Concern for birds
Although the turbine industry claims that turbines kill less than 1% of the bird population, the majority of these birds would comprise of the species related to birds of prey. And since prey creatures are usually only 10% of any animal population, this 1% claim suddenly becomes more of a concern. ...There's nothing wrong with green initiatives, but it's important to put wind turbines in locations that are logical for people, wildlife and the environment and not just because of a convenient power supply.
April 23, 2010 by Andres Hoag in The Lindsay Post
I read the article on the success the osprey is having here in the City of Kawartha Lakes and it certainly is a good news story.
But with the possible allocation of wind turbines throughout our municipality, I have real concern for the future of our birds of prey. It would be difficult for anyone to argue this area seems to be a hot spot for birds. I've counted 10 species of hawk, falcon and eagle including osprey and the bald eagle just off the top of my head and there could be possibly more.
Although the turbine industry claims that turbines kill less than 1% of the bird population, the majority of these birds would comprise of the species related to birds of prey. And since prey creatures are usually only 10% of any animal population, this 1% claim suddenly becomes more of a concern. We also have to hope that 1% is the truth and not a doctored number. Birds of prey are attracted to the up drafts the turbines produce and tend to circle the turbines until they get too close and get struck by one of the blades. A bald eagle has already been found dead in southern Ontario only 40 metres from a wind turbine.
I feel the City of Kawartha Lakes is part of a natural migration route and the wind turbines will have a significant toll on our birds of prey simply because of the numbers of prey birds that live in this area.
Once the turbines are up they will not be moved, so we need to ask ourselves if this is a logical place for them. In California which is also another part of the migratory route of birds of prey, 2,000 to 5,000 birds are killed each year.
According to a web site called the Heartland Institute, quote, "A study conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory found that Altamont Pass bird deaths are more prevalent than previously thought. According to the Jan. 30Oakland Tribune, previous studies conducted by wind farm operators had underestimated Altamont Pass bird kills by 25 to 300%. Moreover, new technologies designed to reduce the number of bird deaths will actually have the effect of increasing turbine bird kills.
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory determined that new technology that would reduce the number of turbines by increasing the size of each tower's blades would kill more birds than the preexisting turbines. The larger turbines would increase the area of "swept" air and would have more lethal blades and components than their smaller cousins.
There's nothing wrong with green initiatives, but it's important to put wind turbines in locations that are logical for people, wildlife and the environment and not just because of a convenient power supply.
Remember, we're supposed to be making the world a better place, not a more dangerous one.
Does the Wellfleet, MA Wind Turbines Risk the SECURITY of America?
Wind Turbines interfere with nearby radars...this is documented in many places. Various organizations have been attempting to mitigate the problems, but there are still problems. When Wellfleet applied to the FAA for a permit to erect Wind Turbines...it was granted but with the following statement:
Wellfleet's wind turbines would be located approximately 7.8 Miles from the North Truro Long Range Radar which is used by the FAA and shared with the military. By the above statement it appears we are sacrificing our safety to build Wind Turbines. Our civil government the FAA is DIRECTLY IGNORING AN AIR FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS with regards to the security of our country. This has to be investigated! Please ask your representative and news organization to investigate why FAA is ignore the country's safety!
This is the full FAA permit:
U.S. General Victor E. Renuart testifies on radar interference from wind turbines
March 18, 2010 by General Victor E. Renuart, Jr. USAF Commander
Film examines drawbacks of wind turbines
Wind energy farms may sound environmentally friendly. Nettie Pena's documentary film "They're Not Green" aims to show that they're anything but. The one-hour film was shown last Saturday night at the Yucca Valley Community Center in an event hosted by the Alliance for Responsible Energy Policy and the Homestead Valley Community Council.
March 23, 2010 by Kris Reilly in The Leader
YUCCA VALLEY • Wind energy farms may sound environmentally friendly. Nettie Pena's documentary film "They're Not Green" aims to show that they're anything but.
The one-hour film was shown last Saturday night at the Yucca Valley Community Center in an event hosted by the Alliance for Responsible Energy Policy and the Homestead Valley Community Council.
The issue is relevant to Lucerne Valley, as 28 wind turbines are planned for the mountains northwest of town.
The film shows interviews with people who live near wind farms, and they say their negative consequences go far beyond the effects on views and property values.
One man who lived near a turbine that caught fire said that firefighters can do little or nothing when the turbines burn because they are so tall. He said he inhaled so much toxic smoke from the burning fiberglass that his coughing resulted in hernia surgery. He also said the company that owned the turbines refused to pay his medical bills.
Other residents spoke of the strobe effect that the windmills create inside their houses as they intermittently block sunlight during the day as well as the flashing red lights that go off during the night.
A scientist interviewed in the film said thousands of birds are killed each year by windmills, and many other problems were examined. Furthermore, the film asserts that the amount of energy provided by these turbines is relatively minuscule.
Pena, who has worked as an assistant film editor at NBC News and Paramount Studios, has been making documentary films since attending UCLA as a graduate student. The destruction of the 1992 Los Angeles riots inspired here to try to improve society, and she became an inner-city math teacher.
Pena said she moved from Los Angeles to Palm Springs three years ago and the windmills "were right in my face." She took her camera to a city council meeting where citizens protested new wind farm developments, and thus "They're Not Green" was born.
Pena spoke after the screening, as did Jim Harvey of the Alliance for Responsible Energy Policy. Both of them are supportive of rooftop solar energy, which does not destroy desert environments and can help people lower their energy costs.
Harvey spoke about AB 811, a state law that makes it easier for homeowners to get low-interest loans for rooftop solar installation. The funding for this program comes from municipal bonds sold by local governments, Harvey said. He's hopeful San Bernardino County will enact an AB 811 program.
Pena said she would like to eventually show "They're Not Green" in Lucerne Valley. Visit web.me.com/thrnotgreen to view portions of the film.
http://www.lucernevalleyleader.com/node/396
Scots wind farm shut over safety fears after 150ft turbine blade falls off
This wind farm has been open less than one year!
EUROPE'S largest wind farm ground to a halt after a 150ft blade snapped off one of the turbines.
All 140 of the giant machines were immediately shut down at the £300million development near Glasgow until they could be inspected.
Engineers at Whitelee wind farm, which is run by ScottishPower Renewables, were trying to work out why the blade came crashing down.
They are looking into whether lightning could have struck the turbine or if it was caused by a mechanical problem.
It sheared off and hit the ground in the early hours of Friday morning in blustery conditions.
Automatic systems alerted operators in the control room to the damage and they immediately closed down the unit.
All 420 blades in the wind farm were being examined following the accident.
Last night, more than 50 turbines were expected to have been inspected and safely returned to operation.
The process is expected to be completed by Friday.
Whitelee wind farm's visitor centre, which is managed by Glasgow Science Centre and had been due to reopen after the winter break yesterday, stayed shut.
German company Siemens, who supplied the turbines, are also understood to be investigating.
The 360ft turbines are so massive that engineers have been able to climb inside them to try to detect the problem.
Over the weekend, the site at Eaglesham Moor, 13 miles from Glasgow city centre, was cordoned off to keep visitors away. Raymond Toms, 45, a teacher from East Kilbride, spotted the broken turbine as he cycled past on Sunday.
He said: "I was out for a bike ride and I saw one of the massive blades had broken clean off. It was quite unnerving really.
"You can walk right up to these things normally and touch them.
"The public have access to the network of pathways nearby.
"I have grave concerns over the safety of the public, who can walk right up to the turbines.
"It's worrying that if one of these could fall off then perhaps another one could.
"It's made me think about going too close, that's for sure. It's just lucky this took place at night, when nobody was around."
Keith Anderson, managing director of ScottishPower Renewables, said: "This type of incident is exceptionally rare and highly unusual.
"However, the safety of our people and the public is our first priority.
"While the investigation into the cause of the incident is ongoing, our engineers continue to conduct an internal and external examination of all turbine blades at the wind farm".
A spokesman for the firm added: "Investigations are ongoing, and a number of possibilities including mechanical failure and lightning strike are being considered.
"Operators in the 24-hour control room immediately closed the turbine down.
"This is a highly unusual situation. I've not heard of this kind of incident happening in 30 years."
GREEN ENERGY BLUEPRINT
Whitelee was officially switched on in May 2009 by First Minister Alex Salmond.
Each turbine at Whitelee, which started producing electricity in January 2008, stands 360ft high.
The wind farm has 140 turbines that can generate 322 megawatts of electricity, enough to power 180,000 homes.
ScottishPower Renewables have been given permission to add 36 turbines to the site, allowing the wind farm to power 250,000 homes and create up to 300 jobs.
Last week, it was revealed that community groups in East Renfrewshire are to benefit from a fund set up from the development of Whitelee.
The fund will deliver about £140,000 a year for the next 25 years to the area's council for local groups.
Wind farms’ effect on radar a clear concern
The U.S. military is growing increasingly concerned that proposed wind farms can disrupt or block radar designed to detect threats and protect America's skies, a problem that is stalling the alternative energy projects around the country. A top U.S. general told Congress on Thursday that federal agencies need to work better together on a formal vetting process for the wind projects.
March 21, 2010 by Lolita C. Baldor in Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The U.S. military is growing increasingly concerned that proposed wind farms can disrupt or block radar designed to detect threats and protect America's skies, a problem that is stalling the alternative energy projects around the country.
A top U.S. general told Congress on Thursday that federal agencies need to work better together on a formal vetting process for the wind projects to prevent them from being built where they will interfere with radar defenses.
Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, head of U.S. Northern Command, said a number of projects raise "real concerns" involving radar interference, and he suggested that requiring companies to conduct early checks during the approval process for such obstruction might be needed.
"We've heard concerns that wind turbines may interfere with radar and impact military training routes," said House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo. "While we must find new ways to meet our energy security needs, we must not compromise our national security."
While the radar interference issue isn't new, it has become a bigger problem as more wind projects move through the permit process. Industry leaders and the Energy Department have said that wind power could provide as much as 20 percent of the nation's electricity by 2030.
Last month, Pentagon officials raised the issue with Congress, saying they are devoting a lot of time and effort to the growing challenge of ensuring that energy projects don't conflict with military requirements.
"The current process for reviewing proposals and handling disputes is opaque, time-consuming and ad hoc," said Dorothy Robyn, deputy undersecretary of defense for installations and environment.
The Federal Aviation Administration reviews wind farm projects, looking at any interference with air navigation or radar systems. But while the FAA can flag problems during its review of a project, it can't force a change or prevent a wind farm from being approved if a change isn't made. Its recommendations, though, sometimes can affect a local zoning or other approval process.
Renuart and others say a more coordinated, interagency process is needed to better evaluate proposals.
It's difficult to say how many projects are tied up regarding the radar issue, but in a 2009 survey, industry executives said that more than a dozen had been stalled, according to Laurie Jodziewicz, manager of siting policy for the American Wind Energy Association.
Jodziewicz said that projects totaling 10,000 megawatts of wind power were built in the U.S. last year, while projects involving another 10,000 megawatts were stalled by the radar issue. Projects vary in size and can include any number of turbines, but one turbine can generate 1.5 to 3 megawatts of power in an hour at higher wind speeds.
The industry, Jodziewicz said, wants to work with federal agencies and officials are getting closer to finding a process that works. She conceded, though, that bringing everyone together can be a challenge.
Jodziewicz also said that, at times, the interference can be solved by upgrading the older radar systems, and that developers will work with the Defense Department to do those improvements.
In other cases the problem can be solved by shifting the configuration of the wind farm.
Renuart said the North American Aerospace Defense Command, which he also heads, is putting together a radar obstruction evaluation team to determine the impacts of proposed wind energy projects in close proximity to our radars.
The Pentagon released a report in 2006 detailing the concerns with the wind farms, and said the Defense Department is developing other ways to deal with the problem, including technology improvements to the radar systems.
http://www.amarillo.com/stories/032110/bus_biz7.sh...
The Brewing Tempest Over Wind Power
People living near turbines increasingly report sleep deprivation, headaches and vertigo. The wind lobby says there's no proof.
Imagine this scenario: The oil and gas industry launches an aggressive global drilling program with a new type of well. Thousands of these new wells, once operational, emit a noxious odor so offensive that many of the people living within a mile of them are kept awake at night. Some are even forced to move out of their homes. It's easy to predict the reaction: denunciations of the industry, countless lawsuits, and congressional investigations.
Now substitute wind for oil and gas and consider the noise complaints being lodged against wind projects around the world.
The Obama administration has made the increased use of wind power to generate electricity a top priority. In 2009 alone, U.S. wind generation capacity increased by 39%. But more wind power means more giant turbines closer to more people. And if current trends continue, that spells trouble.
In 2007, a phalanx of wind turbines were built around Charlie Porter's property in rural northern Missouri. Soon, Mr. Porter began to have trouble sleeping. So did his wife and daughter. The noise, he told me, made sleeping almost impossible. "We tried everything—earplugs, leaving the TV station on all night." Nothing worked. Late last year he moved his family off their 20-acre farm.
Mr. Porter's story is no isolated event. Rural residents in Texas, Maine, Pennsylvania, Oregon, New York, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, France and England have been complaining about the noise from wind turbines, particularly about sleep deprivation. Dozens of news stories—most of them published in rural newspapers—have documented the problem.
I've spoken to nine other people in New York, Wisconsin, Ontario, New Zealand, Nova Scotia and England who live, or lived, near wind turbines. All complained of the noise, with sleep deprivation being the most common complaint. For example, Janet Warren, who raises sheep near Makara, New Zealand, told me via email that the turbines near her home emit "continuous noise and vibration," which disturb her sleep and are causing "loss of concentration, irritability, and short-term memory effects."
Complaints about sleep disruption—as well as the deleterious health effects caused by the pulsing, low-frequency noise emitted by the giant turbines—are a central element of an emerging citizen backlash against the booming global wind industry.
Lawsuits that focus on noise pollution are now pending in Maine, Pennsylvania and New Zealand. In New Zealand, more than 750 complaints have been lodged against a large wind project near Makara since it began operating last April. The European Platform Against Windfarms lists 388 groups in 20 European countries. Canada has more than two dozen antiwind groups. In the U.S. there are about 100 such groups, and state legislators in Vermont recently introduced a bill that will require wind turbines be located no closer than 1.25 miles from any residence.
In theory, big wind projects should only be built in desolate areas. But the reality is that many turbines are being installed close to homes. Wind developers put a turbine within 550 meters of Mr. Porter's house. Hal Graham, a retired office manager in Cohocton, N.Y., complains about the noise pollution caused by a turbine 300 meters from his home. Tony Moyer, a plumbing superintendent in Eden, Wis., grumbles about the noise generated by three turbines built within 425 meters of his house.
Doctors and acoustics experts from the U.S. to Australia report a raft of symptoms that they blame on wind turbine noise, including sleep disturbance, headaches and vertigo. Dr. Nina Pierpont, a pediatrician in Malone, N.Y., has studied 36 people affected by wind turbine noise since 2004 at her own expense. The people she interviewed were widely dispersed; they lived in the U.S., Canada, England, Ireland and Italy. She found that the collection of symptoms she calls "wind turbine syndrome" disappeared as soon as people moved out of their noise-affected homes and into new locations at least five miles from any turbines.
Across the border, Ontario-based orthopedic surgeon Dr. Robert McMurtry has been researching wind turbine noise for the past 18 months. Dr. McMurtry, a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, counts more than 100 people in Ontario he believes are experiencing adverse effects from turbine noise. "It has compromised their health," he says.
The wind lobby has publicly rejected these claims. In December, the American Wind Energy Association in conjunction with the Canadian Wind Energy Association, issued a report titled "Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects: An Expert Review Panel." It declared: "There is no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects." It also suggested that some of the symptoms being attributed to wind turbine noise were likely psychosomatic and asserted that the vibrations from the turbines are "too weak to be detected by, or to affect, humans."
Yet the report also noted that in "the area of wind turbine health effects, no case-control or cohort studies have been conducted as of this date." True enough—but it means there are no studies to prove or disprove the case. It also says that "a small number of sensitive people" may be "stressed" by wind turbine noise and suffer sleep deprivation. But who gets to define "sensitive" and "small number"? And if turbine noise and sleep disturbance aren't problems, then why are people in so many different locations complaining in almost identical ways? Such questions are only going to be pressed with more urgency in the future.
By 2030, environmental and lobby groups are pushing for the U.S. to produce 20% of its electricity from wind. According to the Department of Energy, meeting that goal will require the U.S. to have about 300,000 megawatts of wind capacity, an eightfold increase over current levels. Installing tens of thousands of new turbines inevitably means they'll be located closer to populated areas.
The health effects of low-frequency noise on humans are not well understood. The noise in question often occurs at, or below, decibel levels that are commonly considered a public nuisance. And detecting low-frequency noise requires sophisticated acoustic gear. For all of these reasons, this issue should be investigated. If policy makers are serious about considering all of the impacts of "green" energy, then an impartial, international study of the effects of wind turbine noise should be undertaken without delay.
Wood fueled biomass energy worse for carbon dioxide emissions than fossil fuels
I have included the following press release to show that the State of Massachusetts is putting in place other harmful directives with regards to energy policy. The state funded Massachusetts Technology Collaborative is the "brains" behind placing a wind turbines in a NATIONAL PARK and cutting down STATE FORESTS to burn, while giving towns and companies money to wreak this destructions. We are strong believers in the environment and are confounded to understand MA's Renewable Energy Policy of siting Wind Turbines in pristine protected forest and clearing state forest for BIOMASS. We need to speak up and tell our governments to FIRST DO NO HARM when it comes to protecting the environment. GET INFORMED! These things are really happening. State and National lands are being destroyed while your tax and utility money are going to greed people who are feeding on your good intentions!
| Wood fueled biomass energy worse for carbon dioxide emissions than fossil fuels
Massachusetts Forest Watch released a report today (www.maforests.org/MFWCarb.pdf) stating that contrary to the belief that wood fueled biomass burning would help lower carbon dioxide emissions, it would instead dramatically increase them. According to the group, wood fueled biomass burning is typically touted as a carbon neutral fuel by biomass proponents, but the key assumption about carbon neutrality is unsubstantiated and impossible when using existing forests as fuel. In the report, wood fueled biomass power plants are shown to be worse than all fossil fuel power plants, including coal, for carbon dioxide emissions per unit of energy produced. Calculations provided show wood fueled biomass power plants emit about 50% more CO2 per MWh than existing coal plants, 150% more than existing natural gas plants and 330% more than new power plants. Forest Watch spokesperson Chris Matera said, “It really is crazy. Hundreds of millions of dollars in public so-called “green” energy subsidies are being wasted on dirty wood biomass burning of forests instead of going to genuinely clean energy sources such as solar, geothermal, appropriate wind and hydro and importantly conservation and efficiency. At a time when budgets are being slashed, we are throwing away scarce taxpayer money on a caveman technology that will worsen our problems, not help solve them.” Last Wednesday, a hearing was held in Boston by the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy on House Bill 4458 that would create into law the citizen’s referendum that recently collected over 78,000 certified signatures, which is enough to put the measure on the ballot in November. The ballot measure would put a limit on carbon dioxide emissions in order for renewable energy sources to be eligible to receive taxpayer subsidies and other benefits and would effectively ban taxpayer subsidies from being directed toward wood fueled biomass plants since their carbon dioxide emissions are so high. "We find that people are willing to support truly clean energy but do not want to pay extra on their electricity bills and tax bills to build these dirty biomass incinerators," said Jana Chicoine of the Concerned Citizens of Russell, "Everyone knows that the proposed biomass incinerators would add to air pollution and make carbon emissions worse, yet the Patrick administration is still forcing us to pay for it. It's a tragic situation, but we have a chance to fix it in the legislature over the next couple of weeks." Meg Sheehan, chair of the Stop Spewing Carbon ballot question committee commenting about the hearing added, “last week the Massachusetts legislature received un-rebutted testimony from medical professionals that particulate emissions from wood burning biomass plants increase human mortality. A broad coalition of medical and citizen groups are urging our elected officials to support House Bill 4458 to address this public health threat. Action is needed now," she added. |
Letter about Wind Turbine to Massachusetts Audubon in Wellfleet
To: RPrescott@massaudubon.org
Sent: Mon, Feb 22, 2010 12:03 pm
Subject: Wind turbines Dear Mr. Prescott: My name is George Zebrowski. My wife, Marsha, and I live in the Berkshires and have a vacation home/future retirement home off of Ocean View Drive in South Wellfleet. My wife's parents began building a house there in the early 1950s and moved there around 1956; at the time they were one of only two families to live on the back shore year-round. So obviously we've been following the plans to erect a 400-foot-wind turbine down the street within the Cape Cod National Seashore. What I simply cannot understand is why an organization such as the Massachusetts Audubon Society has not taken a strong stand AGAINST siting an industrial-size wind turbine within a National Park. What possible outcomes of additional studies might convince you that this is a good idea? First of all nothing in the founding legislation of the CCNS in any way suggests that such a project would be acceptable. I'm absolutely amazed that park superintendent George Price favors such a proposal (even going so far as to claim that executive orders encourage development of alternative energy within national parks, when in fact the executive orders he refers to actually suggest installing low-flush toilets or solar panels or adding insulation to park headquarters, visitor centers or bath houses is encouraged). Previously built wind turbines in other areas of the country have been shown to have negative impacts on the environment. As you're obviously aware, the CCNS lies within the biggest migratory bird route on the East Coast. Have you really and truly not read about birds being killed by wind turbines in areas that don't even lie within migratory routes? Several weeks ago my wife and I viewed a segment on the television program Chronicle that described the volunteer work being done at the Audubon. With my retirement coming in 2012 (or sooner), we concurred that once we're retired on the Cape what a great activity that would be to take part in. But when officials of your organization can't take a stand on something that is so counter to conservation efforts we have to wonder if our future volunteer efforts should be directed elsewhere. Please let me hear back from you on what could possibly come out of additional studies that would make you think this is a project the Massachusetts Audubon Society should support.
Sincerely,
George Zebrowski
Judge Upholds ONE Mile Setback – Wisconsin
A judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging Trempealeau County's wind ordinance, which critics have called one of the strictest in the country. Judge John Damon dismissed the claims by Ron and Mary Winn of Galesville when he granted summary judgement in favor of the county, according to court documents filed earlier this month.
WHITEHALL - A judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging Trempealeau County's wind ordinance, which critics have called one of the strictest in the country.
Judge John Damon dismissed the claims by Ron and Mary Winn of Galesville when he granted summary judgement in favor of the county, according to court documents filed earlier this month. The Winns were challenging a county zoning ordinance that prevented installing wind turbines on land they were going to rent to a wind development company. But a new state initiative made the case moot, attorneys say.
Mary Winn declined to comment for this story, and the Winns' attorney, Taavi McMahon, did not return a call for comment.
Wind development in Trempealeau County has been a hot-button issue since 2006, when an investment group called AgWind Energy Partners approached the county board with a request to look into three potential sites for a wind farm.
County board members enacted three moratoriums on wind development in response before passing the restrictive ordinance in December 2007. It requires turbines more than 150 feet high to be at least a mile from the nearest homes and a half-mile from neighboring property lines. Most commercial wind towers are about 300 feet. Additional required setbacks in the ordinance keep turbines away from roads, railroads and wildlife refuges.
The ordinance directly affected the Winns. AgWind had proposed renting 160 acres the Winns owned near Ettrick for its proposed wind farm.
The Winns filed suit in June 2009, alleging the ordinance prevents commercial wind development anywhere in the county and doesn't comply with state laws and policies.
Trempealeau County denied those allegations and asserted its authority to create the wind ordinance.
Ultimately, Damon's ruling did not weigh in on the legality of the ordinance but decided the Winns' claims were moot.
That action was based on a bill Wisconsin legislators passed last fall calling for the state to create uniform site regulations for wind farms throughout the state, said attorney Mark Skolos, who represented Trempealeau County. Those regulations, when complete, will trump all local ordinances.
http://www.lacrossetribune.com/news/local/govt-and...
Investigators still looking for cause of wind turbine collapse – NY
video link of report on collapse in NY
http://www.9wsyr.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoid=275356@wixt.dayport.com
Fenner (WSYR-TV) - Teams of engineers are still trying to figure out what caused one of the huge Fenner wind turbines to collapse in late December.
Piece by piece engineers are going over the wreckage of what was once a 328 foot tall, 187 ton wind turbine. The key section, however, will only be accessible when it's all cut up and removed.
They're anxious to get to the hole left in the foundation where the turbine separated from the base, but so far nobody's been able to access that spot. More than a month after the crash they still have no answers on what caused the giant turbine to come crashing down.
"They have kept us very well informed, I've got to applaud them for that,” said Fenner Town Supervisor Russell Cary. “They had an executive come in all the way from Boston for our Free Center and he also came to my Madison County Energy Committee meeting at Morrisville College just to catch us up, answer questions."
While the cleanup goes on at the site, they have continued to keep the other 19 wind turbines shut down until they get a better idea of what happened. “This is a lesson and we're going to learn. All the engineering in the world, nothing beats hindsight. I think they're doing a good job of really analyzing it and setting up to make the whole process better going forward,” said Cary.
With more and more turbines popping up as wind power becomes more common, there will likely be people from around the world interested in what did cause this collapse.
Enel North America, which operates the wind farm, had hoped to have a determination by the end of last month. Now, it says it’s unclear when the company will have something final.
Parents of technician killed in Oregon wind-turbine collapse file suit
By Aimee Green, The Oregonian
February 06, 2010, 3:10PM
The parents of a 34-year-old technician who died when the 230-foot wind-turbine tower he was in collapsed to the ground in a Sherman County wheat field is suing for $7 million.
In their lawsuit, Gail Eikanas and Jerry Mitchell fault the Danish turbine maker Siemens Wind Power A/S, the Klondike Wind Farms III and ownersPPM Energy, among others. Their son, Chadd Mitchell, died in August 2007. He was the father of two.
The suit was filed Thursday in Multnomah County Circuit Court. According to the suit, the wind turbine's rotor went into "overspeed," causing the structure to crash to the ground and crush Mitchell.
In early 2008, the Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Division fined Siemens Power Generation $10,500 for safety violations, after a six-month investigation.
The agency found that Siemens didn't properly train or supervise the employees on the job, and that Mitchell and another worker had less than two months of experience and were working without a supervisor. Siemens disagreed with the findings of safety violations, and appealed the findings. It's not clear what the outcome of that appeal was.
-- Aimee Green
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/02/parents_of_technician_killed_i.html
PR’ing Industrial Wind: Government and Media versus Common Sense
The following is a critique of PR efforts by the wind industry.
PR’ing Industrial Wind: Government and Media versus Common Sense
by Jon Boone
January 30, 2010
What happened at the wind farm?
At a January 28 public scoping meeting, Boulevard Planning Group Chair Donna Tisdale asked the California Public Utilities Commission and the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs to conduct a formal public health and safety investigation. All 75 blades from all 25 turbines were removed and only some of the FAA required lights are working," Tisdale wrote. "There is speculation that the high winds flowing across the composite blades created an electrostatic discharge that then arced between turbines damaging the blades and the electrical system."
February 9, 2010 by Miriam Raftery in East County Magazine
(Campo) - Battered by a winter storm on December 7, 25 wind turbines at the Kumeyaay Wind project on the Campo Indian Reservation shut down---and haven't come back on line two months later.
At a January 28 public scoping meeting, Boulevard Planning Group Chair Donna Tisdale asked the California Public Utilities Commission and the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs to conduct a formal public health and safety investigation.
All 75 blades from all 25 turbines were removed and only some of the FAA required lights are working," Tisdale wrote. "There is speculation that the high winds flowing across the composite blades created an electrostatic discharge that then arced between turbines damaging the blades and the electrical system."
Ken Daubach, a former firefighter, was driving home from work as a prison guard the night the damage occurred. "I was following a snow plough, very slow, doing maybe 5 to 7 miles per hour, heading westbound on I-8," he told East County Magazine. "I saw a huge flash of blue out on the side of the hill where the windmills were. It started in the middle and spread out in all directions...It lit up the whole hillside in a white-out of a snowstorm...Then it was all black."
Daubach and Tisdale express concern that such massive failure could pose danger to residents should it reoccur. The failure occurred when there was snow on the ground. But Daubach notes, "Had it been dry, I think we'd probably have had a fire."
In written comments provided to ECM, Daubach stated that SDG&E had a power outage in the area the day of the storm. He wonders whether a power surge following an outage might have caused the blue flash that he saw. He said Emmerton confirmed that "while rerouting power, they had inadvertently been taken off-the-grid that day, too. He admitted that they have no idea what is wrong."
Although an earlier news report speculated that the damage was caused by lightning, Daubach asid, "I didn't hear any thunder." According to the Union-Tribune, David Barnes, chief executive of Bluarc Management in Dallas, operator of the wind farm, has since acknowledged that no turbines were struck by lightning. "We're mobilizing equipment and spare parts to the site," Barnes told the Union-Tribune in a January 13 article, adding that workers are inspecting and repairing all 75 blades. He attributed high winds to the cracking, but has offered no public explanation of the flash seen by Daubach.
Daubach said he contacted Barnes in late January, and that it took considerable digging to locate contact information for the site operator. He says he also talked to a site manager, Neal Emmerton, and explained what he saw.
According to Daubach, he has also twice spoken with an engineer who works at the wind farm, whom he met into at a nearby gas station. "He said he was regenerating something inside at 10:30 that night-but his story changed; his original statement was that he was under the windmills at 10:30. Last time, he said he was just glad nobody got hurt. This was the worst possible failure, catastrophic failure...So what happened?"
In a written statement, Daubach noted that a controller for the wind farm said the manufacturer was "not being cooperative and that SDG&E had shut down the turbines numerous times due to putting in steel poles" and that "due to the insurance company and investors," the company needed to "get the turbines up and running quickly."
Barnes did not return calls from ECM. Campo Indians tribal chair Monique LaChappa also has not returned a phone message left yesterday. ECM will publish their comments if we receive responses.
The wind turbines are designed to stop spinning at wind speeds above 50 mph. Daubach estimated gusts of around 45 mph. "I can tell you it was moving my truck." Asked how often winds that strong are felt in the area, he replied, "Too often. At least once a month. "
But Andy Degroot, who lives about a mile and a half from the wind farm, told ECM that he has a wind indicator-and it measured 75 mph wind speeds the night of the storm. "That's the highest we've recorded, and we've had that thing probably five years," he said. He photographed the wind speed measurement on his cell phone.
Degroot confirmed that he did not hear any thunder on December 7th, either.
Degroot told ECM that he went up to the wind farm the day after the blades stopped turning to check the damage.
"I walked right up there and got underneath them. A lot of the blades were split. Chunks were torn out of them," he said. "It was pretty severe damage," he said, adding that he did not see any burn marks on blades. He took photos of the damage, which he has shared with ECM. "Then I got kicked out," he recalled, adding that he did not see any no trespassing signs.
His photos showed severe damage, including one blade with one-third to one-half of its approximately 90-foot-length blade missing.
Photos also reveal what appears to be substantial oil leakage from machinery down the length of the massive tower. Pointing to the photo of an area where the substance was leaking from, he observed, "That's the size of a two-car garage, approximately. They're touting them as cheap, clean energy. They're not that clean."
Degroot said he did not observe any blades or portions of blades that had flown far enough afield to have damaged persons or property outside the wind farm, or on Interstate 8.
The night of the storm, something also happened to lights at the facility. "I'm looking at all 25 windmills right now," he said in a phone interview. "We have one that's closest to us that has a white strobe on it. It used to be red at night and now it stays white. When it's hazy outside and it blinks, it's a huge flash in the sky. After a while, it gets pretty annoying." He said he's talked to an employee who told him they are aware of the problem, but haven't gotten around to fixing it."
Tisdale revealed, "One wind farm employee told me that he cannot get permission to repair that light.
Degroot is worried that the catastrophe could reoccur. "I'm sure it could happen again because these are huge blades," he said. "They're like ninety-some feet long. I don't know what they changed on this new group that's going to be different than the old style."
Others share that concern. The consequences of a wildfire started in this windy backcountry region are all-too-well known, as the Cedar, Witch and Harris fires have proven. Those fires charred hundreds of thousands of acres and cost many lives.
The Harris fire started in nearby Potrero, where 100-mph winds swiftly fanned flames that forced evacuations as far east as Chula Vista and killed several people. The Witch Fire, also in 2007, began in mountainous Ramona and forced evacuation all the way to the coast in Solana Beach. Together, those fires and others ignited during the same Santa Ana windy period caused half a million people to evacuate-more than during Hurricane Katrina. The 2003 Cedar Fire, at the time the worst in California history, killed 17 people.
Harris Fire Tisdale cites concern over electrical arcing from turbines that extends beyond Campo. "What danger does this type of static discharge represent, especially if turbines are placed on public lands in recreation areas, and adjacent to private properties? " she asked in her request for an investigation.
She added, "How will the increased threat of fire and other damage from more turbines impact our insurance? Rates will like rise, and insurance will be denied to some homeowners," Tisdale predicted, adding, "It is already hard to get insurance in this high fire danger area."
U.S. Congressman overwhelmed by wind turbine noise complaints
Transcript of AM 1480 WLEA (Hornell, NY) interview with U. S. Congressman Eric Massa (D, NY) on April 25, 2009, talking about the “virtual flood of constituents,” and even non-constituents, complaining about wind turbine noise.
Brian: Hi, and welcome to Connections with Brian O’Neil, on the phone today with Congressman Eric Massa. Congressman, good morning.
Congressman Massa: Good morning, and thank you for having me with you today.
Brian: Well, it’s always great to be on the line with you Eric.
Congressman Massa: How can I help?
Brian: Well, Congressman, one of the big stories lately on AM 1480 WLEA and, of course, the Corning Leader is what’s been going on in Prattsburgh. On Friday, you met with two Prattsburgh town board members Steve Kula and Chuck Schick. Now, having attended the last few Prattsburgh meetings myself, I’m guessing your meeting had something to do with the controversy over wind energy in Prattsburgh?
Congressman Massa: Well ,yes, and as some listeners may remember and certainly you might remember, for almost three years of my candidacy, and certainly since I have become an incumbent, I have been very focused on the challenges this area faces as foreign-owned industrial wind turbine corporations attempt to build thousands of these 450 foot tall towers on virtually every hill in western New York State, despite the fact that the United States Meteorological Service has stated very clearly we simply don’t have the wind in this area of the world to economically justify this. We have seen a consistent effort by these foreign companies to subvert local governments who are ill prepared to deal with these million-dollar industrial systems, to back out of commitments they’ve made through the industrial development agencies, not to pay their contributions to the local schools that they promised, not to create new jobs. So, this is, unfortunately, what we’ve been talking about, and I wish I was wrong, but everything I said for the last three years has come true. But nowhere is that more apparent than now, with the fact that these wind turbines generate so much noise that the very homes on the properties that leased agreements to the wind turbines now can’t be occupied. Now I’m not making this up. I have been in my office with a virtual flood of constituents who have come to me, both on and off properties that were leased to the wind companies, saying that they can’t live in the houses anymore, yet they can’t sell them, and in fact the town supervisor of Cohocton, a man that would not even shake my hand at a parade because he was so upset that I dared challenge this issue, has written a letter to the very company that he invited into his community, saying – we can’t have these wind turbines here because they’re too noisy. Well, you know, three years too late, and I am meeting with the folks in Prattsburgh so that they get – first off, they requested to meet with me, because they’re asking for help, to make sure that what was rammed down Cohocton does not get rammed down Prattsburgh. And it’s very disconcerting that everyone has such a wonderful opinion of these 450 foot towers that frankly don’t even produce electricity, and I don’t say that comically, I say that realistically. It’s a huge local issue.
Brian: Now, Congressman, are more wind farmers besides Hal Graham stepping forward to you and telling you that the wind turbines are driving them nuts?
Congressman Massa: Its – I have been, I would say, every weekend a different family in the office, talking with me.
Brian: Wow. And they’re wind farmers, some of them?
Congressman Massa: Yes. In fact one is the, one owns a home and he agreed to have a lease on his property and now he is saying – I have to move out of my property. It’s quite amazing. Not to mention the fact that as we talked about, hunters are now coming up and telling me that there’s no wildlife anywhere within distance, and I’m talking three to four miles, of any of these wind turbines because these wind turbines emit low frequency vibrations that drive the deer away. So if some foreign companies have their way you’ll never be able to hunt in the southern tier again because we won’t have any deer. And that’s, again, I know that sounds like an exaggeration.
Brian: Right.
Congressman Massa: But it’s not an exaggeration. Anybody who can tell you about animals in the wild will tell you they hear frequencies that humans cannot. And the low frequency vibrations from these industrial wind turbines drive the deer away. It’ll be the end of hunting for us.
Brian: Now, Congressmen Massa, back to what you said just a moment ago – you said these things don’t generate electricity at all?
Congressman Massa: Bingo. So, if the winds not blowing, they’re not generating. But if the wind is blowing, the electricity they’re generating, even now, is not going to come to New York it’s being shipped to other states like Massachusetts. And even now, we have a very limited capability technologically with the Independent System Operator, that’s the technical name of the individuals that oversee the incorporation of all electrical production into our New York Grid, a very limited ability to actually absorb the very unpredictable and highly variable nature of the electricity driven by wind turbines. Period.
Brian: Congressman Massa, when you met with those Prattsburgh officials on Friday afternoon, or Friday morning I think it was, what sort of impression did you walk away with when you left the meeting with those two Prattsburgh board members on Friday.
Congressman Massa: Well, first off, that they were very serious and concerned, that they were local officials of what I call gravitas. In other words, they’ve thought this through, they’ve asked the tough questions, they’ve asked for help from every, anyone and they told me that I was the only local, state or federal official that would sit down and talk to them.
Brian: I can believe that.
Congressman Massa: Now, this is an issue that I have been dealing with for years because I refuse to take the side of these very powerful foreign companies who are willing to do all kinds of things to get me to spout the party line for them. By the way, speaking of party lines, just about everybody that’s come up to me and asked me for this help is not of the same political party I am, because this, like every other issue that I deal with, cuts across party lines. This is about the future of this area. One of the last things we have, after everything else has been taken from us, is our environment, and now they want to take that too, and I will not rush willy-nilly down a road, a road by the way that has been torn up by the heavy tractors transporting these windmills and then we have to pay to repave them, I won’t go down that road without a fight, and that’s what I am trying to make happen.
Brian: We’re talking with Congressman Eric Massa on Connections here on AM 1480 WLEA. Congressman Massa, it seems to me that the two big issues right now in regards to wind energy are the problems with noise and the problem with corruption, with politicians having conflicts of interest. Some of these politicians out there, it seems like they’re just being out and out agents for wind companies in more than one way. One way would be bullying around anyone at these meetings who asks any, who questions at all, anything at all that the wind company wants. Another way would be for them to vote just down the line in every way that the wind company wants them to. As a matter of fact, at the last Prattsburgh meeting I attended, a man stepped forward and complained that one of the Prattsburgh Town Board members had given his name to a wind company person and this wind company person showed up at this Prattsburgh man’s house. And the Prattsburgh man was furious that his address and name had been given out to a wind company official by a Prattsburgh Town Board member for purposes of solicitation. Congressman, what’s going on here?
Congressman Massa: I think it’s a combination of opportunism and short- sightedness. I have been to these meetings. I have seen the bullying. You can’t – I am not easy to bully.
Brian: Right.
Congressman Massa: Many people will tell me they don’t like me because I’m too outspoken.
Brian: And you’re fast on your feet, yeah, I’ve seen you in a debate.
Congressman Massa: But on the other hand, I think that the voices of the people that have no voice need to be represented. Now, if in a free and fair and open and informed decision a town decides they want to do this, then great, that’s a local issue. But I want it to be free, fair and informed and when the information actually gets out there, people say – well, we don’t want that. Nobody, including me, is against the clean production of wind energy where it makes economic and technical sense, at all. It doesn’t here. We are being taken advantage of because we ‘re being treated like a bunch of country bumpkins by these foreign folks from European capitals, and it’s got to stop.
Brian: Congressman, one person said to me recently that you seem to be way ahead of most of your political colleagues on this subject of wind energy because most leaders at the federal level that we’ve seen are just acting like, basically, public relations guys for wind companies. Do you think that someday that wind will be looked on in some areas like ours as a fad and a phase that just didn’t work out?
Congressman Massa: Yeah, but the problem is when they look at that, we’re going to have hundreds of these industrial wind turbines broken and rusting and spilling oil that will cost hundreds of millions of dollars to take down and return those forests to what they were so we can go back to enjoying and attracting people for what they come here for. That’s the problem. So we shouldn’t have to wait to realize that a mistake has been made. If we had wind greater than 33 percent, which means that more than a third of the time the wind blew strong enough to actually turn the blades and make electricity, we could have some hope of having a real contribution to help stop environmental degradation, and yes that’s global warming, and to make inexpensive electricity. But, none of that electricity is staying here and those turbines are not generating electricity, so you can look at this from many different levels. And it’s very sad. And then, of course, I get painted as an out of control you know, aggressive, guy. Well, I’m going to be very aggressive when it comes to fighting for our local interests, because, candidly, nobody else is.
Brian: Congressman, it seems that you have a lot of knowledge about laws regarding wind power. Do you know who would be held responsible if a neighbor of a wind project suffered something like property value loss or their house was vibrating and, you know, they’re living next door to a wind turbine that’s causing their house to shake or the noise is terrible at night. Do you know who’s responsible for that – the wind company, the IDA, the town? Do you know who has to take responsibility?
Congressman Massa: Well, the immediate supposition is that the source of the problem is culpable for the property degradation. That’s generally the rule, but the wind companies then seek protection by saying – well, the town boards and the local towns gave us permission to do that, it’s their problem. The town board says – yeah, but the IDA gave us permission to do this, so it’s their problem. Then all of a sudden, a single family has to go running around, all up and down trying to get someone to help them when they are given the run around. This is exactly what happened in Cohocton. When people went to the town board and complained and said – listen, you guys voted to put these things up here, it exceeds the noise limit. The town board said – well, don’t talk to us, talk to the wind company. They went to the wind company, the wind company said – not our problem, the town board issued us a permit. And this is how you end up going in that circular run around that drives people crazy and they shouldn’t have to. So I’ve said – come see me, it’s my job to help where I can help, and I’m going to do that.
Transcript provided by Helderberg Community Watch
Rolling Black out from Wind Turbines
February 28, 2008 • Texas
Operators of the state power grid scrambled Tuesday night to keep the lights on after a sudden drop in West Texas wind threatened to cause rolling blackouts, officials confirmed Wednesday.
At about 6:41 p.m. Tuesday, grid operators ordered a shutoff of power to so-called interruptible customers, which are industrial electric users who have agreed previously to forgo power in times of crisis. The move ensured continued stability of the grid after power dropped unexpectedly.
Dottie Roark, a spokeswoman for the power grid, said a sudden uptick in electricity use coupled with other factors and a sudden drop in wind power caused the unexpected dip. As a result, grid officials immediately went to the second stage of its emergency blackout prevention plan.
“This situation means that there is a heightened risk of … regular customers being dropped through rotating outages, but that would occur only if further contingencies occur, and only as a last resort to avoid the risk of a complete blackout,” the State Operations Center said in an e-mail notice to municipalities.
Known as the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, the quasi-governmental agency that manages the power grid must ensure that power generation and power use remain constantly in balance. Otherwise, the whole grid can go dark, and the result is a systemwide blackout.
According to ERCOT, those interruptible customers who lost power Tuesday night had it restored by 9:40 p.m.. The interruptible customers are generally industrial businesses that pay less for electricity in exchange for an agreement that they will let ERCOT cut their power during shortages.
Some wholesale energy prices also spiked Tuesday evening — especially in West Texas. ERCOT also reported that the drop in wind power led to constraints on the system between the north part of the state and the west.
Kent Saathoff, vice president for system operations at ERCOT, said Tuesday’s event illustrates the inherent challenges associated with using wind power. Because the wind sometimes stops blowing without a moment’s notice, engineers at ERCOT must remain nimble enough to respond to resulting instability on the grid, he said.
“There is a major workshop going on at our office right now to discuss these very issues,” Saathoff said.
Although he said the emergency event was rare, it is not unprecedented. On April 16, 2006, for instance, a much more serious shortage prompted rolling blackouts across much of Texas. ERCOT officials at that time also ordered power curtailments for the state’s interruptible customers.
That 2006 event was prompted largely by scorching heat coupled with a shutdown of several generators for spring maintenance. This time the shortage was prompted largely by a near-total loss of wind generation, as well as a failure of several energy providers to reach scheduled production and the spike in electricity usage.
ERCOT reported that wind power production plummeted Tuesday evening from about 1,700 megawatts to about 300 megawatts. A single megawatt is enough electricity to power 500 to 700 homes under normal conditions.
The emergency procedures Tuesday night added about 1,100 megawatts to the grid over a 10-minute period, according to ERCOT.
Some critics have said that wind power, although providing a source of clean energy, also brings with it plenty of hidden costs and technical challenges. Besides requiring the construction of expensive transmission lines, the fickle nature of wind also means that the state cannot depend on the turbines to replace other sorts of generators.
“This is a warning to all those who think that renewable energy is the sole answer [to the state’s power needs],” said Geoffrey Gay, an attorney representing Fort Worth and other North Texas municipalities in utility issues. “We can’t put all our eggs in one basket when it comes to any form of generation. We need to consider the cost and the reliability issues, in addition to the environmental impact.”
Susan Williams Sloan, a spokeswoman for the American Wind Energy Association, said those technical challenges are not insurmountable. She said part of the solution is to locate turbines in diverse areas of the state. “When the wind is not blowing somewhere, it’s always blowing somewhere else,” she said.
Sloan also said that technological advances will make it easier in the future to forecast wind energy.
About 4,356 megawatts of wind turbines are currently installed in Texas, she said.
By R.A. Dyer
Staff Writer
Wind power growth limited by radar conflicts
The most well-known obstacles to installing wind turbines are complaints over their visual impact and the potential for bird and bat deaths. But conflict with radar systems have derailed over 9,000 megawatts worth of wind capacity--nearly as much as was installed in the U.S. last year.
February 3, 2010 by Martin LaMonica in Green Tech
WASHINGTON--The most well-known obstacles to installing wind turbines are complaints over their visual impact and the potential for bird and bat deaths. But conflict with radar systems have derailed over 9,000 megawatts worth of wind capacity--nearly as much as was installed in the U.S. last year.
"We're not going to put up more wind (in many locations) without conflict because radar systems and wind systems love exactly the same terrain...which is where the wind is at," said Gary Seifert, a program manager for renewable energy technologies at the Idaho National Laboratories, during a presentation at the RETECH conference here on Thursday. "It's really causing a challenge to meeting long-term goals."
The problem is wind farms create "cones of silence" above them, making it difficult for primary radar systems to detect airplanes when they fly over them, Seifert explained. Planes with transponders can communicate with air traffic control towers, but smaller planes don't all have transponders.
Because of radar issues, 2,100 megawatts of wind projects were held up, 5,100 megawatts were deferred, and 2,100 megawatts were abandoned, he said, citing data from a survey done by the American Wind Energy Association. Last year, 10,000 megawatts were installed in the U.S.
Seifert said research could lead to technical fixes to address the problem, including upgrading the software within radar systems to better discern between a spinning turbine blade and an airplane. Turbine blades can also become more "stealthy," or less reflective and detectable by radars systems, he added.
Working with stakeholders early on in a wind development project can also address issues.
But the problem is that it's unclear "who owns the liability of the sky," he said. Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, and the Federal Aviation Administration could all be involved in addressing the situation.
The fear for wind developers is that a delay to study radar-related complications could make a project unprofitable, he said.
Turbine is a Danger to Workers, Kids, Riders and Hikers according to Manual
I call on everyone to ask the town of Wellfleet and the Wellfleet Energy Commission why they are building this turbine in a National Park that is enjoyed by hikers, kids and riders when Vestas tells their own workers to stay a 1/4 mile away.
This is from Vestas V90 operator manual a slightly larger wind turbine.
2. Stay and Traffic by the Turbine
Wind Turbines Continue To Kill Birds
Golden Gate Audubon and four other local Audubon chapters sent a letter Jan. 28 to Alameda County demanding that the county ensure that wind turbines operating in the Altamont Pass remain shut down until the county implements a management plan that significantly reduces avian mortality resulting from wind turbine operations in the Altamont.
“Wind turbine operations in the Altamont Pass kill as many as 9,600 birds each year, including many species that are fully protected by state and federal laws,” said Mike Lynes, Conservation Director for Golden Gate Audubon. “While we support responsible development of alternative energy resources, we cannot maintain the status quo in the Altamont without risking local bird populations. If wind energy generation is to remain in the Altamont Pass, the old wind turbines that cause the most mortality must be replaced with new turbines that are safer for birds.”
According to the draft 2009 Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area Bird Fatality Study recently released by Alameda County, the wind companies that operate in the Altamont Pass have failed to significantly reduce the number of bird deaths that occur due to wind operations as required by a 2007 settlement agreement between the wind companies and the Audubon chapters. In this agreement, the companies were required to reduce bird deaths by 50 percent within three years, by November, 2009. Under the terms of the settlement, the parties must now implement a new management plan that will achieve the required reduction in bird deaths. According to Alameda County’s independent Scientific Review Committee, the best way to reduce bird mortality without removing wind power altogether is to remove these old generation turbines and replace them with new turbines that, if sited appropriately at Altamont, will result in fewer bird deaths.
According to the most recent data, wind operations in the Altamont Pass kill approximately 7,300 to 9,600 birds each year, including as many as 94 golden eagles, 477 American kestrels, 433 red-tailed hawks, and 718 burrowing owls. Species such as the golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, and the burrowing owl are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which makes any killing of the birds a violation of federal law.
Background
The Altamont Pass became one of the world’s largest wind farms in the 1980s as companies, spurred by enthusiasm for alternative energy and federal economic incentives, installed more than 5,500 wind turbines across 80 miles of the hilly grassland habitat. Despite the importance of the area for migratory and breeding birds, particularly hawks, owls and eagles, the wind turbines were installed without any environmental review. Thousands of birds were killed annually at Altamont; and in 2004 an independent study funded by the California Energy Commission affirmed what had been happening for two decades.
In 2005, Golden Gate Audubon, Santa Clara Valley Audubon, Mt. Diablo Audubon, Ohlone Audubon, and Marin Audubon joined with Californians for Renewable Energy (CARE) and sued Alameda County, alleging that its failure to conduct an environmental impact report assessing the impacts of the turbines on wildlife in the Altamont Pass was illegal and threatened wildlife. In 2007, the County and wind companies settled with Audubon and CARE, promising to reduce the killing of hawks, eagles and owls by 50 percent within three years.
According to Bob Power, executive director of the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, “It is clear that the existing, out-dated and poorly sited wind turbines at Altamont Pass continue to kill far too many birds, including rare and protected species like the golden eagle and burrowing owl. If wind turbine operations are to remain in the Altamont Pass, they must be modernized immediately; and, sited and operated to significantly reduce the killing of these birds.”