CO2. Just read that funding was drying up for Fusion power, a clean potentially unlimited power source that needs development. With $2 Trillion making little difference we need to re-prioritize away from wind and solar which randomly work 10%-35% of the time requiring a carbon source 65%-90% of the time! What about natural gas cars....why not that? What is tragically comical, is just the other day, read a commentary how India and China are leading us in Solar and Wind Energy development.
LONDON—The world has made almost no progress over the past 20 years in reducing the carbon content of its energy supplies, despite more than $2 trillion of investment into renewable-energy projects such as wind and solar power, the International Energy Agency said on Wednesday.
In its third annual report tracking the progress of clean energy, the IEA, which advises rich and industrialized countries on energy policy, paints a bleak picture of global efforts to reduce carbon emissions.
Carbon-dioxide emissions from each unit of energy consumed have fallen by less than 1% since 1990, largely because of coal's continued dominance as a fuel for electricity generation, the IEA said. As energy consumption has grown, this means total global emissions of CO2 rose 44% from 1990 to 2010, it said.
The IEA estimates that a cut in carbon emissions per unit of energy of more than 60% is needed to prevent global average temperatures rising by more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit in the long term, and maintaining current levels would yield a temperature rise of 10.8 degrees Fahrenheit.
"The drive to clean up the world's energy system has stalled," IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven said. "We cannot afford another 20 years of listlessness. We need a rapid expansion in low-carbon energy technologies if we are to avoid a potentially catastrophic warming of the planet."
Coal has been preferred in fast-growing Asian economies for decades because it is relatively inexpensive and abundant, the IEA said, and coal-fired generation "has far outpaced" the significant increase from non-fossil energy.
China and India accounted for 95% of the growth in global coal demand in 2000 to 2011, the IEA said.
This month, the Asian Development Bank warned that Asia's use of fossil fuels was likely to keep rising for the next 20 years, doubling the region's carbon output by 2035 and leaving the prospects for emissions control looking grim.
"The goal of stabilizing global temperatures at acceptable levels is nowhere in sight," said Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at the launch of the IEA's report in New Delhi.
Even in Europe, which has some of the world's most ambitious emissions-reduction targets, coal use is rising, the IEA said. In Europe's largest economy, Germany, CO2 emissions edged higher last year as more coal was burned because it was cheaper than natural gas, according to the government's federal environmental agency.
The IEA warned that little is happening to mitigate the environmental impact of coal's continued dominance in power generation. Many new coal-fired power plants continue to use inefficient technologies, offsetting measures to close some older and dirtier plants. Projects to develop the technology that would allow the capture and storage of carbon emitted by power plants have made little progress, it added.
Germany remains on track to meet its emissions-reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol, said Jürgen Maass, a spokesman for the country's environment ministry. Agreements like Kyoto have had the desired effect because had there not been any climate-protection policies over the past few years, the world's greenhouse-gas emissions would have increased even more, he said.
The IEA report comes as long-standing climate-protection policies in Europe are increasingly under threat. On Tuesday, the world's flagship plan to tackle global warming, the European Union's Emissions Trading System, was put in doubt after the European Parliament rejected a proposal to support the carbon market.
Popular support for renewable-energy subsidies is also falling. Spain recently made retroactive cuts to such subsidies in a bid to keep down electricity costs.
The European Commission, the EU's executive body, wasn't immediately able to comment on the IEA report. This month, the bloc's energy chief, Günther Oettinger, said it should adopt more modest low-carbon goals in light of the Continent's economic problems.
—Jan Hromadko in Frankfurt and Saurabh Chaturvedi in New Delhi contributed to this article
FAIRHAVEN — In a move that brought some in the audience to tears, Selectmen Chairman Charlie Murphy Tuesday night apologized to residents and called for a meeting of selectmen and the health board to discuss shutting down the town's two wind turbines at night.
Murphy said he hopes to provide some relief for the 57 families who have filed complaints about the turbines at the wastewater treatment plant on Arsene Street, including the noise they generate.
"I am sorry for all of your suffering and what you have been through," he said. "I realize that many of you tried to speak out and were denied a place on our agenda, and I thank you for your persistence."
Said Murphy, "I feel everyone in town should get a good night's sleep."
About 10 members of Windwise, a group that opposes the turbines, attended the meeting and a few of them burst into tears at Murphy's announcement. It was not on the agenda and he said that neither Selectman Bob Espindola nor Selectman Geoffrey Haworth were aware that it was coming prior to the meeting.
Murphy's comments mark a significant change in the town leadership's opinion of the turbines, in part brought on by the April 1 town election in which Haworth ousted former Selectmen Chairman Brian Bowcock.
Haworth ran for office on a platform that he would be more willing to listen to turbine complaints than his opponent. Espindola, who won his seat in 2012, ran for office as the Windwise candidate.
Reached by phone Tuesday night, turbine developer Sumul Shah declined to comment.
At the meeting, Town Counsel Thomas Crotty said the town still has jurisdiction over the turbines despite not owning them.
"The town has not given up its authority over the health and welfare of its citizens," he said. He also cautioned the board not to "embroil" itself in a costly action and to work with Shah if possible.
Any decision regarding the turbines would need to be made by the Board of Health, which is currently in limbo because the results of its April 1 election remain unresolved.
The sequester has led to dire warnings from many camps, including advocates of clean energy, who argue that Washington's modest cuts could derail America's green future. But from my vantage as a CEO in the wind-power business, the sequester offers Washington a rare opportunity to roll back misguided subsidies and maybe help reverse wind power's stalling momentum.
Since 2009, as part of the president's stimulus, wind-farm developers have been able to get a federal cash grant or tax credit covering up to 30% of their capital investment in a new project. This is especially attractive compared with another tax credit that rewards wind farms based on how much power they actually produce. Through May 2012, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Washington spent some $8.4 billion on these cash grants.
But under the sequester, Uncle Sam is cutting the cash-grant program by 8.7% between March 1 and Sept. 30. Advocates of clean energy should welcome this haircut and urge for even more fundamental policy change.
Barbara Kelley
Government subsidies to new wind farms have only made the industry less focused on reducing costs. In turn, the industry produces a product that isn't as efficient or cheap as it might be if we focused less on working the political system and more on research and development. After the 2009 subsidy became available, wind farms were increasingly built in less-windy locations, according to the Department of Energy's "2011 Wind Technologies Market Report." The average wind-power project built in 2011 was located in an area with wind conditions 16% worse than those of the average project in 1998-99.
The Department of Energy admits that this trend is due at least in part to the 2009 federal subsidy: Because the grants that companies receive aren't based on how much power they produce, "it is possible that developers have seized this limited opportunity to build out the less-energetic sites." Meanwhile, wind-power prices have increased to an average $54 per megawatt-hour, compared with $37 in 2005.
If our communities can't reasonably afford to purchase and rely on the wind power we sell, it is difficult to make the moral case for our businesses, let alone an economic one. Yet as long as these subsidies and tax credits exist, clean-energy executives will likely spend most of their time pursuing advanced legal and accounting methods rather than investing in studies, innovation, new transmission technology and turbine development.
A quick glance at the American Wind Energy Association's website illustrates this. In July, the association is planning a Capitol Hill event aimed at "educating legislators" on the importance of industry tax credits. Never mind improving the underlying fundamentals of the wind business.
My own company began by delivering clean energy (in the form of natural gas) to rural China, where families still used animal dung for cooking fuel. We entered the wind business in the late 1990s, when a wind-turbine company asked us to provide electricity from its site when the wind wasn't blowing. Years later, we oversaw a similar project but in reverse: In 2008, without a government subsidy, we built a wind farm in Lubbock, Texas, to supplement at lower costs the delivery of electricity to a cottonseed-oil company.
Such projects are likely the industry's future. Wind energy will make marginal—not revolutionary—contributions. The industry's success in Texas (where my company is based, and which is the nation's largest and cheapest producer of wind power) suggests that wind farms do make sense in relatively windy areas where electricity shortages occur.
But policy matters. California, which isn't located in the "wind belt," is America's second-largest wind-energy producer but also its costliest. The state's high costs are partly due to "aggressive renewable energy policies . . . that give developers a strong negotiating position," according to the Department of Energy report.
The wind industry has largely been out-competed by natural gas, which has proved to be a clean, reliable and cheap power source for the future without subsidies or even venture-capital funding. As such, my company isn't planning any new investments in the wind business, even though we would love to still be worth the $2 billion we were several years ago.
Of course, we could yet be proven wrong by technological innovation. Without subsidies, the wind industry would be forced to take a hard fresh look at its product. Fewer wind farms would be built, eliminating the market-distorting glut. And if there is truly a need for wind energy, entrepreneurs who improve the business's fundamentals will find a way to compete.
Mr. Jenevein is CEO of the Dallas-based Tang Energy Group.
SOSS Editor Note: Town to Fight State over Misrepresented Wind Energy.
By Scott A. Giordano THE BULLETIN Posted Apr 04, 2013 @ 07:57 PM
The Falmouth Board of Selectmen and the Falmouth Finance Committee held a joint April 4 meeting and unanimously stood by the selectmen’s prior vote to remove the town’s wind turbines, despite receiving none of their requested financial assistance from the state to do so. The latest estimate is that it will cost the town about $14 million to remove both Wind 1 and Wind 2 at the Falmouth Wastewater Treatment Facility.
Selectmen voted to support removing the industrial-sized turbines, which have been a source of division in the community, in January. They since have tried to secure a financial commitment from state officials to help them do so, prior to drafting final language for warrant articles in the April 9 special Town Meeting.
Wind 1 was funded by a mix of general obligation bonds, grants and advanced payments on renewable energy credits (RECs), which are generated when carbon-neutral electricity is produced and then sold on the market. On April 2, the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (MassCEC) asked its board of directors to authorize the board chairman to appoint a subcommittee that will potentially modify the existing REC purchase agreement with Falmouth. However, the MassCEC staff memorandum that makes this request also states that Falmouth will not receive a contract waiver if Wind 1 is decommissioned and removed.
Wind 2 was funded entirely by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 through the state’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund grant/ loan program. Town Manager Julian Suso stated April 4 that he received electronic communication from Susan Perez, executive director of the Massachusetts Water Pollution Abatement Trust (MWPAT), which is the state's "pass-through" agency for the federal stimulus funds. Perez stated the MWPAT is requiring the town enter into an agreement to operate Wind 2 at a level that qualifies as an ‘energy efficient' project, or it will reinstate the town’s obligation to pay principle and interest on the loan and “take such other actions as it deems necessary and appropriate.”
Selectmen Chairman Kevin Murphy said he believes the state is being punitive. "I think it’s fair to say that the state does not want to see what the Board of Selectmen wanted to see happen," Murphy said.
Despite this, the selectmen and Finance Committee stood firm and united in requesting an indefinite postponement of Article 21 and supporting Articles 22 and 23 at special Town Meeting.
Article 21 was postponed because its content is now addressed in the proposed Article 22, as an attempt to vote on everything together at the special Town Meeting. "I took considerable effort with Town Counsel to develop a recommendation on one article so the town can take one vote and one motion to represent the town’s goals," said Heather Harper, Falmouth's assistant town manager on April 4.
Article 22 will require a 2/3 majority of Town Meeting voters for Falmouth to borrow money to pay for costs related to dismantling and decommissioning the wind turbines. Special legislation is also required to both remove an asset like the wind turbines, and to potentially resell the turbines to a non-government entity. The total estimated obligation to remove Wind 1 and Wind 2 is now listed as about $14 million in this warrant article.
Article 23 will not require a 2/3 majority vote, since it does not borrow money. Instead, this article would transfer $140,000 from the town's free cash fund to supplement the FY 13 and FY 14 operating budgets necessitated by the curtailment or shutdown of both turbines.
Murphy said he is resolute that the issue be brought to voters. "Sometimes you have to take a step back in order to take two steps forward. We have a lot of things facing this community in dollars and cents. But it’s important we gain the trust of the entire community," he said.
More details to come in the April 11 issue of The Bulletin.
I am writing to answer three questions we have received lately from you, our supporters, regarding recent Cape Wind events. I also want to assure you that with your continued help, we will defeat this struggling project. With five federal lawsuits facing Cape Wind, public outrage over its high cost, and financing uncertainty, 2013 looms large as the beginning of the end for Cape Wind.
Q. I read that National Grid recently added a sunset clause to Cape Wind’s contract. What is the significance of this?
A. This is a positive development for our cause because now Cape Wind’s contracts with both NStar and National Grid have termination clauses. If Cape Wind does not begin construction by the end of 2015, they will have NO buyers for their expensive electricity.
Q. Is it true that Cape Wind has finally secured financing?
A. No, Cape Wind has not secured financing. It has, however, announced that it is working with Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi to help arrange the debt financing. Cape Wind also needs equity investors as well as a loan guarantee from the US Department of Energy (DOE). While Cape Wind clearly has strong political support at state and federal levels, two Congressional subcommittees are investigating DOE’s potential loan guarantee to Cape Wind, given the waste of taxpayer dollars to bankrupt companies like Solyndra.
Q. What happened to Cape Wind’s commitment to create local jobs with Mass Tank?
A. Cape Wind turned its back on an agreement to use Mass Tank, a local Massachusetts company, to manufacture the bases of its wind turbines and create local jobs. Instead, Cape Wind now plans to buy its massive foundations from a European firm, abandoning Mass Tank after using the company for political gain.
From lawsuits and bait-and-switch construction deals, to financial challenges and termination clauses, Cape Wind is watching its prospects growing dimmer by the day. Our job is to stay strong until we defeat Cape Wind and preserve our beautiful Nantucket Sound for all to enjoy.
Together, we can make sure 2013 is the beginning of the end for Cape Wind. Please consider making a DONATION today. Thank you!
Audra Parker
President and CEO
Reminder: Thank you for your comments to the Department of Energy regarding Cape Wind's Loan Request. If you have not already done so, we encourage you to submit your comments to: Cape_Wind@hq.doe.gov. Please visit our website for talking points and remember to include your name, address, and phone number.
SOSS Editor note: Once again a Wind Energy promises to do better is found to be UNTRUE! Once again the federal government fails to enforce the Eagle Protection Act!!!! This death is a window onto the thousands that die and aren't found! Whole colonies are being killed off. Thousands of Burrowing Owls are being annihilated! US Fish and Wildlife is being subjugated to the renewable lobby for MONEY!
"the wind farm was applauded for its “groundbreaking mitigation measures,” including “ an advanced radar system designed to protect birds and bats."
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is investigating a groundbreaking Nevada wind farm after finding a dead golden eagle on its premises last month. The Las Vegas Review-Journalreports that the Spring Valley Wind Farm may face a $200,000 fine because it does not have a federal permit that allows for incidental deaths of the bird. Wind-energy facilities are not required to have the permits, but without one, the FWS can investigate and persecute them for eagle deaths, leveling a fine of up to $200,000. This is the only eagle Spring Valley has killed since the farm’s opening last August.
The eagle’s death comes a few months after the installation was recognized for its “environmental leadership.” It won the award at an international conference in December, where the wind farm was applauded for its “groundbreaking mitigation measures,” including “an advanced radar system designed to protect birds and bats.” Environmental groups opposed the farm’s construction over concerns about the impact it might have on wildlife.
Representatives from the FWS said the wind farm “did all the things they were supposed to” following an eagle’s death, but that they “really prefers that wind developers work with the service early on in the process” and secure a permit.
Spring Valley is not actually a breeding ground for golden eagles, but they do migrate through the region, as bald eagles do occasionally, too. Both species are given specific protections by a 1940 federal law, and both have been easy prey for the increasing number of wind farms across the U.S. Deroy Murdock wrote about the issue for NRO last May — as many as 500 golden eagles a year may be killed in the western U.S. by wind turbines.
Below find a letter from Megan Amsler , a member of the Massachusetts, Falmouth Energy Committee who makes money from Industrial Wind Turbine promotion and is fine forcing Industrial Wind Turbines into other people's neighborhoods. As you can see by her letter, her concern for her fellow residents being harmed is non existence . It is ONLY 19 FAMILIES BEING HARMED..but really more like FIFTY, but she doesn't care! It is sad that people like Ms Amsler are so caviler to harm others while grabbing as much money as they can while pedaling their agenda. SHAME ON HER!!! You discredit other's who not only have a concern for their "environment", but a concern for their fellow humans. Ms Amsler maybe you should be more forth coming in what money you get for peddling this agenda to harm others? Your actions make renewables look like a money grabbing fraud that is fine with callously harming others and ignoring actual impact for the sake of money!
An education and advocacy session for the greater Scituate MA community, was held on Saturday, March 23, 2013, hosted by the neighbors affected by the Scituate Industrial Wind Turbine.
Topics Included: The South Shore / Scituate Experience
- Acoustics 101: (Rick James, Principal Consultant at E-Coustic Solutions) Min 13.11
- Light Strobe: A Real Life Experience (Mark McKeever) Min: 48:42
- Health and safety: (Dr. Jeffry Silver, MD. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. Certified by American Board of Internal Medicine- subspecialty- Sleep Medicine.)
Min: 1.07:29
- Green Community Legislation: Leaving Communities Black and blue
- Reasons for and request for support of Town Meeting Warrant # 28 -rescind special permit granted to Scituate Wind. Min: 1.42:20
Background:
Organizers hoped to draw residents from other areas of the Town who are not directly impacted by the noise and strobing light emanating from the industrial wind turbine. The event's goal was to shed light on the real health and safety impacts being experienced by folks living too close to this inappropriately sited industrial wind turbine, and with accurate information in hand, encourage our friends and neighbors to understand, support and advocate on behalf of the negatively impacted residents.
Matters of Opinion with Ira Wood (former Wellfleet Selectmen)
Ira Wood, Former Chairman of the Wellfleet BoS, Recalls Wellfleet's "Vastly Unpopular Decision" in 2010 NOT to Install a Wind Turbine; Discusses "the Falmouth Experience"; and Offers "a Modest Proposal" to Alleviate Suffering and Satisfy Skeptics in Falmouth.
In the radio editorial on that originally aired a few weeks ago, Mr. Ira Wood, former Chairman of the Wellfleet Board of Selectmen expresses relief that Wellfleet has been spared "the Falmouth Experience" and contrasts the manner in which Wellfleet approached its own wind turbine proposal -- cautiously -- vs. the hasty approval process in Falmouth in which the Falmouth Board of Selectmen exempted itself from the Special Permit process.
Noting that several residents in Falmouth, quoted in the newspaper and posting on social media like Facebook, seem to doubt the existence of any significant adverse impacts from the Falmouth wind turbines -- or, even worse, seem to be completely devoid of any sympathy, or sense of responsibility, for their suffering -- former selectman Wood offers a facetious "modest proposal": why not adopt a plan to transfer the homes of affected residents to people who actually enjoy
wind turbine noise, or are immune from it?
The point is that all of this could have been avoided had officials in Falmouth, including the Chairman of the Falmouth Energy Committee, had the sense "to look a gift horse in the mouth" with a healthy sense of skepticism, especially since it seemed that this deal (already refused by several towns) seemed almost too good to be true, done their homework and listened to critics who questioned the wisdom of installing wind turbines in a residential area.
The Town of Falmouth is mired in its current difficulties precisely because the town exempted itself from the Special Permit process, an approval process which is specifically designed to provide a robust discovery process for such consequential proposals as Wind I and Wind II; to force the proponents of the project to make their case to the Planning Board for approval by a super-majority; and to provide a full and fair public hearing of the proposal which enables all members of the public and interested parties to bring forth pertinent information for consideration by the Planning Board and to express their views on the potential benefits and detriments of the project.
In the case of Wellfleet, the Board of Selectmen initially endorsed an initial proposal to install a Vestas V90 wind turbine (410 feet high) on town owned land in the heart of the Cape Cod National Seashore -- a proposal that was enthusiastically supported by the Superintendent of the national park. Within six months, after delving into the details of the project and listening to all sides, the Wellfleet BoS voted unanimously to withdraw all funding and to kill the project.
Along the way, the sitting Chairman of the Wellfleet Energy Committee resigned when he was unable to persuade other members to abandon the project because of its divisive effect upon the community. And soon after the project was repudiated by the BoS, another key member of the Wellfleet Energy Committee who had obtained the initial grant funds for the project, publicly stated, to his credit, that he had been wrong and that "Wellfleet is no place for a wind turbine"
because of its proximity to homes.