Save Our SeaShore Alliance to Protect SeaShores & Prime Open Areas from Wind Turbines!

21Aug/130

Letter to the Editor: Wind Turbines Bird and Bat Killer at Wildlife Sanctuary

Posted by SaveOurSeaShore

Here is a letter to the Editor The Cape Codder concerning a planned Wind Turbine at Mass Audubon Society’s Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary

BIRD & BAT KILLER!

You’d think it obvious to not build a bird and bat killing wind turbine(WT) at a Wildlife Sanctuary. Massachusetts Audubon Society(MAS) is planning a 150ft tall 11kw WT at Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary(WBWS). Wind Turbines kill! Pre-Construction estimated for wind turbines are regularly wrong. The State of Massachusetts has not published post construction bird and bat kills from WTs…unlike many states. Why?

In Pennsylvania WTs on average kills 25 bats per year. US Geologic Survey says, “Dead bats are turning up beneath wind turbines all over the world.“ The American Wind Energy Association lobbying group, which MAS  quotes, claim 1-2 bird kills per turbine per year. Similar sited WTs albeit larger in NJ & DE kill about 80 birds/bats per year…Osprey, Herons, songbirds and in NJ an endangered Peregrine Falcon…only 25 breeding pair in that state. Hundreds of Golden Eagles killed in California by WTs. In Maryland at Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge  an 11kw WT not unlike the planned WBWS turbine killed at least one Bald Eagle after lots of studies saying it wouldn’t. It then broke in a wind storm. They didn’t repair it…left it to rot. Not uncommon for WTs.

MAS wishes to sacrifice a Sanctuary which donors wanted as a SANCTUARY. WBWS is in Audubon Important Birding Area(IBA) because it’s ideal for hosting birds! Even the pro wind energy U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service states that Wildlife Sanctuaries shouldn’t be developed for wind energy. All electricity at WBWS is already currently green. A local WT will not reduce CO2 output.

Wellfleet avoided WTs in the CCNS. MAS mission states “To Protect the Nature of Massachusetts for People and Wildlife”….no mention of being a renewable power generation leader.  So how about it Mass Audubon…PROTECT!

Barry Doyle

21Aug/130

Vestas Replaces CEO With Runevad as Losses Widen

Posted by SaveOurSeaShore

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-21/vestas-replaces-ceo-with-runevad-as-losses-widen.html

By Alex Morales - Aug 21, 2013

Vestas Wind Systems A/S (VWS), the Danish turbine maker that’s been unprofitable for two years, replaced its chief executive officer after a worse-than-expected loss.

Anders Runevad, from Ericsson AB, will take over on Sept. 1 from Ditlev Engel, who has been at Vestas since 2005, the turbine maker said. Its two-year turnaround program “continues according to plan” even as second-quarter margins narrowed. Vestas rose the most in three months in Copenhagen trading.

“It is now the appropriate time to make this change,” Chairman Bert Nordberg said today in a statement. “The company is now entering a new phase where we want to realize our growth potential. The restructuring program has resulted in a more competitive company.” Nordberg, who took up his post last year, was previously an employee of Ericsson’s former Sony Ericsson venture, where Runevad worked from 2006 through 2010.

Vestas, after eight quarters of losses, has just over four months to complete its program seeking to lower fixed costs by 400 million euros ($535 million), including a 30 percent cut in its staff to 16,000. The company lost 62 million euros in the second quarter, compared with the average estimate for a 9 million-euro loss among six analysts surveyed by Bloomberg.

It reported an 8 million-euro loss a year earlier.

Revenue Decline

Vestas rose as much as 12 percent, the biggest gain since May 8, and was up 4.8 percent at 108.4 kroner by 12:16 p.m. in Copenhagen. The price is still less than a sixth of the record 692 kroner reached in 1998. Vestas revised earnings forecasts in 2010 and 2011 before renegotiating loan facilities last year.

The board agreed to replace Engel at a meeting yesterday, Nordberg said today on a call with journalists and analysts. Chief Financial Officer Marika Fredriksson will take charge of the business until Runevad assumes control on Sept. 1, he said.

“As the industry is maturing and the competition is becoming more and more intense, there is a need to ensure we have the right competences,” Chief Marketing Officer Morten Albaek said by phone. “There’s a difference in the business of wind in 2013 and the wind business five to 10 years ago.”

The company’s sales declined by 26 percent to 1.2 billion euros in the latest quarter, and the company had an operating margin of 1 percent. It revised a forecast of free cash flow for the year from “positive” to 200 million euros.

Prices Stabilizing

Orders rose 74 percent in the quarter to 1,641 megawatts, bringing the year’s total to 2,285 megawatts. The order backlog now totals 13 billion euros, including 5.9 billion euros in servicing contracts.

Wind turbine prices are “stabilizing,” Fredriksson said on the call. Vestas will take its “fair share” of orders in the U.S., where it sees a second-half pickup, Albaek said.

The U.S. market slowed after a tax credit was allowed to expire at the end of last year. While it was unexpectedly renewed on Jan. 1, developers had already rushed projects to completion, leaving fewer in the pipeline. The extended credit applies to new projects where construction has begun by Dec. 31.

Vestas no longer plans to sell a tower factory in Pueblo, Colorado, that it expects to operate at full capacity next year.

Machining and casting plants are still for sale, and the manufacturer lowered their valuation by 42 million euros following talks with potential buyers.

Development of the V164 8-megawatt offshore wind turbine is going according to plan, the company said. Nordberg declined to comment on discussions over a partnership with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. that it announced in August 2012, beyond saying Vestas would release a statement should those talks end.

Industry Recovery

Europe’s turbine makers are recovering after overcapacity and growing competition crimped margins and eroded profits. Shares in Vestas, Gamesa Corp. Tecnologica SA and Nordex SE (NDX1) rebounded this year after they cut jobs and shut factories.

Now there is “clear long term value” in Vestas shares, Sean McLoughlin, a clean-energy analyst at HSBC Holdings Plc, said in a note to investors on July 30. “Vestas is ideally positioned to benefit from global wind demand growth.”

Vestas today retained full-year guidance for 2013 shipments of 4,000 megawatts to 5,000 megawatts, down from 6,200 megawatts in 2012. It maintained a forecast for a drop in revenue to 5.5 billion euros from 7.2 billion euros and sees a margin before interest, tax and special items of “at least” 1 percent.

The number of employees stands at 17,253, with more than 1,000 jobs still to be cut by the end of the year, it said.

12Aug/130

Letter to Mass Audubon: Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary is no place for a wind turbine

Posted by SaveOurSeaShore

August 12, 2013

Dear Mr. Prescott  & Mass Audubon,

Mass Audubon that campaigned for Cape Wind, despite the lead federal regulator US Fish and Wildlife Service protest that there is a, "lack of relevant baseline data", has now proposed a wind turbine for the Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary.  This is an indefensible plan given the fact that wind turbines are known to be prolific killers of birds and bats, and because this is a sanctuary for them.

As you are no doubt aware, Dr. Taber Allison, former Vice President of Mass Audubon, was U.S. Department of Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne's appointed Advisor on the U.S. Wind Turbine Siting Guidelines Advisory Committee.  Thus Mass Audubon clearly recognizes the inherent risks to wildlife posed by wind turbines, and the places most unsuitable for them, (while my ten years of independent research indicates there is no suitable place for them).

The Department of the Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued guidelines for siting wind towers in 2003 and in 2005:

"--Avoid placing turbines in documented locations of any species of wildlife, fish, or plant protected under the ESA.

-- Avoid locating turbines in known local bird-migration pathways or in areas where birds are highly concentrated, unless mortality risk is low (e.g., birds rarely enter the rotor-swept area). Examples of high-concentration areas for birds are wetlands, state or federal refuges, private duck clubs, staging areas, rookeries, roosts, riparian areas along streams, and landfills

-- Avoid known daily-movement flyways (e.g., between roosting and feeding areas) and areas with a high incidence of fog, mist, low cloud ceilings, and low visibility."

Please refrain from using Mass Audubon’s arguments in favor of this wind turbine on the premises of our needs to address climate change, and to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Wind energy requires concrete processing, the processing of steel, and fiberglass blades that can’t be recycled.  Cape Wind, as example, is anticipated to increase vessel traffic.  Please consider the harmful emissions produced during the full life cycle of wind energy, including the processing of steel, concrete, construction, operation, and maintenance of just one offshore wind project.  The EPA has much to say about concrete and steel processing, not to mention emissions from vessels, top harmful emissions offenders by the EPA.

Wind energy is also a redundant energy source that requires fossil fuel energy sources as back-up when the wind doesn’t blow, or when wind speed is excessive. The reality is that with wind we pay for conventional fuel sources, and then triple current cost for redundant wind energy.

You are likely aware that National Grid has purchased a percentage of Cape Wind’s energy should this project secure bankable wind turbines, find financing and a loan guarantee, commence construction before year's end, and prevail in five federal lawsuits.  The British company has a new plan to remedy the unpredictability of the wind that negates any environmental benefits.

TELEGRAPH

August 3, 2012

'We could soon be paying billions for this wind back-up The National Grid's latest plan is taking off into the weirdest scheme yet, thanks to our politicians’ obsession with wind turbines'

"...National Grid has come up with, only made possible by the latest computer technology and “cloud software”, is to hook up thousands of diesel generators, remotely controlled by the grid, to provide almost instantly available back-up for when the wind drops..."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/10220083/We-could-soon-be-paying-billions-for-this-wind-back-up.html

 

Jim Gordon of Cape Wind obviously recognized the need to burn fossil fuel to back-up his unreliable offshore wind energy project that lacks financing.

‘The Real Jim Gordon, Environmental Hypocrite!’

“You may have heard that the same man, Jim Gordon of Energy Management, Inc., who is proposing good, clean, renewable energy in the form of wind turbines for the Cape is also proposing a DIESEL burning power plant for Chelsea…” (next to an elementary school)

http://www.jiveshed.com/savechelsea/downloads/WhoIsTheRealJimGordon.pdf

I invite you to follow me on Twitter @ https://twitter.com/Barbarajdurkin

As I read and post international news related to wind energy. During the past six months, I’ve notice a dramatic shift in the tone of articles regarding wind.  Criticism of this scheme is trending in major news publications. The subsidies are drying up as wind energy mandates are being repealed around the world.  There is a big downside for Mass Audubon if this turbine goes in as people are really catching on to the corruption and impacts behind this industry.  Mass Audubon leaders would be wise to recognize that there is no benefit to be gained by the sacrifice of birds at the altar of wind, before the masses do, and before birds are sacrificed to a useless wind turbine at the Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Center, and fingers begin to point.

 

Mass Audubon's "support" for Cape Wind, and testimony, puts you in conflict with strict liability criminal statutes. It's very troubling to me that your continued actions indicate an utter disregard for listed, and endangered species, and relevant protections and international treaties.

 

Reference File No. NAE-2004-338-1, EOEA No. 12643:
"By utilizing other bird mortality data provided in the DEIS, Mass Audubon staff scientists arrived at avian mortalities that ranged from 2,300 to 6,600 collision deaths per year."
http://www.massaudubon.org/PDF/CapeWindDEIS.pdf

“Europe is ahead of us.”

'Europe Pulls The Plug On Its Green Future' The Australian 8/10/13

http://mail.aol.com/37966-111/aol-6/en-us/Lite/MsgRead.aspx?folder=Inbox&uid=31338826&seq=0&searchIn=none&searchQuery=&start=0&sort=received&sortDir=descending

Massachusetts Audubon should withdraw this ill-conceived proposal prior to the September 19, 2013 Public Hearing by the Wellfleet Zoning Board of Appeals. As this wildlife sanctuary exists for the protection of wildlife as most expect Massachusetts Audubon does.

Thank You,

Barbara Durkin

Northboro, MA


10Jul/130

Oxford Lecturer, “The shocking environmental cost of renewable energy”…Letter to Mass Audubon

Posted by SaveOurSeaShore

Letter to Massachusetts Audubon Society concerning renewable energy projects in their Wildlife Sanctuary

Dear Mr Prescott and Mass Audubon Society,

We hope you haven’t hunkered down to ignore the many issues concerning “The shocking environmental cost of renewable energy”. Hopefully Massachusetts Audubon Society will rationally decide not to build a Wind Turbine at Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary. MAS needs to rethink all renewable projects that result in loss of habitat and loss of life in their protected lands. Hopefully, you care enough to do the right thing. A nature oriented organization is surely doing a lot of due diligence in this mission to become pathfinding experts in hosting renewable power generation with an unknown impact, in a Wildlife Sanctuary. We will let an Oxford University lecturer in Biological and Human Sciences who trained as a Zoologist and has a particular interest in EXTINCTION of ANIMALS to state it far better than us “…this century at least, renewables pose a far greater threat to wildlife than climate change.”

Hopefully the multitude of harm that you are reading about, along with, what should be obvious doubts about impact,  will lead you to agree that the harm outweighs the benefits and to cancel any and all plans to build wind turbines on any protected Audubon land. You should also lead by example and stop bulldozing protected land for solar panels. There are better suited areas that aren’t “PROTECTED”  such as landfills, industrial zone, and roof tops for solar panels. Just because something has positive aspects. doesn’t mean it makes sense everywhere. Do you believe that everyone should be bulldozing their green space for solar & wind dollars? Does LOSS OF HABITAT worry you? Do you believe replacing a natural environment with bulldozed dirt and heat soaking solar panels, doesn’t have negative impact? Only degraded(brown field) areas should host solar panels and no wind turbines should be built in areas where there are people or numerous birds and bats. Are natural open space and Wildlife really that worthless to you? You should be the exemplary example…not the reckless land clearing bulldozer drivers and wind turbine developers increasing the killing of birds and bats. Should Cape Cod National Seashore clear acres of protected habitat for solar panel complexes? Seems absurd or worse, to renege on the ideal of protection for these areas as best we can.  Loss of habitat … architected by the protectors.

Loss of habitat is the single biggest cause of species extinction.”

please read the following article carefully and just in case you don’t

“most of the species they claim are threatened by ‘climate change’ have already survived 10 to 20 ice ages, and sea-level rises far more dramatic than any we have experienced in recent millennia or expect in the next few centuries. Climate change won’t drive those species to extinction; well-meaning environmentalists might.”

KEEP IT A SANCTUARY

Sincerely

SaveOurSeaShore

 

Wind farms vs wildlife

The shocking environmental cost of renewable energy

226 CommentsClive Hambler 5 January 2013

Bats

Wind turbines only last for ‘half as long as previously thought’, according to a new study. But even in their short lifespans, those turbines can do a lot of damage. Wind farms are devastating populations of rare birds and bats across the world, driving some to the point of extinction. Most environmentalists just don’t want to know. Because they’re so desperate to believe in renewable energy, they’re in a state of denial. But the evidence suggests that, this century at least, renewables pose a far greater threat to wildlife than climate change.

I’m a lecturer in biological and human sciences at Oxford university. I trained as a zoologist, I’ve worked as an environmental consultant — conducting impact assessments on projects like the Folkestone-to-London rail link — and I now teach ecology and conservation. Though I started out neutral on renewable energy, I’ve since seen the havoc wreaked on wildlife by wind power, hydro power, biofuels and tidal barrages. The environmentalists who support such projects do so for ideological reasons. What few of them have in their heads, though, is the consolation of science.

My speciality is species extinction. When I was a child, my father used to tell me about all the animals he’d seen growing up in Kent — the grass snakes, the lime hawk moths — and what shocked me when we went looking for them was how few there were left. Species extinction is a serious issue: around the world we’re losing up to 40 a day. Yet environmentalists are urging us to adopt technologies that are hastening this process. Among the most destructive of these is wind power.

Every year in Spain alone — according to research by the conservation group SEO/Birdlife — between 6 and 18 million birds and bats are killed by wind farms. They kill roughly twice as many bats as birds. This breaks down as approximately 110–330 birds per turbine per year and 200–670 bats per year. And these figures may be conservative if you compare them to statistics published in December 2002 by the California Energy Commission: ‘In a summary of avian impacts at wind turbines by Benner et al (1993) bird deaths per turbine per year were as high as 309 in Germany and 895 in Sweden.’

Because wind farms tend to be built on uplands, where there are good thermals, they kill a disproportionate number of raptors. In Australia, the Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle is threatened with global extinction by wind farms. In north America, wind farms are killing tens of thousands of raptors including golden eagles and America’s national bird, the bald eagle. In Spain, the Egyptian vulture is threatened, as too is the Griffon vulture — 400 of which were killed in one year at Navarra alone. Norwegian wind farms kill over ten white-tailed eagles per year and the population of Smøla has been severely impacted by turbines built against the opposition of ornithologists.

Nor are many other avian species safe. In North America, for example, proposed wind farms on the Great Lakes would kill large numbers of migratory songbirds. In the Atlantic, seabirds such as the Manx Shearwater are threatened. Offshore wind farms are just as bad as onshore ones, posing a growing threat to seabirds and migratory birds, and reducing habitat availability for marine birds (such as common scoter and eider ducks).

I’ve heard it suggested that birds will soon adapt to avoid turbine blades. But your ability to learn something when you’ve been whacked on the head by an object travelling at 200 mph is limited. And besides, this comes from a complete misconception of how long it takes species to evolve. Birds have been flying, unimpeded, through the skies for millions of years. They’re hardly going to alter their habits in a few months. You hear similar nonsense from environmentalists about so-called habitat ‘mitigation’. There has been talk, for example, during proposals to build a Severn barrage, that all the waders displaced by the destruction of the mud flats can have their inter-tidal habitat replaced elsewhere. It may be what developers and governments want to hear, but recreating such habitats would take centuries not years — even if space were available. The birds wouldn’t move on somewhere else. They’d just starve to death.

Loss of habitat is the single biggest cause of species extinction. Wind farms not only reduce habitat size but create ‘population sinks’ — zones which attract animals and then kill them. My colleague Mark Duchamp suggests birds are lured in because they see the turbines as perching sites and also because wind towers (because of the grass variations underneath) seem to attract more prey. The turbines also attract bats, whose wholesale destruction poses an ever more serious conservation concern.

Bats are what is known as K-selected species: they reproduce very slowly, live a long time and are easy to wipe out. Having evolved with few predators — flying at night helps — bats did very well with this strategy until the modern world. This is why they are so heavily protected by so many conventions and regulations: the biggest threats to their survival are made by us.

And the worst threat of all right now is wind turbines. A recent study in Germany by the Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research showed that bats killed by German turbines may have come from places 1,000 or more miles away. This would suggest that German turbines — which an earlier study claims kill more than 200,000 bats a year — may be depressing populations across the entire northeastern portion of Europe. Some studies in the US have put the death toll as high as 70 bats per installed megawatt per year: with 40,000 MW of turbines currently installed in the US and Canada. This would give an annual death toll of up to three -million.

Why is the public not more aware of this carnage? First, because the wind industry (with the shameful complicity of some ornithological organisations) has gone to great trouble to cover it up — to the extent of burying the corpses of victims. Second, because the ongoing obsession with climate change means that many environmentalists are turning a blind eye to the ecological costs of renewable energy. What they clearly don’t appreciate — for they know next to nothing about biology — is that most of the species they claim are threatened by ‘climate change’ have already survived 10 to 20 ice ages, and sea-level rises far more dramatic than any we have experienced in recent millennia or expect in the next few centuries. Climate change won’t drive those species to extinction; well-meaning environmentalists might.

The second edition of Clive Hambler’s Conservation (Cambridge University Press) is out now.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8807761/wind-farms-vs-wildlife/

8Jul/130

Defense of the Indefensible, Audubon’s Plan to build Wind Turbine in Sanctuary – Wellfleet, Massachusetts

Posted by SaveOurSeaShore

Dear Mr Prescott and Mass Audubon Society,

We continue to relay to you real world evidence as below of the harm wind turbines do to the natural world and why Massachusetts Audubon Society should not build a wind turbine at Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary. But you offer no rebuttal beyond, the wind turbine salesman and lobbyists say they only kill a few birds and bats. Do you have any studies of marsh located wind turbines in high volume bird areas not killing lots of birds and bats? Any studies of kill rates from wind turbines in Mass. you wish to share to alleviate our concerns or are they a secret? Then there is the laughable rebuttal that after spending $200,000 of donors money…that you will take it down when it kills too many  birds and bats, of course offering no indication what is too many. Then there is possibly the saddest defense, we are already killing birds with our shiny LEED glass building(cats, other building, cars, etc) we don’t think the wind turbine will kill that many more…so we won’t be too ashamed of the harm we will be doing at the WILDLIFE SANCTUARY ENTRUSTED TO US. Does the LEED certificate assess bird kills for building at Wildlife Sanctuaries? Are the money and propaganda from a shiny LEED certified building, solar panel fields and wind energy projects just too good to pass up  to honor your stated mission to protect nature and animals that the Sanctuary was intended for? Do you want the scenario from below at the former Massachusetts Audubon Society Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary….soon to be renamed Massachusetts Advanced Power Generation Society Wellfleet Bay Facility? MAS should get out of the business of power generation technology testing and production on protected lands.

Yes we are cynical and angry, that the people entrusted to protect wildlife and nature at WBWS are SELLING OUT for the opportunity to go to posh conferences(flying there on CO2 spewing jets I am sure) to lecture others on all the good power generation projects you are doing at what was once a WILDLIFE SANCTUARY! You will talk about how you cleared another areas for solar panels, installed a fancy shiny glass building that is known to cause birds to smash themselves, installed a 150ft tall wind turbine known to kill bats and birds with a nice big concrete footing that will never be removed….maybe you can talk about damming up an estuary and get some hydro power too at least that won’t kill birds and bats…just estuary creatures and that part of nature? If things go really well you can export even more power. Think of all the former Audubon protected lands that could generate power for cash!!!

Think of the possibilities with current technologies for industrialization of Audubon Lands, “that had just been used for nature” all these years. Why didn’t the previous generation of farsighted conservation giants think to sell out and put these lands to productive sustainable use with their “advanced” power generation technologies. Will history see your decisions as farsighted, yourselves as “giants” of conservation….we think not! Or will you be remembered as the generation that unnecessarily destroyed Audubon land  and wildlife for cash, fancy conferences and bragging rights that previous generations of wise conservationists  had honorably protected? Your reviled place in history will be assured when an actual benign solution is found that doesn’t include destroying protected land and wildlife? What once every 20 year bird do you plan on killing?

Try this creed when proposing solutions for a better world….FIRST DO NO HARM!

Sincerely

SaveOurSeaShore

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10146135/Birdwatchers-see-rare-swift-killed-by-wind-turbine.html

 

Birdwatchers see rare swift killed by wind turbine

Dozens of birdwatchers who travelled to a Scottish island to see an extremely rare swift have been left distraught after it was killed by a wind turbine.

 

The White-throated Needletail was first seen by two bird spotters from Northumberland on Monday Photo: Steve Duffield

By Simon Johnson

2:44PM BST 27 Jun 2013

203 Comments

Around 40 people were watching the White-throated Needletail, the world's fastest flying bird, on the Isles of Harris when the tragedy happened.

Sightings of the bird have only been recorded eight times in the UK in nearly 170 years, most recently in 1991, prompting around 80 ornithologists to visit the island in the hope of catching a glimpse.

John Marchant, a project coordinator for the British Trust for Ornithology, visited the island on a specially-arranged trip with a group of other birdwatchers and witnessed the death.

The 62-year-old bird enthusiast said he travelled from Norfolk when he heard about the arrival of the bird, which had brown, blue and black bird plumage.

“We were absolutely over the moon and thrilled to see the bird. We watched it for nearly two hours. While we were watching it suddenly it was a bit close to the turbine and then the blades hit it,” he said.

"We all rushed up to the turbine, which took about five minutes, hoping it had just been knocked out the sky but was ok. Unfortunately it had a blow to the head and was stone dead.”

David Campbell, from Surrey, told BBC Scotland the incident took place late on Wednesday afternoon. Speaking as he made his way home, he said: “We just watched the whole thing with dismay."

Josh Jones, of Bird Guides, a specialist website for ornithologists, said he had spoken to witnesses, who had seen the bird fly straight into one the turbine’s blades.

He said: “It is ironic that after waiting so long for this bird to turn up in the UK it was killed by a wind turbine and not a natural predator.

“More than 80 people had already arrived on the island and others were coming from all over the country. But it just flew into the turbine. It was killed instantly. The corpse will be sent to a museum but obviously this is just terrible.”

Experts said they thought the bird had got lost migrating from Siberia and it should have been as far away as Australia or Japan instead of Tarbert on the Isle of Harris.

It was spotted by chance on Monday by two birdwatchers from Northumberland holidaying on the island. Steve Duffield, a Western Isles wildlife expert, said: “The bird in Harris was hanging around for its third day – it was attracting a lot of attention from the birding community with people travelling from southern England to see it.”

During the 1991 sighting, a single bird was spotted four times in Kent, Staffordshire, Derbyshire and finally Shetland.

The White-throated Needletail, also known as the Needle-tailed Swift or Spine-tailed Swift, is known to fly up at speeds of up to 69mph, although there are unconfirmed reports of them reaching 105mph.

The birds have very short legs, which they use only for clinging to vertical surfaces, and they build their nests in rock crevices in cliffs or hollow trees. They spend most of their lives in the air, living on the insects they catch in their beaks.

They breed in rocky hills in central Asia and southern Siberia but migrate south to the Indian Subcontinent, southeast Asia and Australia.

The SNP administration at Holyrood is pressing ahead with a rapid expansion in the number of wind farms after setting a target to generate the equivalent of all Scotland’s electricity from renewable sources by 2020.

26Jun/130

What to do with those outdated sustainable wind turbines?…well burn them!

Posted by SaveOurSeaShore

The following from the BBC shows the tortured semantics of sustainability and reduced pollution when it comes to wind turbines.  Here is the plan for old wind turbines ....give them to others, turn them into play things for children or BURN the plastics, resins and balsa wood blades  to make more concrete, we assume  for massive concrete bases for more wind turbines. These are the supposed paragons of sustainability. BURNING PLASTIC AND RESIN FOR EVER MORE CONCRETE to pour into our open spaces...with no plan to ever remove it! ! No wonder that BIOSMASS, wind and solar have reduced almost no CO2. Can some renewable expert explain this to us....why burning 1000's of Tons of plastic and resin is good for the environment? Why do they keep piling up ever more waste of these sustainable machines? We can only imagine what they do with the waste from Solar panels. At least burning wood and calling it BIOMASS is honest...well except burning wood is more polluting and higher in CO2 output than Natural Gas. Odd that massive tax advantages and rules are for BIOMASS.  More propaganda and more fraud...all while being given billions! While doing very little to reduce CO2. AWFUL!

What to do with the world's unwanted wind turbines?

Wind turbines
Continue reading the main story

Related Stories

Newly-published research has examined what should be done with wind turbines when they become outdated. Some of the solutions are unusual.

The study was commissioned by Scottish Natural Heritage, which is expected to issue new guidance on dealing with old turbines later this year. The research looked at the decommissioning of the machines, the restoration of wind farm sites and also how turbines, towers and the various components can be recycled.

Continue reading the main story

Document

PDF downloadSNH report[3.63MB] Most computers will open PDF documents automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader

Dealing with the massive devices when they are replaced by more efficient ones is expected to become an increasingly weighty issue.

The SNH-commissioned report quotes a forecast that by 2034 there will be a need to recycle about 225,000 tonnes of rotor blade material every year worldwide. Several ways of recycling past-it machinery are mentioned in the report.

Community wind farms

Small community-owned renewable energy schemes could be in the market for second hand turbines. Isle of Gigha Heritage Trust bought three used Vestas machines in 2004. The turbines - dubbed the Dancing Ladies - generate almost all the electricity the islanders need and an annual profit of £93,500 for Gigha Renewable Energy, the firm owned by the residents that operates the small wind farm.

Eastern Europe and Latin America

Reconditioned second hand turbines are in demand worldwide. The SNH report said a two-year waiting list for new machines was a factor driving up sales of used turbines. They also cost 40% less than devices fresh off the production line. Eastern Europe, Latin America and Asia are among the biggest buyers. The report said more than 5,000 second-hand turbines were expected to go on sale in Europe this year.

Adventure playgrounds

In Holland parts of towers and even large blades have been transformed into play equipment for a children's park. The researchers described this reuse as "innovative", but added that how much decommissioned gear could be used in this way was limited.

Fuel

The mixture of materials used to make the blades, they include plastics, resins and balsa wood, are hard to separate and then put to other uses, according to the report. Germany is home to the world's only industrial-scale factory for reprocessing blades. Various saws are used to chop them up into chunks which are then shredded and then hammered into 5cm-long fragments. These are then mixed with other wet waste material and used as fuel at a cement-making factory. The report said the reprocessing firm deals with up to 500 tonnes of unwanted turbine blades a month.

24Jun/130

“Concerned villagers fear someone could have been killed”…by failed Wind Turbine

Posted by SaveOurSeaShore

Dear Mr Prescott, Director Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary and Mass Audubon,

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. We are sure that the manufacturer and advisers for the Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary Wind Turbine assure you, as they did for these turbines, that the turbines are rock solid in high winds. As you can see from the pictures…assurances from the fledging wind industry are pretty useless, kind of like the estimates of bat and bird kills by wind turbines.

You can see from the pictures, they didn’t build these turbines right next to a place meant for groups of people, especially a place with the express purpose of highlighting and protecting nature. We find it bizarre(and sad) that people who wish to highlight and protect nature would endangered nature and people from the obvious risk of such a large high speed machine high in the sky. Is your idealism really that strong that no amount of danger or harm is too much, as long as the intention is right? At least these wind energy developers had the “sense” to build these large machines away from people as it is obvious to almost everyone, well except yourselves, the danger these large machines represent, when things go wrong.

What kind of training are you planning for, when your machine on the tower starts to break apart at your Power Generation Facility/Public Wildlife Sanctuary? Will you have duck and cover turbine failure hand-outs & drills? Tower collapse avoidance guidelines for visitors? What is your plan when a turbine goes out of control, as they do? The “locking” mechanisms fail with some regularity. You are aware that the blades came off the two blade wind turbine in Nantucket at a much slower wind speed, something like 40mph much less than the 112mph & 77mph in the following examples. Will you evacuate the WBWS when the wind approaches 40mph? Will you have a reserve fund as wind turbines are notorious for breaking blades and transmissions…and of course the higher liability insurance? Then there is the cost of daily cleanup crews for the dead bodies of birds and bats?

We assume you are going to change the name to  “Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Power Generation Area” to reflect your changing mission, correct?? Sanctuary isn’t really appropriate according to the dictionary. What other projects are in the future for this soon to be former wildlife “sanctuary” as you don’t want to exchange products with the outside world…sustainable right?… Garbage Dump, Farming(coffee, sugar cane, cranberries, etc), Lumbering(paper making/construction),  Hunting, think of the many purposes the land of a former Sanctuary can be put to. A Wildlife Sanctuary is obviously too simplistic for Mass Audubon’s Sustainable Mission, so why stop at fields of solar panels and towers of wind machinery….why limit yourselves to power generation. Think of the payments you could get from those industries...your purchased support of Cape Wind was lucrative, solar is lucrative, Wind Turbines are Lucrative…so just think of the possible industries you could support for cash.

Was Audubon a proponent of industrial use of the land? Maybe removing his name might be appropriate as well with your changing mission….as people know him for birds, animals and nature, not water power and lumbering…the sustainable power of his time. Fields of solar panel panels and  wind turbines to power computers, a/c and lights in fancy buildings with lots of glass for birds to crash into, doesn’t really seem true to his legacy..

We have also included a nice article with pictures about the killing of birds with the beautiful quote  “…total wrongness-in-every-way of the wind industry”

Hopefully this project will be abandon sooner rather than later. Is your mission really power generation?

Can you forward any evidence countering these real world examples? We suspect you have been a party to the secret wind turbine post construction bird and bat kill monitoring reports in Massachusetts. They never seem to see the light of day, unlike all the glowing pre-construction reports plastered about every project. Always a promise to monitor…just no public report. How many eagles, hawks, osprey, bats…. Do you know?

Sincerely

Save Our Sea Shore

 Wrecked by gales again as windfarms get £300,000 to switch off...in high winds

  • 15ft-long turbine bladesflew off three structures in 112mph winds
  • Concerned villagers fear someone could have been killed

By TAMARA COHEN
UPDATED: 18:29 EST, 6 January 2012

First there were the wind farms that had to be shut down if it got a bit blowy. Then there was the turbine that burst into flames in a gale a month ago.

And now three turbines have been wrecked in the latest bout of rough weather – sweeping away any remaining illusions that strong winds simply mean more electricity being generated.

A wind turbine stands forlorn damaged by the recent gales and high winds near Huddersfield, West YorkshireA wind turbine stands forlorn damaged by the recent gales and high winds near Huddersfield, West Yorkshire

 

 

Danger: The firm which made these damaged turbines in the Hepworth and Upper Cumberworth areas of Huddersfield has promised a full investigation after villagers saw blades being flung off in high winds

One of them stands – rather forlornly now – off a country road called Windmill Lane.
The damage raises yet more questions about the ability of such machines to cope with serious weather, let alone produce very much electricity.

Adding to such concerns will be the revelation yesterday that wind farms in Scotland were paid nearly £300,000 in the first five days of this year to close down because it was too windy.

The three damaged turbines all stand within a mile of one another in the countryside around Huddersfield, West Yorkshire.

The one in Windmill Lane in the village of Upper Cumberworth lost one of its three blades, and another in the same village lost two.

A wind turbine stands forlorn damaged by the recent gales and high winds near Huddersfield, West Yorkshire

Broken: A wind turbine stands forlorn damaged by the recent gales and high winds near Huddersfield, West Yorkshire

A third, in nearby Hepworth, lost all three, with debris blown across a road into a neighbouring property.

The damage occurred on Thursday night when, according to the Met Office wind speeds near Huddersfield peaked at 77mph during fierce storms which felled trees, tore off roof tiles and damaged power cables.

Local residents say the falling blades could have injured or killed someone as they were flung to the ground.

Frances Barnes, who has ten acres of grazing land for horses nearby, said: ‘It is worrying. People objected to the plans when they first went in – not because it is a windmill but because it is so close to a busy road.

The blades on the mast are 15ft long and one was blown right across a road

The blades on the 12 metre mast are over two metres long and one flew across a road.

‘It is frightening to think what may have happened had one of the blades flown into the road and hit a car, or indeed if the wind turbine had come down.’

The 10kw turbines were made by Evoco, which says they have been through a ‘four-year period of in-house testing’.

The company, which claimed on its website they could ‘withstand harsh winters and wind speeds in excess of 90mph’ has begun an investigation.

The turbines are not part of a wind farm but sold individually to landowners to generate their own electricity and sell any excess back to the National Grid.

The company said it had installed 100 turbines in the area and all have been ‘braked’ so that they stop spinning until modifications are made.

A spokesman said: ‘We have recently experienced a series of turbine faults in a localised area of rural West Yorkshire area during record-breaking high winds.

‘Evoco turbines have recently weathered three lots of hurricane force winds, in which the overwhelming majority of our turbines have operated without any problems.

‘No one was hurt in the incidents, which are being investigated thoroughly. Health and safety issues are of primary importance to us, and we work to rigorous standards to maintain our excellent record.’

Christine Smith, a local Conservative councillor said: ‘This shows they can be very dangerous, these blades could have fallen on someone’s car or home. They are lucky someone was not walking nearby.

‘Wind turbines are flawed, they don’t work when it’s too windy, and don’t work when it’s not windy enough. There are much better alternatives to use less energy such as under-floor heating and insulation.

Last month a 300ft wind turbine in Ardrossan, North Ayrshire, Scotland, exploded into flames when it was buffeted by high winds

Fiery: Last month a 300ft wind turbine in Ardrossan, Ayrshire, exploded into flames when it was buffeted by high winds

‘These companies are putting in applications left, right and centre, and telling people they can make a lot of money out of them, but I think we need to look at some of these concerns before allowing any more to be built.’

Last month a 300ft turbine in Ardrossan, North Ayrshire, erupted in flames during gales of 165mph. It was said to have been switched off, but had a ‘brake system failure’.

In Scotland the £300,000 payments over the first five days of this year were shared by four turbine operators.

The controversial ‘constraint payments’ were made because they produced more energy than the National Grid could handle and had to shut down.

Up to 32,000 wind turbines could be built in England and Wales over the next 40 years to meet government targets.

Last year 17 wind farm operators were paid £7million to shut down on 40 occasions between January and September.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083149/Wind-turbines-cope-UK-weather-3-blown-pieces.html#ixzz2Ws0oba7N

Why do I call them bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco crucifixes….?

Gull decapitated by a Brighton wind turbine: copyright Marian Cleary

I wonder what it will take before the world truly wakes up to the horror, the corruption, the expense, the pointlessness, the total wrongness-in-every-way of the wind industry. My guess – and it will happen – is the decapitation, by a rogue turbine blade, of an innocent passer-by.

Till then, though, we have photographs like this to send the mind boggling as to why anyone, anywhere can still be so purblind as to go on championing these bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco crucifixes. What's particularly interesting about this one is that it was taken in the constituency of one of wind power's most fervent and tireless advocates, Caroline Lucas MP.

Here's a picture of the Brighton Bird Chomper

Brighton Bird Chomper – copyright Marian Cleary

and here is another picture of the hapless gull.

Copyright Marian Cleary

Marian Cleary – who Tweets as @soundwords – takes up the story on Twitter:

All quite horrific really. Been asked if it's photoshopped. Nope. Was at Varndean College, Brighton.

The wind turbine was going bonkers so I was filming it with the clouds moving behind the blades.

I didn't get the incident on film but then a guy called me over and said that the bird had been got.

Careful, Marian. You now run the risk that someone from the wind industry will claim you chopped off that gull's head yourself, probably because you are in the pay of Big Oil….

Now it might have been interesting to ring up the RSPB for a reaction. But there's no point because we know what they think already. As far as the RSPB is concerned, the many thousands of birds destroyed by wind turbines each year are acceptable collateral damage in the war on "climate change." So committed is the Royal Society for the Prevention of Birds to renewable energy that it has actually teamed up with Ecotricity – the one run by Dale Vince – in a promotional deal to encourage more wind farm building. For chapter and verse, read my expose here.

But the birds and bats are the least of it, terrible though the carnage is. It's the human cost, surely, which should concern us more.

Consider the plight of the communities in Canada, where the wind industry is even more aggressive than it is here. One Ontario resident,Esther Wrightman so objected to the Golgotha of 400 foot wind turbines being planned for her area that she created a satirical website mocking the wind developer NextEra energy. She even filmed them chopping down a tree with an eagle's nest in it in order to make way for the turbines. How did NextEra – market capitalisation $32 billion – respond to her not exactly unreasonable objections? Why by suing the pants off her, of course.

Fortunately, thanks to the coverage it has been getting from Ezra Levant, Esther Wrightman's story is becoming an international cause celebre – and the rent-seeking nasties at NextEra are getting the negative publicity they fully deserve.

So the anti-wind backlash has begun, of that there's no doubt. In Australia, where resistance is especially strong, they're holding a rally in the next few hours in Canberra to protest against an industry described by Alby Schultz MP as "the biggest government sponsored fraud in the history of our country", so rife with "manipulation, intimidation, lies and cover-up" that there's enough evidence to justify a royal commission. I wish I could be there at the barricades with my Aussie mates. Sounds like it's going to be quite an occasion.

What I wish is that one of our MPs could be quite as outspoken as good old Alby. Chris Heaton Harris has fought a good fight, as have Owen Paterson, John Hayes, Peter Lilley and Glyn Davies. But they've all been hamstrung by the presence in the Coalition of ideological eco-loons like Ed Davey who, even now, despite the copious evidence against, persist in championing wind energy as the way forward. They're further hamstrung by the Conservative party's ludicrous policy fudge whereby, apparently, there is such a thing as a "wind turbine in the right place" and that this mythical beast includes all offshore wind developments.

Economically, of course, offshore wind makes even less sense than onshore, not least because it requires twice the subsidy, but also because, as most engineers privately admit, these sea-based turbines are disasters waiting to happen and are highly unlikely to stay up any length of time. And while we're on this subject, what on earth is The Times doing shilling for Big Wind with this utter non-story about how Donald Trump is apparently threatening to cost "British SMEs dear"thanks to his opposition to an offshore wind development near his golf course in Scotland? The supposedly neutral source they quote for this story is The Carbon Trust, the government quango to which we taxpayers must contribute £44 million a year to enable it to dream up inventive new ways to cripple our economy with carbon emissions reductions schemes.

Yet another reason to vote UKIP, the only British party with a sensible policy on this green nonsense.

22Jun/130

Letter to Mass Audubon Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary: NO WIND TURBINE!

Posted by SaveOurSeaShore

The following is a letter concerning Mass Audubon's pursuit to build a 143 ft tall 43 ft blade wind turbine in the middle of Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary....yes a WILDLIFE SANCTUARY. They have already bulldozed an area for solar generation and erected Solar Panel in another area. They are so proud of themselves as a Power Generation Facility! If you feel a Wildlife Sanctuary pass down through the generations shouldn't use its land for  Power Generation, let them know wellfleet@massaudubon.org.

Letter to Mass Audubon Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary

June 22 2013

To whom it may concern,

I am, sadly, unable and unwilling to renew my membership in Mass Audubon due to the ill-advised multiple attempts by the director of my local center, Robert Prescott , to install super-size wind turbines in what is meant to be a bird and wildlife sanctuary.

These nuisances are well known to kill raptors, bats and songbirds as they innocently fly by as well as causing other wildlife to flee the area due to the distress caused by the constant noise and vibrations emitted by these machines.  This is well documented in many studies and even in the environmental literature.

Many of us here in the Wellfleet area are perplexed as to why Mr. Prescott continues with these attempts.  He has built an otherwise wonderful center, with its “green” building, composting toilets and solar array.  Does that not suffice?

Remove Mr. Prescott from his post and please stop pursuing erecting these inefficient wind turbines that do little beyond killing and endangering wildlife and wrecking beautiful and pristine lands.

                                                                                   Sincerely

                                                                                    Francie Williamson

17Jun/130

True cost of Britain’s wind farm industry revealed £100,000 per year

Posted by SaveOurSeaShore

The Telegraph

True cost of Britain's wind farm industry revealed

Every job in Britain’s wind farm industry is effectively subsidised to the extent of £100,000 per year, The Telegraph can disclose.

By , and Edward Malnick

9:00PM BST 15 Jun 2013

A new analysis of government and industry figures shows that wind turbine owners received £1.2billion in the form of a consumer subsidy, paid by a supplement on electricity bills last year.

They employed 12,000 people, to produce an effective £100,000 subsidy on each job.

The disclosure is potentially embarrassing for the wind industry, which claims it is an economically dynamic sector that creates jobs. It was described by critics as proof the sector was not economically viable, with one calling it evidence of “soft jobs” that depended on the taxpayer.

The subsidy was disclosed in a new analysis of official figures, which showed that:

• The level of support from subsidies in some cases is so high that jobs are effectively supported to the extent of £1.3million each;

• In Scotland, which has 203 onshore wind farms — more than anywhere else in the UK — just 2,235 people are directly employed to work on them despite an annual subsidy of £344million. That works out at £154,000 per job;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/10122850/True-cost-of-Britains-wind-farm-industry-revealed.html

13Jun/130

David Cameron questioning the “sanity” of onshore wind farms.

Posted by SaveOurSeaShore

David Cameron hints at further cuts to green energy subsidies

David Cameron has hinted he would like to cut green subsidies that force up energy bills, after questioning the "sanity" of onshore wind farms.

13Jun/130

Spiraling costs for renewable energy in Germany damage country’s economic competitiveness – Merkel

Posted by SaveOurSeaShore

Wall Street Journal  June 12, 2013, 3:11 p.m. ET

Merkel Warns on Energy Cost

By JAN HROMADKO
BERLIN—Spiraling costs in Germany for developing renewable energy sources could damage the country's economic competitiveness and need to be scaled back, Chancellor Angela Merkel said Wednesday—without elaborating much on how.
10Jun/130

Fairhaven Wind Turbines Ordered Off at Night

Posted by SaveOurSeaShore

Posted: Jun 10, 2013 5:19 PM EDTUpdated: Jun 10, 2013 6:49 PM EDT

by ABC6 Chief Political Reporter Mark Curtis

mcurtis@abc6.com

Applause broke out the Fairhaven Town Hall, after the Board of Health voted to shut down the Fairhaven wind turbines from 7 at night until 7 every morning, effective immediately.

The Health Department received over 400 complaints.

"What people are experiencing is chronic sleeplessness, being woken up in the middle of the night. They are experiencing headaches. What's really, really hard for some of the families is that some of the children are affected" said Louise Barteau, a wind turbine opponent.

The decision brought tears to some who've fought the turbine battle for years.

Dawn Devlin, a wind turbine opponent said, "It's enough for now, so that for the people who are affected, can get some sleep and get healthy again."

ABC6 Chief Political Reporter Mark Curtis said, "For now the shutdown of the wind turbines is a temporary solution, from  7 p.m. to 7 a.m. But if the developer does not find a permanent solution to the noise problems, they could be shut down for good."

The developers of Fairhaven Wind - which operates the turbines – attended the meeting, but declined our request for an interview.

In a surprise move the Board of Selectmen voted that Fairhaven Wind had breached its lease because of noise violations, and it has 30 days to fix them.

Dr. Barbara Acksen, from the Fairhaven Board of Health said, "We had been told that if the DEP found that the turbines were in non-compliance, that they would direct the Select Board to shut them down, and I was very surprised that they didn't."

Testing showed that the wind turbines were too loud, especially at night.

 

8Jun/132

Wind Turbines deliver the Coup De Grace to bats in Pennsylvania, what about Mass?

Posted by SaveOurSeaShore

Dear Mr Prescott, Mass. Audubon Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary leaders and Mass Audubon leaders,

Let us put this to you simply. One of the major efforts at Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary is to spend lots of money on a Wind Turbine.  You have a colony of bats. The Mass Audubon Society loves wind energy and is seeks to  enable it everywhere that it can, including a Wildlife Sanctuary. This, while Wind Energy is performing the Coup De Grace on bats already affected by White Nose Syndrome(WNS). We demand a response of how you can support wind energy that is known to be wiping out bats that haven’t already been killed by WNS?

Why does it take a few amateurs to point out the obvious? That renewable energy involving loss of habitat and killing wildlife in a Sanctuary is wrong! Why are those who are entrusted with the legacy of Audubon along with its vast resources of money, land, people and infrastructure are supporting and developing obvious negative impact solar and wind in  a Sanctuary? Bulldozing Sanctuary land for solar arrays and killing birds and bats with industrial wind turbines are not what most supporters of Audubon donate for!!!

The state of Massachusetts with the Federal Government are pouring billions into wind energy, suppressing and ignoring the evidence of harm, while knowing that it is destroying a species and harming other species!!! Please review the following items and then tell us why we are wrong? So far we have no response to every devastating fact we have sent you and you press forward with your dreamy industrial wind turbine in a Nature Sanctuary. This is a horrific!!! Director Prescott and Senior MAS personnel…the silence is deafening!

It is well known that wind turbines are killing lots of bats . The USGS reporting” “Dead bats are turning up beneath wind turbines all over the world.”  The Pennsylvania Game Commission has been honest enough to report “ The average estimated bat deaths per turbine per year was 24.6”.  420 Turbines killed 10000 bats with a plan for 2900 turbines. What  is less obvious is this is on a backdrop of WNS which is killing 99% plus  in some colonies, with wind energy finishing off the survivors. We suspect Massachusetts and the MAS Audubon know that a similar situation is occurring here…but are too busy planning for more bat killing wind turbines and clearing land in Sanctuaries to showcase industrial solar arrays….to stop and think about NATURE!

Here is what a local Sierra Club in PA says concerning the decline in Bats there and please note the reference to WIND TURBINES.

http://pennsylvania.sierraclub.org/moshannon/alerts/120818_pgc_bats.pdf

 The Moshannon Group of the Sierra Club, which has 1,000 members in central Pennsylvania, strongly endorses the proposed listing of the northern long-eared bat, the tri-colored bat, and the little brown bat as ENDANGERED in Pennsylvania. All three species have seen population declines of more than 95% in the past 4 years in Pennsylvania.

Comparative pre- and post-White Nose Syndrome hibernacula surveys show a 99%  decline in northern long-eared bats in the Commonwealth since 2008. Summer mistnetting in 2011 showed a 93% increase in effort was required to capture this species as compared to pre-WNS.

Comparative pre- and post-WNS hibernacula surveys show a 98% decline in tri-colored bats in this Commonwealth since 2008. Summer mist-netting in 2011 showed a 185% increase in

effort was required to capture this species as compared to pre-WNS. This species also has been a significant component of bat mortalities associated with wind turbines.

  Comparative pre- and post-WNS hibernacula surveys show a 99% decline in little brown bats in these hibernacula since 2008. Summer mist-netting in 2011 showed a 463%

increase in effort was required to capture this species as compared to pre-WNS. As with the tri-colored bat, little browns have also been a component of bat mortalities associated with wind turbines.

All but 23 of 10,000 bats in Durham bat mine have died

That leaves a little less than one wind turbine in one year’s worth!!! Are you going to build that wind turbine??????

Massachusetts has seen similar devastation of WNS and the Mass government say “As a result of the devastating mortality that has resulted from WNS in Massachusetts, all four of our bat species that spend the winters in caves or mines have been listed as Endangered.“

From MassWildLife

A study from Boston University estimates that 14 -15 tons of insects are consumed each summer by the 50,000 Big Brown Bats that live within the bounds of Route 128. "High bat mortality is a major concern because bats have a low reproductive rate," says Dr. Thomas French, MassWildlife Assistant Director for Natural Heritage and Endangered Species. "Most bats raise one pup per year. It will take decades for bat populations to rebound after a large die-off."

USGS “ The mystery of why bats die at turbine sites remains unsolved. 

We know…spinning blades erected by dreamy idealists that operate about 30% of the time, in open nature in the bat’s habitat are killing them!!! The money would be better spent on practical impactless efficiency and conservation projects which don’t wear out and are more cost effective, and reduce CO2 output by 90% and work 100% of the time. Even land clearing solar only works at best 40% of the time. We know you won’t be able to brag about your  new big tall wind turbine  or a bulldozed field of solar panels as a visual reminder…but the animals will be alive with a safe home and not trying to avoid death!

Suggestion….take your $200000 and spend it on something  that does not kill nature!

Sincerely

Save Our Sea Shore

7Jun/132

Massachusetts Audubon Society forgets its Mission and Values with Renewable Energy Development

Posted by SaveOurSeaShore

Dear Mr Prescott, Mass. Audubon Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary leaders and Mass Audubon leaders,

We just reviewed the “Mass Audubon Mission and Values”  to see how it compares with your plan to industrialize the Audubon Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary with a 142 foot high wind turbine for power generation. For ease of viewing we have incorporated a copy of the page below. Would anyone at the Mass Audubon Society(MAS)  have the courtesy to direct us to the part about Power Generation or sacrificing certain amounts of nature for machinery for power generation in Mass Audubon Wildlife Sanctuaries? A land based Power Plant whether a dam, a wind turbine, a field of solar panels, or a natural gas turbine give an area an Industrial feel and is not nature. Just as the glass and aluminum in your building is smelted at a Glass and Aluminum Factory in an industrial area. Why is there now a fascination with giving up land at Audubon nature areas so called “Sanctuaries” to Power Generation Facilities for Wind or Solar? If you found a more efficient process for Glass and Aluminum smelting that saved CO2 would you build a smelter at your facility as well?

Wind Turbines kill birds and bats and absolutely have no place at an area that was specifically chosen because it has lots of birds and bats. You know you can absolutely not promise that lots of birds and bats won’t die. Even though solar isn’t really our concern…it seems equally appalling that a Wildlife Sanctuary whose area is quite limited would bulldoze land for power generation, when they have access to clean power generated from other industrial areas that are less bird and nature friendly via THE ELECTRIC GRID or could more cost effectively spend money to lower CO2 via efficiency and actual conservation. Are we wrong to think that Sanctuaries are to highlight and protect nature and not to demonstrate the latest unproven sustainable technology? Remember the Maryland Federal Wildlife Refuge Wind Turbine both broke in a wind storm and killed a Bald Eagles…absolutely failing sustainability in two ways?

The WBWS area has been dedicated to the protection of plants and animals for almost 90 years, if you include the previous Austin Ornithological Research Station which protected and researched birds prior to the WBWS. But it appears now the leadership wishes to dedicate ever more land and air to industrial use. We recently saw a new solar installation at WBWS with the freshly bulldozed area free of plants, animals and looking just industrial. You want to put solar panels on a building or a garbage dump…great…but bulldozing nature at a Sanctuary? Why is the current leadership abrogating its Mission and Values to build 100 ft machines that are the opposite of nature?

Checklist of your Mission and Values against Solar and Wind Turbines in an Audubon Wildlife Sanctuary

Mission:

To Protect the nature of Massachusetts for people and wildlife

Wind Turbine: NO   Ground based Solar Arrays: NO

Vision:

A Massachusetts in which nature is valued

         Wind Turbine: NO   Ground based Solar Arrays: NO

Our Role

To Sever as a leader and a catalyst for conservation, by acting directly to protect nature

         Wind Turbine: NO   Ground based Solar Arrays: NO 

Our Value

- LOVE OF NATURE                                   Wind Turbine: NO   Ground based Solar Arrays: NO

We value the diversity and resilience of nature and treasure its beauty

   - PASSION AND COMMITMENT          Wind Turbine: NO   Ground based Solar Arrays: NO

          We are committed to nature and to people                      

   - PEOPLE AND COMMUNITY                Wind Turbine: NO   Ground based Solar Arrays: NO 

           … together we build conservation communities that welcome and respect all people.

    -    INSPIRING ACTION                            Wind Turbine: NO   Ground based Solar Arrays: NO

                 “we foster a conservation ethic in current and future generations”  

-          CREDIBILITY                                      Wind Turbine: NO   Ground based Solar Arrays: NO

Our personal and organizational integrity serves as a foundation for our work.

-          TEAMWORK                                     Wind Turbine: NO   Ground based Solar Arrays: NO

We encourage creativity, innovation, and action, while respecting individual points of view.

        SaveOurSeasShore gives you an “A” in teamwork working against those who disagree with your approach to industrialize a Wildlife Sanctuary.

 Is there a way to convince you that this is a bad idea? Are you minds so closed that you believe by sacrificing Wildlife Sanctuaries and the flying wildlife that you are single-handedly saving the world? Are you that deluded? That would be a real shame to be so blinded.  Is there someone in your organization that you recommend we discuss this with? I have yet to receive a reply, even though we have presented you very compelling evidence of how bad this is. We would be happy to address any doubt you have as to how bad this is. We have many, many other examples if you wish for us to forward those as well…but we don’t want to overwhelm you. As you are hopefully aware most organizations are embarrassed or just dishonest about the harm they are wreaking and make a concerted effort to hide the evidence of animal killing. You are well aware of the numerous examples of organization having to remove wind turbines(vertical, short, tall, etc) at great cost, once the harm becomes too apparent.  Don’t forget these small wind and solar companies with unproven technology go bankrupt regularly leaving no spare parts as well. Then there are no “kickbacks” or netmetering to pay off the balance from all that not so free electricity. Is there something unique about this turbine that you haven’t shared, with the possible exception of a new sales person promising the same old promises which have been broken time and again.

 Please Review your Mission and Values!

http://www.massaudubon.org/about/mission_and_vision.php

 audubon mission 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Freshly Bulldozed Nature at a Sanctuary?

solar panel wellfleet

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KEEP IT A SANCTUARY

Save Our Sea Shore

4Jun/131

Letter Audubon Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary – Micro Turbine Kills Bald Eagle at Wildlife Refuge

Posted by SaveOurSeaShore

Dear Mr Prescott and Mass. Audubon Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary,

We have yet to receive a reply from the numerous emails providing you with real world impact of Wind Turbines, micro, small, medium and large as they all operate in the same fashion. High speed blades in open nature killing more flying animals than researchers guess at. We have seen where you attempt to explain a 40 ft blade as micro, suggesting that somehow that will prevent bat and bird deaths. Or that somehow having no peer reviewed studies about small/medium wind turbine deaths means they won’t kill. Or worse, some say other things kill more so wind turbine aren’t as bad, which is like saying I murder just one so the mass murderer makes me ok. You talk about sound and we provide numerous death counts.  Researching the history of WBWS, it was interesting to learn that area was specially selected to research birds even before the WBWS as it had an almost unique spectrum of birds and habitat. I saw where Cape Cod is seeing the return of Bald Eagles. So the poignant official report below will let you realize that as a leader of the Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary you would rather not have to explain why dead animals keep appearing or why someone or something is injured by mechanical debris of a large machine a hundred feet in the air at your public facility for nature. Please stop the wind turbine now to prevent this big mistake. I hope you can admit we aren’t making up the facts we are sending you and they very much apply to what you are doing. There is no magical solution to installing spinning blade at Wildlife Refuge that will prevent numerous deaths, like the one the report below shows. That Wildlife Refuge had to admit reality and has removed the “micro” wind turbine. Save the Sanctuary a lot of money from well-meaning donors and ill-will by not attempting to build this large machine and put it towards land acquisition, bird studies, something good, or CO2 lowering efficiency technologies at your building. Do you think the Maryland Refuge situation is so different from yours?

 

You have been told the turbine is small, low, only 10kw and those don’t kill. The following should disabuse you  of these UNTURTHS. People are given medicine because it is proven safe….has your manufacturer proven this medicine is safe? Because we see lots of patients dying! We are not suggesting that you can’t make meaningful reductions in your energy usage to lower your carbon emission….we are just telling you that Wind Turbines harm wildlife and in larger numbers than your advisers, consultants,  friends, colleagues, associates, manufactures, lobbyists will admit. Please don’t be so enamored with wind energy to allow it in your Wildlife Sanctuary. Remember killing Eagles is a Federal Crime that one day may be prosecuted and now you can’t say you haven’t been warned that killing an Eagle is possible.

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/ecologicalservices/pdf/EasternNeckeaglestrikeatturbine7312.pdf

Eagle’s Cause of Death Confirmed at Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge in Maryland

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has confirmed that a dead bald eagle found below a small 10-kilowatt

wind turbine on Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge in Rock Hall, Md., was killed by blunt force trauma.

Refuge staff found the adult male eagle and sent it to the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease

Study in Athens, Ga., to establish the specific cause of death. The Service received the necropsy report

from the Georgia facility the afternoon of June 19, 2012.

As smart renewable energy is important to the Service, the refuge installed a single, 60-foot-tall wind

turbine in 2002 to provide an alternative source of energy for its facilities. In addition, the refuge has

installed a 5-kilowatt solar array that provides power to an administrative building. A contractor hired by

the Service conducted a 3.5-year study after the turbine’s installation, which indicated a mortality rate

averaging less than three native birds a year and no effects to eagles.

In Maryland, the bald eagle population has increased from 44 nesting pairs in 1977 to now more than 500

pairs. A very dense population of bald eagles lives in the refuge area, with about eight nesting territories

this year. An American success story, the eagle’s remarkable recovery led to its removal from the federal

list of threatened and endangered species in 2007.

However, bald eagles remain protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The Service

continues to encourage wind project developers to coordinate early to help minimize risks to birds and is

finalizing guidance for eagle conservation plans to address potential impacts. The Service has treated the

incident at Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge as it would any similar incident at a non-federal wind

energy facility.

Due to hurricane damage and the lack of power being generated by the turbine, the refuge has removed

the turbine and blades, leaving only the tower. The refuge is re-evaluating the long term viability of this

wind energy project to consider additional factors, such as newer technology, vertical wind turbines, tower

height and location.

More information:

Media: Meagan Racey, 413-253-8558, Meagan_racey@fws.gov

Wind projects and eagles: Sarah Nystrom, 413-253-8592, sarah_nystrom@fws.gov

Refuge and alternative energy project: Suzanne Baird, 410-228-2692 ext 101, Suzanne_baird@fws.gov

 

KEEP IT A SANCTUARY

Save Our Sea Shore

3Jun/130

Shocking! Audubon Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary Wishes to become Power Generation Facility

Posted by SaveOurSeaShore

The leadership of Wellfleet Bay Wildlife "Sanctuary" seem to wish to convert the mission of the Sanctuary from wildlife and habitat protection area to Electrical Generation facility area...renewable...but never the less a production facility. It is appalling that a WILDLIFE SANCTUARY has had their mission  perverted in to a space hogging, wildlife killing, technology center!!!

The leadership has lost their way. There are so few wildlife sanctuaries and the appeal of these vanity projects is apparently too much for these "care takers". They love the money and attention gleaned with these industrial, nature killing machines! They go to the lobbyists funded conferences telling about all the good that will come from placing these machines in a natural environment. There are the state/federal funded research better known as guessing, as to the harm that will be wreaked. Invariably the "guessers" are regularly wrong, though they get paid to make sure most projects are "viable" and thereby self perpetuating(money in their pockets). Check this research out http://saveourseashore.org/?p=2709 "

Although we predicted abundance would remain relatively constant, raptor abundance was lower post-construction compared to pre-construction levels.""

THIS HAS TO BE STOPPED!

Remember electricity can be generated anywhere and transported. Money can be spend on harmless projects that dramatically lowering usage of electricity...but the vanity of these projects just aren't as appealing as 100-200 ft industrial machine in the middle of a WILDLIFE SANCTUARY!

Instead of spending money to acquire more land to in the wonderful true mission of ab Audubon Sanctuary's which is to protect a piece of nature  they now spend money on newer buildings, newer larger more harmful power generation machinery! Why exactly does an Audubon center need air conditioning....most people that live nearby don't have it? Why not convert more facilities to open environment and remove the video screen for that simple thing people are really looking for....THE SANCTUARY OF NATURE!

The current industrial wind project being attempted at the Wellfleet Bay "WILDLIFE SANCTUARY"....please note they call it a micro turbine...is only 150ft tall with 40ft blades that will kill birds and bats!

http://www.massaudubon.org/news/regionalnews2.php?id=2277&region=se_cape_islands&panel=4

Their first attempt at an even larger wind turbines project  in 2008 met with failure as reasonable heads prevailed and shot that project down.

http://register.masstech.org/Project%20Deliverables/LORI/MassachusettsAudobonSocietyWellfleet%20Bay.pdf

Here is some information about the solar production facility at the Audubon Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary as more doesn't even seem to be enough.

"Now we’d like to complete the installation of a new 41 kilowatt photovoltaic solar array that, combined with our existing solar array...". Please take note in the following pictures that they take  land from the nature to build their production facility. Also called BULLDOZING!!!  Note that solar panels raise the temperature of the local environment as welll a fine thing for a "Sanctuary".

solar panel wellfleet

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note in the picture above more greenery could have supported butterflies, bees, birds, insects....but alas the Wildlife Sanctuary chooses glass, aluminum, silicon, and higher temperatures, They have chosen  an Energy Production Mission over Wildlife and Nature mission.

Please go back an investigate the original mission of the Sanctuary, what does the  charter say? It might be time for better leadership!

KEEP IT A SANCTUARY!

 

 

 

2Jun/132

How to Reduce Impact the Safe Way

Posted by SaveOurSeaShore

Dear Audubon Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary,

As you have declared your wish to build a medium sized business wind turbine with a tower of about 120 ft tall and a blade about the length of a school bus 40 ft; I think you should look at the picture below from June 1 2013 of a wind turbine blade torn off and laying on a daycare center. Remember the two blade wind turbine at the Nantucket farm that only a couple years ago blew off in a moderate wind and fortunately didn’t harm anyone or damage property. Lucky it wasn't near anyone.

Then read this article about how consumers in Europe are cutting 90% of their energy use…

Here are couple highlights from Analysis: How energy efficiency firms are eating utilities' lunch

With better insulation, triple glazing and frugal boilers, new houses can cut energy use by up to 90 percent, which is good news for consumers but bad for utilities “

 "By 2020, and using technologies that are not science fiction, new homes could use 10 percent of the power they consume today. This requires utilities to develop new business models if they want to remain competitive," said McKinsey partner Giorgio Busnelli.

 "We believe that improved energy efficiency in the building sector offers the greatest potential of any sector to make cost savings and reduce energy use," it said.”

So my question is, does the Audubon Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary wish to install a large machine with numerous flaws that break apart in high winds, kill and driveaway animals, disturb neighbors and are expensive and usually last about 8 years. Or do they want to do what smart responsible people are doing…building facilities that require little energy in the first place and use highly efficient on demand energy like this RWE is also working with Vaillant and German tradesmen to offer micro combined heat and power plants, as well as "virtual power plants" that pool energy produced by thousands of small-scale plants in customers' basements.”

 It is hard to imagine people who respect, enjoy and showoff the natural world, would not choose the  harmless super-efficient smart way, over the open machinery nature harming way. Never mind that wind turbines are often money losers where as smart design of efficiency and conservation are a money saver.

Please reconsider any attempt to industrialize THE SANCTUARY!!!! You are running a SANCTUARY not and industrial plants!!!

We believe the information we have provided you with, with no thought of profit, would outweigh the free lunches and coddling by wind machinery salesman and various consultants whose business it is to build machinery in the open natural world while knowingly harming it.

A Wind Turbine is a GAMBLE and you know it!

I look forward to your defense of the project on its merits.

Wind Turbine Blade Lands on DayCare Center

KEEP IT A WILDLIFE SANCTUARY!

28May/130

Pa. wind turbines deadly to bats, costly to farmers

Posted by SaveOurSeaShore

Larry Roberts/Post-Gazette
Suzanne B. McLaren, the collection manager in the Carnegie Museum of Natural History's section of mammals, extends the wing of an approximately 3-inch specimen of a Seminole bat, rare in Pennsylvania, which was reportedly killed in the vicinity of a wind turbine.
The butterfly effect suggests the flapping of a tiny insect's wings in Africa can lead to a tornado in Kansas.

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

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

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

This is a bad time to be a bat.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lancaster County? You owe bats $22 million.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some retrievers aren't so good.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/business/news/pa-wind-turbines-deadly-to-bats-costly-to-farmers-306498/#ixzz2UbUHKIwV

28May/130

The truth about Gaia, from the founder

Posted by SaveOurSeaShore

Dear Massachusetts Audubon Society Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary,

It still seems you are moving forward with your plan to erect a Gaia-Wind medium sized industrial wind turbine at your Audubon Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary.

First we would like clarify what a small wind turbine is. A small turbine has a 7-25ft diameter according to wiki. Gaia-Wind’s brochure describes their turbine as “A Large 13m blade allows the turbine to…” and “BIGGER BLADES ARE BETTER”. So please don’t use the terms Small or Micro…that is just plan untrue!

How absolutely appropriate you have picked a turbine from a manufacture called Gaia Wind. Do you know the history of the term Gaia? We all know the Greek God right? And most of us know the Gaia Theory/Hypothesis by James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis that  proposes “that organisms interact with their inorganic surroundings on Earth to form a self-regulatingcomplex system that contributes to maintaining the conditions for life on the planet.” Dr Lovelock is a giant of Environmentalism developing the Gaia theory, he also was the first to detect CFC in the atmosphere, along with numerous other contributions. I would guess people in the business of environmentalism would hold him in respect with few believing they are wiser and more visionary than he.

Here is what James Lovelock says concerning a wind turbine development purposed near his home in Devon, Egland January 2013:

Anything we do in the United Kingdom about energy sources is mainly to set a good example before the other nations; if we drew all of our energy from renewable sources it would make only a small change in the total emission of greenhouse gas. But such examples are needed and are something to be proud of. The benign way we in North Devon live with our countryside is also an example to set before the world about how to live sustainably with the Earth. How foolish to set two such noble ideas in conflict and arrange that one good intention destroyed the other. To erect a large wind turbine on the Broadbury Ridge above the Carey and Wolfe Valleys is industrial vandalism that will diminish the regard with which the countryside is held and make the region vulnerable to urban development and unsustainable farming. Even if there were no alternative source of energy to wind we would still ask that this 84 metre high industrial power plant was placed in less ecologically sensitive areas. Better still we should look to the French who have wisely chosen nuclear energy as their principal source; a single nuclear power station provides as much as 3200 large wind turbines.

I am an environmentalist and founder member of the Greens but I bow my head in shame at the thought that our original good intentions should have been so misunderstood and misapplied. We never intended a fundamentalist Green movement that rejected all energy sources other than renewable, nor did we expect the Greens to cast aside our priceless ecological heritage because of their failure to understand that the needs of the Earth are not separable from human needs. We need to take care that the spinning windmills do not become like the statues on Easter Island, monuments of a failed civilisation.

Jame Lovelock’s full LETTER

This does not sound like the ringing endorsement of Wind Energy in “ecologically sensitive areas” like an Audubon Wildlife Sanctuary by a giant of environmentalism and a founder of the Green Movement

In case you aware unaware of his accomplishment…here are some

Lovelock was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1974. He served as the president of the Marine Biological Association (MBA) from 1986 to 1990, and has been an Honorary Visiting Fellow of Green Templeton College, Oxford (formerly Green College, Oxford) since 1994. He has been awarded a number of prestigious prizes including the Tswett Medal (1975), an American Chemical Society chromatography award (1980), the World Meteorological Organization Norbert Gerbier Prize (1988), the Dr A.H. Heineken Prize for the Environment (1990) and the Royal Geographical Society Discovery Lifetime award (2001). In 2006 he received the Wollaston Medal, the Geological Society's highest Award, whose previous recipients include Charles Darwin [4]. He became a Commander of the British Empire CBE in 1990, and a member of the Companions of Honour in 2003.

 

KEEP IT A SANCTUARY!

Sincerely

SaveOurSeaShore

25May/130

Letter to Audubon Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary – Barn Owl killed by Small Wind Turbine

Posted by SaveOurSeaShore

Dear Audubon Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary,

We just want to make sure that the various assessments and anecdotal assurances that small wind turbines won’t harm animals is informed with real life examples:

UK: BARN OWL KILLED Jan. 4  2013 by a Small Wind Turbine

http://raptorpolitics.org.uk/2013/02/09/barn-owl-confirmed-killed-by-wind-turbine-they-said-such-a-thing-could-not-happen/

This was the first record of a Barn Owl being killed by a small wind turbine anywhere in the UK. The ringing information is presently being processed by the BTO(Barn Owl Trust) and it is assumed that the record will be documented in the ‘Birds of Cumbria’ annual report for this year, but will not be published until 2014/15.

Many Environmental Assessments written for wind farms suggest that Barn Owls would not be affected by wind farms in this country even though there are records from Canada of Barn Owls being killed by turbines.

Significantly therefore this new record would appear to prove the so called experts wrong, undermining the conclusions of the Environmental Assessments which had claimed the barn owl was at no risk from wind turbines in this country. This record is now undeniable proof that the barn owl is at just as much a risk of being killed by a turbine as all the other birds of prey in the UK.

Will the Audubon Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary be following the suggestions of the UK BARN OWL TRUST ?

 The Barn Owl Trust suggests that new wind farm developments should be surrounded by fox and badger-proof fencing, that systematic carcass-search monitoring should be carried out for a period of not less than two years and that the results should be made public.

 That would be great to have a 100 ft diameter fenced off area where visitors could assist in looking for latest kills from the “Sanctuary’s Wind Energy Experiment”. Educational indeed!

Sincerely

SaveOurSeaShore

24May/130

Wind Farm Drive Away Raptors

Posted by SaveOurSeaShore

A letter to:

Dear Audubon Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary,

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

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01912.x/full

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.

KEEP IT A WILDLIFE SANCTUARY!

Sincerely

SaveOurSeaShore

24May/130

Letter to Audubon Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary – 82 Birds and bats dead at Lewes, DE Wind Turbine 2011

Posted by SaveOurSeaShore

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 being killed 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 Noun A 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!

KEEP IT A SANCTUARY!

Sincerely

SaveOurSeaShore

23May/130

Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary Wind Turbine Impact

Posted by SaveOurSeaShore

Dear Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary,

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.

Here are two

1)      Gull killer turbines are removed from the BBC

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

http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/lewesturbine/documents/acua_quarterlyreport_fall09.pdf

http://www.njcleanenergy.com/files/file/Renewable_Programs/Wind/ACUA_Interim%20Report_Jan-Sep08_all.pdf

We all want to do our part for a better planet….but first don’t do more harm!

Sincerely

Save Our Sea Shore

23May/130

Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary Wind Turbine = Most birds killed at wind turbines are songbirds

Posted by SaveOurSeaShore

Dear Audubon Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary,

http://www.dailytech.com/Study+Wind+Farms++Bird+Killers/article18641.htm  “…30 raptors were killed "during an initial year of operations - more than seven times the  number forecast in a pre-construction study.”

What is your forecast?

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!

https://www.nationalwind.org/assets/publications/Birds_and_Bats_Fact_Sheet_.pdf

Regretfully

Save Our Sea Shore

23May/130

Hazardous Wind Turbine to be built at Audubon Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Santuary(WBWS)

Posted by SaveOurSeaShore

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

http://www.bats.org.uk/news.php/160/small_wind_turbines_have_big_impact_on_bats

The following are the plans for the known bird and bat hazard planned for an Audubon Wildlife Sanctuary

http://www.massaudubon.org/PDF/connecting/WellfleetBayCaseStatement.pdf

Sincerely

SaveOurSeaShore

23May/130

Danger From Wind Turbine at Audubon Wildlife “Sanctuary” in Massachusetts

Posted by SaveOurSeaShore

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?

Sincerely

SaveOurSeaShore

Here are links for more detail.

http://www.ack.net/bartlettslawsuit031110.html

 Bartlett's suing windmill manufacturer; Alleges turbine unsafe

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 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-21496222

23May/130

Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary Building a Bat Killing Wind Turbine

Posted by SaveOurSeaShore

Dear Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary,

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?

How many deaths would be too many at a Sanctuary?

We look forward to the information.

Sincerely

SaveOurSeaShore

22May/130

State finds Fairhaven turbines in violation of noise regulations

Posted by SaveOurSeaShore

By Ariel Wittenberg awittenberg@s-t.com
May 22, 2013 12:00 AM

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.

21May/130

Huge wind turbine blade falls in CA; effects felt worldwide

Posted by SaveOurSeaShore

AP and Ed Joyce | 

http://www.scpr.org/news/2013/05/21/37345/huge-wind-turbine-blade-falls-in-ca-effects-felt-w/

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.

20May/130

Wind Turbines Killing Bats: Federal Investigation

Posted by SaveOurSeaShore

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?

Bat Fatalities at Wind Turbines: http://www.fort.usgs.gov/BatsWindmills/

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?

Close up of hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus).  Photo by Paul Cryan Photo of a silver-haired bat. Photo by Keith Geluso.
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. Photo of a hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) in a tree. Photo by Paul Cryan.
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:

Screenshot of a distribution map.

 Seasonal distribution of hoary bats (Lasiurus cinereus) [WMV format: 1.8 MB]

 Seasonal distribution of silver-haired bats (Lasionycteris noctivagans) [WMV format: 1.7 KB]

 Seasonal distribution of red bats (Lasiurus borealis and L. blossevillii) [WMV format: 1.9 KB]

 Stable hydrogen isotope analysis of bat hair as evidence for seasonal molt and long-distance migration

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

Paul Cryan
USGS Fort Collins Science Center
2150 Centre Ave., Bldg. C
Fort Collins, CO 80526-8118
Tel. 970.226.9389
Fax 970.226.9230
Email cryanp@usgs.gov