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
Why Wellfleet will get Wind Turbine Syndrome
Wellfleet, Massachusetts. Nice town out on Cape Cod. Ever been there?
Me neither. But it’s gotta be nice. National Seashore. Outstanding bird-watching. (Being a big migratory corridor, zillions of shorebirds come through.) Plus there’s marshes and ponds. And loads of really interesting people. What’s not to like?
Coming soon is one colossal wind turbine. Then it won’t be so nice. At least for people living within 2 km (1.25 miles) of that thing’s acoustic shadow.
The plan is for a Vestas V90 1.8/2.0 MW.
Wind turbines: ‘Eco-friendly’ – but not to eagles
Telegraph By Christopher Booker Published: 6:51PM GMT 13 Mar 2010
In all my scores of items over the years on why the obsession with wind turbines will be seen as one of the major follies of our age, there is one issue I haven’t touched on. The main practical objection to turbines, of course, is that they are useless, producing derisory amounts of electricity at colossal cost. (Yet the Government wants us to spend £100 billion on building thousands more of them which, even were it technically possible, would do virtually nothing to fill the fast-looming 40 per cent gap in our electricity supply.)
A feature of these supposedly environment-friendly machines that I haven’t mentioned, however, is their devastating effect on wildlife, notably on large birds of prey, such as eagles and red kites. Particularly disturbing is the extent to which the disaster has been downplayed by professional bodies, such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in Britain and the Audubon Society in the US, which should be at the forefront of exposing this outrage, but which have often been drawn into a conflict of interest by the large sums of money they derive from the wind industry itself.
There is plenty of evidence for the worldwide scale of this tragedy. The world’s largest and most carefully monitored wind farm, Altamont Pass in California, is estimated to have killed between 2,000 and 3,000 golden eagles alone in the past 20 years. Since turbines were erected on the isle of Smola, off Norway, home to an important population of white-tailed sea eagles, destruction is so great that last year only one chick survived. Thanks to wind farms in Tasmania, a unique sub-species of wedge-tailed eagles faces extinction. And here in Britain, plans to build eight wind farms on the Hebridean islands, among Scotland’s largest concentration of golden eagles, now pose a major threat to the species’ survival in the UK.
The real problem is that birds of prey and wind developers are both drawn, for similar reasons, to the same sites – hills and ridges where the wind provides lift for soaring birds and heavily subsidised profits for developers. Eagles may thus be drawn from hundreds of square miles to particular wind farms. And, as can be seen from the YouTube video of a vulture circling above a turbine in Crete (Google “Fatal accident with vulture on windmill”), the vortices created by blade tips revolving at up to 200mph can destabilise such large birds, plunging them into a fatal collision.
This ecological disaster has been abundantly documented and publicised, not least in Europe by Save The Eagles International, run by Mark Duchamp, a retired French businessman living in Alicante. Spain has one of the three highest concentrations of turbines in Europe and, according to the Spanish Ornithological Society (see Mr Duchamp’s Iberica 2000 website), they may be killing up to a million birds a year. But he focuses his campaign on what he sees as the disturbing failure to protect birds by the bodies whose job it is to do so, from the RSPB to the European Commission.
In the US, the local branch of the Audubon Society withdrew its opposition to a giant wind farm off Cape Cod after a substantial sum of money was promised for ornithologists to monitor its effects on bird life. In Britain, the RSPB claims to keep a critical eye on those effects, but nevertheless urges a major expansion of wind farms, on the grounds that “climate change is the most significant threat to biodiversity on the planet”. The RSPB receives £10 from the wind-farm builder Scottish & Southern Energy for every customer signing up for electricity under its “RSPB Energy” scheme. Ornithologists also derive a good income from developers for providing impact assessments for planning applications or for monitoring existing wind farms for bird collisions.
Various official bodies, such as Scottish National Heritage (SNH), are responsible in law for protecting bird populations. One particular scheme that sparked a long and fierce controversy – and was mildly opposed by the RSPB – was a wind farm now under construction at Edinbane on the Isle of Skye, on hills known to attract young golden eagles and sea eagles. A first run of the SNH “collision model” showed that, over 25 years, this was likely to kill 137 golden eagles, nearly 10 times the permissible conservation limit of 15. But when SNH revised a key parameter, the “avoidance rate”, from 95 per cent to 98 per cent, and the developer removed nine turbines from its plan, the result was that predicted eagle deaths fell to exactly 15, allowing the scheme to go ahead.
Details of what Mr Duchamp calls “the scandal of the Edinbane wind farm” are included in a complaint he has lodged with the European Commission (also available on his Iberica 2000 website), asking Brussels to be much more rigorous in enforcing its own environmental legislation, such as the Birds and Habitats Directives, which are widely disregarded by national authorities. The Commission did order the Scottish Executive to veto a 178-turbine wind farm on the Hebridean island of Lewis (for once, strongly opposed by the RSPB) because its devastating effect on eagles and other protected birds would breach its directives. But many similarly damaging schemes on Lewis and elsewhere are still being driven forward as part of Edinburgh’s mad dream that 40 per cent of Scotland’s electricity should come from wind and other renewable sources within 10 years.
Large birds of prey are far from being the only victims of wind farms, and the thousands of miles of power lines needed to connect them to the grid. A study cited by Birdlife International shows that, each year, power lines can be responsible for up to 800 bird kills per mile. Vast numbers of other birds are killed by turbines each year, as are countless thousands of bats, which also seem to be drawn to wind farms, and which recent studies have shown die with their lungs distended by air pressure from the blades.
For the rest of us, it is a criminal offence to kill bats and golden eagles. But it seems that all those under the spell of the infatuation with windpower and global warming can claim exemption from the law. In return for ludicrously small amounts of very expensive electricity, wildlife must pay the price for their dreams.
Seagen Passes 1000 Operational Hours
SeaGen, the world-leading prototype commercial tidal energy turbine designed and deployed by Marine Current Turbines Ltd (MCT) has exceeded 1000 hours of operation in Northern Ireland’s Strangford Lough. It is the first and only tidal current energy system in the world to have achieved this milestone.
The 1.2MW tidal turbine, the largest megawatt scale grid-connected marine renewable energy system in the world, has so far delivered 800MWh into the National Grid with an average Capacity Factor of 66%.
This high capacity factor means that the tidal turbine delivers energy on average at the same rate to be expected from a wind turbine of approximately twice the rated power. Furthermore, the output is totally predictable. This performance has exceeded expectations largely thanks to the intensity of the Strangford Lough tide race and MCT’s own conservative design predictions.
Martin Wright, Managing Director of Marine Current Turbines said: “We are delighted with SeaGen’s performance. Passing the 1000 hours mark is a great milestone which not only demonstrates the potential for tidal power, but will also help to reinforce confidence in extracting energy from the seas in the future.”
Since starting operation in late 2008, SeaGen’s operation has been limited by its licence conditions to daylight hours, and it is only since the autumn (2009) that SeaGen has operated automatically and without the presence of “marine mammal observers” on board. It was this change that has allowed a considerable increase in SeaGen’s operational hours.
The company is now preparing SeaGen for more intensive operation and it is hoped to gain consent for continuous “24/7” operation before the summer. In the next few weeks, MCT also plans to run SeaGen under supervision of specialists from DNV (Det Norsk Veritas), one of the world’s leading marine classification societies, to obtain independent verification of its performance.
Martin Wright added: “SeaGen is operating as it was designed to do. Crucially, the operational experience and data that we are gaining every day is hugely valuable as we work towards deploying the UK’s first tidal farm within the next two years. SeaGen is a commercial scale prototype and already we are incorporating into the design of the next machines subtle changes to improve maintainability and reliability which are vital for commercial generation.”
Last week (February 2nd), MCT secured £2.7m from the Carbon Trust’s Marine Renewables Proving Fund to support the company’s evaluation and operation of SeaGen as a precursor to the deployment of a tidal farm by MCT in UK waters.
Notes to Editors:
1. Marine Current Turbines Ltd (www.marineturbines.com) is based in Bristol, England. The company was established in 2000 and its principal corporate shareholders include BankInvest, Carbon Trust Investments, EDF Energy, ESB International, Guernsey Electricity and High Tide. The company has a power purchase agreement with Ireland’s ESB Independent Energy for SeaGen’s output.
2. In September 2009, MCT was ranked the world’s top tidal energy company in The Guardian/Clean Tech Global 100 Survey and in June 2009 won Renewable Energy Developer of the Year in the UK Renewable Energy Association Annual Awards.
3. The SeaGen turbine is subject to a rigorous monitoring programme imposed under its licensing conditions to ensure it does not threaten the marine life of Strangford Lough where it is located. At present, SeaGen is still only permitted to operate in daylight hours and has to be continuously monitored by an observer on-shore using sonar to see that the marine life, in particular seals and porpoises, are not at risk from the 16m diameter twin rotors which rotate at about 14 rpm.
4. SeaGen is accredited by OFGEM as a UK power station and so is a recipient of Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs).
http://www.marineturbines.com/3/news/article/29/s eagen_passes_1000_operational_hours/
Study of Wind Turbines effect on Real Estate Values
This is a study of the impact that wind turbines have on residential property value. The wind turbines that are the focus of this study are the larger turbines being approximately 389ft tall and producing 1.0+ megawatts each.
Study of Wind Turbines effect on Real Estate Values
Wind Turbine Current Location on Wind Map
The first Wellfleet wind turbine of possibly many is currently planned for one of the least wind stops in Wellfleet, in the National Seashore. This is due to conflicting issues such as noise, danger and the rights to park owned land and a hesitance to place the wind turbine in the harbor. Hence the Wellfleet Energy Committee plans to spend a large amount of town money to place the noisy wind turbine in one of the least windy spots in Wellfleet. Most likely it will never meet the goals and be a costly adventure in Wind Energy by completely inexperienced wind idealists playing with being wind energy operator. Once the warranty is over, who is responsible for the costs of equipment and experts? Already 20 year turbines are breaking down after 6-8 years forcing costly replacements. People near wind farms repeatedly observe turbine ideal for months waiting for experts and parts or mechanical work ongoing.
The first turbine will be more than a 1/2 mile from the area where their meteorological tower was placed. The tower was broken much of the time and sited near the edge of a bluff acting as a wind block when the wind was from the east. The validity of the wind data from the Met tower is quiet impaired. What a tragic waste of resources in a misguided effort at conservation while ruining perfectly good park land.
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. |
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
Understanding CO2 Emissions With Wind Turbines
At first blush Wind Energy makes total sense...the wind is blowing and if we erect a big turbine then all will be good. Well not so good if you build in a National Park, but if you were responsible and built in a proper location. You would have free energy(less the cost of turbine, maintenance, etc) and CO2 will be reduced. Wellfleet's $5 Million dollar turbine is super costly, but they claim that CO2 will be reduced. The problem is the wind only blows sometimes and you still expect to have electricity. Did you ever think how your typical electric grid will respond to a Wind Turbine going on and off? Did you ever think that maybe a wind turbine actually might generate more CO2 because the electric company has to be ready all the time for the moment the wind stops.
The following is a bit complex but if you really want to understand what happens with CO2 emissions when the Electric Grid has to respond to the wind turbines producing power intermittently.
Wind Integration: Incremental Emissions from Back-Up Generation Cycling (Part V: Calculator Update)
Three more Cape Cod towns along with 11 more get Wind Turbine Funding.
Three Cape projects total $450,000
The Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (CEC) today announced grants supporting 20 new wind energy projects under the Commonwealth Wind Community-Scale Wind initiative.
The six projects receiving design and construction grants are in the towns of Charlton, Plymouth, Brewster, Harwich, and Milton. Awards for the 14 feasibility studies go to the town of Auburn, Bristol Community College, Chesterfield-Goshen Regional School District, Endicott College, the town of Gardner, Gordon College, the town of Lenox, the MBTA, Nantucket Public Schools, Spencer East Brookfield Regional School District, the town of Northborough, and the city of Salem.
BREWSTER: 3,300-kW (2 Wind Turbines)
Award: $200,000
The town of Brewster will build two 1.65 megawatt (MW) wind turbines at Commerce Park, an industrial zoned area. The proposed wind turbines will provide power for the Town to offset electrical expenses and will be an economically meaningful renewable energy project for surrounding towns located on the Cape peninsula.
Cape & Vineyard Electric Cooperative
3,300-kW (2 Wind Turbines)
Award: $200,000
HARWICH: CVEC will own the turbines and will be responsible for financing, overseeing the overall design, permitting, construction, operation and maintenance of the project. The town will be the primary user of the electricity and the remaining kWh shall be allocated to CVEC member towns and counties under the MA Net Metering Regulations.
HARWICH: 3,000-kW (2 Wind Turbines)
Award: $200,000
The town of Harwich will build two 1.5 megawatt (MW) wind turbines at the Town Water Department. The proposed wind turbines will provide the majority of the town's electricity needs and highlight the use of renewable energy for surrounding towns on the Cape peninsula.
CVEC will own the turbines and will be responsible for financing, overseeing the overall design, permitting, construction, operation and maintenance of the project
Harwich will be the primary user of the output. The remaining kWh shall be allocated to CVEC member towns and counties under the MA Net Metering Regulations.
YARMOUTH: 600 kW Wind Turbine
Award: $45,000
The Department of Public Works (DPW) Water Division Headquarters, the site of the town's new wastewater treatment facility (WWTF), is to be studied for a possible wind turbine project. A meteorological tower was constructed on-site in August 2009 to collect a year's worth of wind data because this site is thought to be favorable with respect to the wind resource.
The new WWTF construction will be completed in Fall 2013. It is proposed that the feasibility study, design, and construction of the wind turbine take place concurrently with the WWTF development so that both facilities are brought online around the same time. A 600 kilowatt (kW) turbine is intended for the site and is projected to produce 36% of the energy consumed by the WWTF once all phases of construction are complete.
Safe setbacks: How far should wind turbines be from homes?
Let's start with what one manufacturer considers to be safe for its workers. The safety regulations for the Vestas V90, with a 300-ft rotor span and a total height of 410 feet, tell operators and technicians to stay 1,300 feet from an operating turbine -- over 3 times its total height -- unless absolutely necessary.
That already is a much greater distance than many regulations currently require as a minimum distance between wind turbines and homes, and it is concerned only with safety, not with noise, shadow flicker, or visual intrusion.
In February 2008, a 10-year-old Vestas turbine with a total height of less than 200 feet broke apart in a storm. Large pieces of the blades flew as far as 500 meters (1,640 feet) -- more than 8 times its total height.
The Fuhrländer turbine planned for Barrington, R.I., is 328 feet tall with a rotor diameter of 77 meters, or just over 250 feet (sweeping more than an acre of vertical air space). According to one news report, the manufacturer recommends a setback of 1,500 feet -- over 4.5 times the total height. In Wisconsin, where towns can regulate utility zoning for health and safety concerns, ordinances generally specify a setback of one-half mile (2,640 ft) to residences and workplaces.
But that may just be enough to protect the turbines from each other, not to adequately protect the peace and health of neighbors.
When part of an array, turbines should be at least 10 rotor diameters apart to avoid turbulence from each other. In the case of the proposed 77-meter rotor span in Barrington, that would be 770 meters, or 2,525 feet. For the Gamesa G87, that's 2,850 feet; for the Vestas V90, 2,950 feet -- well over half a mile.
Jane and Julian Davis, whose home is 930 m (3,050 ft) from the Deeping St. Nicholas wind energy facility in England, were forced by the noise to rent another home in which to sleep. In July 2008 they were granted a 14% council tax reduction in recognition of their loss. It appears in this case that the combination of several turbines creates a manifold greater disturbance.
Since the human ear (not to mention the sensory systems of other animals or the internal organs of bats, which, it is now emerging, are crushed by the air pressure) is more sensitive than a giant industrial machine, doubling that would be a reasonable precaution (at least for the human neighbors -- it still doesn't help wildlife).
Sound experts Rick James and George Kamperman recommend a minimum 1 km (3,280 ft) distance in rural areas. James himself suggests that 2 km is better between turbines and homes, and Kamperman proposes 2-3 km as a minimum. German marketer Retexo-RISP also suggests that "buildings, particulary housing, should not be nearer than 2 km to the windfarm"; and that was written when turbines were half the size of today's models.
Both the French Academy of Medicine and the U.K. Noise Association recommend a minimum of one mile (or 1.5 km, just under a mile) between giant wind turbines and homes. Trempealeau County in Wisconsin implemented such a setback. National Wind Watch likewise advocates a minimum one-mile setback.
Dr. Nina Pierpont, the preeminent expert on "wind turbine syndrome", recommends 1.25 miles (2 km). That is the minimum the Davises insist on as safe as well. In France, Marjolaine Villey-Migraine concluded that the minimum should be 5 km (3 miles).
Wind Turbine Noise Explained
From:
A Responsible Wind Siting Policy
Please read the State of Wyoming Wind Turbine Guidelines. A beautiful
example of owning up to responsibilities of conservation! What exactly would
the town of Wellfleet, CCNS and state protect?http://www.voiceforthewild.org/WindPowerReport.pdf
Exclude from wind power siting consideration: National Parks, Monuments,
and Wildlife Refuges; USFS Roadless..and even "citizens proposed wilderness"
OrNational Parks and Monuments
Units of the National Park system (including National Parks and NationalMonuments) are managed under a strong legal mandate which
directs the federal government to "protect and preserve" these
lands and their natural resources "for the use and enjoyment of
the public." National Park units are precluded from industrial
development (although commercial development for tourism is
permitted. Wind energy development would not be allowed by
law in these units regardless of their wind energy potential, and
key viewsheds visible from park overlooks should be protected
from visible wind energy development as well.