Faced with news that its wind turbines were killing thousands of bats at two wind farms on Appalachian mountain ridgelines, the nation’s largest wind power company reacted quickly. The company, FPL Energy, barred scientists from pursuing follow-up work, pulled their $75,000 contribution from the research cooperative studying bat mortality and ended the doctoral work of a graduate student who had… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (73)Page 1 of 1 pagesI am willing to lose a few bats to get out of the Middle East. No more guns for oil! Ever!
I wonder - couldn’t one put sound emitters (perhaps ultrasonic for the bats) that would keep birds and bats away? Or strobe lights (maybe some sort of smell)? This seems to be a tractable problem. . .
Posted by wolf on Sep 2, 2005 at 8:48 AM The problem is that most people who are against wind power are comparing it to nothing, when they should really be comparing it to existing electrical power plants that burn fossil fuels. Those facilities are causing much more severe and long-term damage to these species than the wind turbines that would replace them. The problem is that the relatively few casualities that result form turbines are direct and immediate. But folks need to be smarter than that when analysing the true cost-benefit of renewable energy sources like wind power.
Posted by Chris Cooper on Sep 2, 2005 at 9:40 AM The key to responsible development of wind energy is to evaluate the destruction that turbines cause versus the potential benefits. Well meaning people want to do something to address climate change and pollution, but it is a mistake to grab at an energy source without understanding the hazards, which could be as or more detrimental than the source it is intended to replace. In addition it is important to remember that what works without negative impacts in one place may have serious negative impacts in another location.
Areas of concern are bird and bat impacts and the poor science that sometimes results when there is a conflict of interest. The scientists need to be free of conflict of interest and wind plant owners need to open facilities to qualified scientists. Otherwise we will loose valuable public resources and it will be impossible to improve the technology or to even know where improvement is needed. We know that bat mortality is a serious problem on Eastern ridges. Bat Conservation International has facilitated good research that has established a serious ecological problem. Now Florida Power and Light has a moral obligation to open the turbine sites for further research. Bird migration patterns along eastern ridges and bird mortality at wind sites needs to be more thoroughly studied before wind facilities occupy hundreds of miles of eastern ridges. Mountain ridges are some of the last wild lands in the east and they support many bird species that are in decline because of habitat losses over the years. It is important that we carefully evaluate the tradeoffs of continuing to destroy the wild spaces that are part of the cultural and ecological heritage we all enjoy. Many are coming to question whether the small amount of energy produced by wind is wise on eastern ridges considering the large footprint and loss of remaining unfragmented forested ridges.
Posted by Lucile on Sep 2, 2005 at 11:31 AM This is only true if that cost-benefit considers what the alternative energy sources are. Where are the Bat Conservation International studies that document bat mortality as a result of air pollution and ecological desturction wrought by filthy fossil fuel and nuclear consumption.
As for the “small amount of energy produced by wind,” you are parroting (wrong) talking points of the same industries that are responsible for the ecological damage you deride. In fact, a Stanford University study over 5 years ago found a global wind energy potential 40 times (40!) the amount of electricity currently consumed word wide.
There are vast amounts of energy waiting to be tapped from the sun, the wind, and the tides. We shouldn’t let hyperbolic claims about a bat mortality to extend our use of archaic and lethal energy sources like coal, oil and nuclear.
Posted by Chris Cooper on Sep 2, 2005 at 12:35 PM 1. Oil is an insignificant source of electricity in the U.S. (providing less than 3%). But wind may increase that amount, because, oil typically powers precisely the quick-response plants that would be more required as wind power, with its highly fluctuating output, is added.
2. Opponents to industrial wind power do in fact compare it to other sources. First of all, they suggest that the huge amount of plant needed to produce even a tiny amount of unpredictable power is not worth it. They suggest that the money spent to build wind plants (adding to the industrialization of our landscape) could be used to clean up existing plants and support conservation and efficiency—thus reducing much more pollution than wind power ever could. The opponents do not deny the ill effects of fossil and nuclear fuels—they recognize that wind will have not effect on them.
3. Similarly, if pollution and other ecological destruction is killing bats and birds, then why build wind towers—adding if not to pollution than certainly to habitat loss and ecological degradation and letting the other pollution and destruction continue anyway?
4. The hyperbolic claims are those that point to the sun and say it’s so simple.
Posted by Marnie on Sep 2, 2005 at 8:19 PM The problem is BushCo and Cheneyburton and like cabals whom gain immesurably by fossil fuels. We know they don’t give a damn about human life let alone those of bats. Moronic, evil, heartless; can’t decide the most appropriate term for their policies. Megalomania...by George, I think you’ve got it!
namasté, neilemac
Posted by neilemac on Sep 3, 2005 at 8:26 AM Dear Marnie:
1. I claim, accurately, that untapped wind resources can replace fossil fuel-burning ELECTRICTY plants and that any accurate cost-benefit analysis of wind must compare it to the ecological degradation wrought by these inefficient combustion systems.
2. Your claim that a huge amount of plants are needed to produce a small amount of energy is flat out wrong. First, you ignore the Stanford University study that finds there is enough wind energy potential to power the Earth 40 times over. Second, a study by none other than our own Department of Energy reveals that, less than 6/10th of ONE percent of the land in the contiguous 48 states can power 15% of the nation’s energy demand...and that’s even before we’ve considered things like offshore wind generation. Compare that to all the land that is devoured by fossil-fuel powered plants and all the mining operations needed to fuel them.
3. Your claims are old and ill-informed. The most modern windmill designs adapt to fluctuations and can anticipate daily and seasonal wind supplies. In additon, using wind energy to produce electrolytic hydrogen means we can store the wind for when it is not blowing. Hydrogen is the universal clean energy storage system. We don’t have to resort to dirty, polluting back-up generation.
4. I never say it’s simple. But REPLACING antiquated combustion facilities with clean, inexhaustable wind energy systems is truly POSSIBLE and makes sense for saving bats, birds and every other living thing on our planet. Let’s not let a lack of imagination force us into living with the status quo.
Posted by Chris Cooper on Sep 6, 2005 at 8:21 AM 1. It was “wolf” who specified oil. Coal and natural gas, and of course nuclear fission, are our primary sources of electricity.
2. There is a difference in the energy in the wind and the energy that can be extracted from the wind. Even the largest turbine rotors are interacting with a very small proportion of the wind around them, and they cannot be placed close together. The current average is 1 MW of wind capacity per 50 acres. And producing at capacity is itself rare—the self-reported average annual production in the U.S. is around 27% of capacity. Calculated from electricity actually used, it may be more like 13%.
3. A recent report from one of Germany’s grid operators describes the unpredictability of even extensive wind plant, so that backup generators have to be kept on line for the maximum amount of wind plant output which may drop to nothing in a matter of hours.
A study by the Irish grid determined that the more wind plant is added, the less contribution it makes, leveling off to none above 15-20% penetration.
Hydrogen storage is indeed a solution, as is pumped hydro, but you’re introducing yet another step of inefficiency, further reducing wind’s possible contribution (or requiring even larger plant).
4. Have any combustion facilities in Denmark, Spain, or Germany (the world’s leaders in wind “penetration") been replaced with wind energy systems? As far as I have been able to determine, none have. Even the trade groups aren’t able to point to any such data.
I am all for imagination, but fantasy is another matter—especially when it threatens rural and wild landscapes and distracts us from the very problems it purports to solve.
Posted by Marnie on Sep 6, 2005 at 10:38 AM It seems you’re holding wind energy to higher standards than all other forms of production. And that is my point. If we require renewable energy production to be perfect, we will always resort to the status quo - a system that is a greater threat to rural and wild landscapes, is much more inefficient and much more costly than new alternatives.
1. I think your stats are either unreliable or old...the most recent statistics (2004) on modern turbine design show that they are capturing upwards of 85% of available wind energy. And remember, even if we can only capture 1/40th of the available wind energy, it would be enough to power the entire world (Stanford).
2. Your Irish study makes ZERO sense. I don’t know if there’s something unique about Ireland, but even our own DOE, under Bush, admits that wind energy potential in the United States - even given existing techonologies - is greater than total U.S. electricity consumption.
3. Even if hydrogen storage as a solution to the variability of wind power adds another layer of complexity, wind wouldn’t come CLOSE to the inefficiencies inherent in fossil fuel or nuclear power plants.
4. The power generated by wind (and other renewable energy) facilities ‘REPLACES’ dirty energy facilities in that it meets the demand for electricity that would have otherwise had to be met through additional combustion at existing fossil fuel plants OR through NEW plants. I don’t need to show that having a wind plant led to the CLOSING of a fossil fuel plant to prove that wind energy REPLACED what would otherwise have been produced through technology that is INFINITELY more damaging to the environment.
I am all for increased efficiency and decreased consumption. But, those efforts can be paired with cleaner, more efficient electricity production and, unless you have a better alternative, your (weak) arguments against these newer, cleaner, renwable sources of energy are only excuses to continue and expand even worse forms of production. That can’t be good for bats, birds or anyone else.
Posted by Chris Cooper on Sep 6, 2005 at 11:10 AM It can easily be shown that where the use of natural gas for electricity increased in the past couple of decades coal use decreased. Or where combined heat and power plants are used fuel consumption falls. But ask for the same evidence that wind does what it is claimed to do, and you get only theory (a nice word for fantasy).
Or in an attempt to disarm, the wind advocate ignores the lack of a positive record and demands a better alternative. A better alternative is of course not to waste our money and landscape on a boondoggle. That is not to deny the consequences of fossil and nuclear fuel use. It is recognition that use of those fuels are barely impacted by the erection of wind turbines. That is not good for birds, bats, and other people, but wind power doesn’t appear to change anything for the better.
Another note about hydrogen: Since it is typically trotted out as the redeemer of erratic wind power production (not that wind power is erratic, though), and since large-scale hydrogen storage is way way off, why should we build wind turbines now?
Posted by Marnie on Sep 6, 2005 at 2:24 PM This just in:
“Wind energy in Germany is still backed up by coal. For every 1 megawatt of wind capacity, German power companies will install 0.6 megawatts of coal generation as a backup source, said
[Bernhard] Hartmann [a vice president at global management consulting firm AT Kearney].”--Interfax China, Sept. 6, 2005
That is to say, wind power is actually driving an expansion of coal plant.
Posted by Marnie on Sep 6, 2005 at 2:37 PM I have to question your motives for even posting such pablum, Marnie. CLEARLY, as I’ve posted, even WITH the coal generation as back-up, we’re talking about wind production REPLACING electricity that would OTHERWISE have to be produced through 100% coal combustion. So how is wind “driving” an expansion of coal? That’s absurd.
It’s hard to tell from your post if what you are advocating is expanded natural gas or nothing. Wind power should not have to be a panacea in order for it to be a clear alternative to our current lethal, laughably inefficient and horribly expensive systems of energy porduction. The fact that CURRENT wind capacity makes barely a dent in the ecological pollution wrought by fossil fuel combustion is hardly a reason to REJECT its expansion. If anything, it’s a reason to EXPAND WIND PRODUCTION.
And on another note: large scale hydrogen production is not needed to solve the variability of wind energy. The hyrdogen would be produced and stored on-site. That’s the point. Decentralized electrolytic hydrogen production provides the key to many of the hurdles that fossil-fuel-power apologists have used for years to pooh-pooh the achievable transition to clean, renewable sources of energy.
Posted by Chris Cooper on Sep 6, 2005 at 2:59 PM That new coal plant, which must be run on constant standby, would not have been built if the wind turbines were not built.
After posting my 3:24 response, I thought of one other typical mode of response to wind advocates: questioning of motives, even as they support military contractors like GE and Halliburton and financial giants like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase. Another typical response is to caricature the opposing argument. I don’t expect an new or alternative technology to be a “panacea,” but I do expect it to have a measurable positive impact that clearly outweighs its negative impacts.
Current wind capacity in Denmark, Spain, and Germany is in fact quite significant. Yet no benefit is described except in the same abstractions as before the wind turbines were built. A sign of the madness is that you take this shortcoming as a need to expand rather than to pause and re-assess.
Finally, if you believe large-scale hydrogen storage isn’t the problem, then how can you also believe that wind power can make a significant contribution?
Posted by Marnie on Sep 6, 2005 at 3:21 PM I should add that a plant run as back-up is less efficient and therefore more polluting than one run for base load.
Posted by Marnie on Sep 6, 2005 at 3:23 PM Let’s review:
1. According to Stanford and our own DOE, there is more than enough wind energy potential in the U.S. to power the entire country. That, of course, means we would have to expand wind power generation.
2. If we powered even half the country with wind, that is power that would not OTHERWISE be generated by burning nuclear or fossil fuel, which have detrimental impacts on the environment (bats, bird, etc). Wind generation REPLACES dirty combustion. That is a measurable, positive impact on the environment, not some “abstraction” that is a “sign of madness.”
3. On-site electrolytic hydrogen production BOTH solves any problems of variability AND replaces the use of dirty combustion technology as “back-up” generation. Essentially, hydrogen allows you to ‘save the wind’ for when it’s not blowing.
All of this possible RIGHT NOW...not some distant future. The technology is already available. The true sign of madness is continuing to do the same thing and expecting the results to be any different. Wind energy is no panacea. But it is a practical, reasonable alternative to dirty combustion generation that is heaps better for our environment (and the bats that inhabit it).
Posted by Chris Cooper on Sep 6, 2005 at 4:24 PM “The true sign of madness is continuing to do the same thing and expecting the results to be any different.” Isn’t that what I said?
There is no evidence that wind power replaces dirty energy to any worthwhile degree.
The experiment has been done—in Denmark, Spain, and Germany—and nothing that you say should happen has in fact happened.
Posted by Marnie on Sep 6, 2005 at 5:26 PM This is not rocket science. It’s pretty simple. Any power generated through wind is power NOT generated through the combustion of fossil fuels or from nuclear ractors. And the fact that there has only been a small amount generated through wind (your “to any worthwhile degree” comment)is not a reason to reject wind, but a reason to EXPAND it. And, finally, in the absense of a better alternative, your rejection of wind is a defense of more combustion...which is worse for the environment, bats, and ultimately everyone’s wallet. That is my definition of madness.
Posted by Chris Cooper on Sep 7, 2005 at 7:55 AM Bats serve important ecological functions. Their very existence would be threatened in the central Appalachian mountains if just the presently proposed wind turbines are actually built. Tuttle estimates that 58,000 bats would be killed yearly in an area of the Central Appalachians with just a 70-mile radius if commercial turbines are allowed to go forward, and these numbers are unacceptable. Until the reason for bat mortality is fully understood and mitigation is in place, we should not continue to build commercial wind turbines on wooded ridges in the east. That is clearly in the best interest of the environnment, bats and peoples wallet.
Posted by Lucile on Sep 7, 2005 at 9:27 AM I agree that bats serve important ecological functions. That’s why I’m concerned about the ecological damage to their environments from the mining and combustion of fossil fuels in the central Appalachian mountains. I have yet to see groups concerned about bats call for a study into the far greater devestation wrought by these forms of energy production.
Posted by Chris Cooper on Sep 7, 2005 at 9:37 AM Denmark claims that 20-25% of its electricity comes from wind. That is not a small amount. What is a small amount is how much it has reduced the use of other sources. (It would save a lot of time if you read more carefully.)
That is a fact. The simplistic one-for-one displacement is wishful thinking that is disproved by actual experience.
As to your concern for bats, conservation groups have long fought the ill effects of “traditional” energy and other development. Industrial wind power is a new threat, which is why you hear about it more. As the story that triggered these comments make clear, the wind industry certainly isn’t concerned except that letting outsiders in to discover the facts has sullied their green mask.
You may be interested to learn that Frank Maisano, who has worked against reducing greenhouse gas emissions, for coal-burning generators against EPA standards, and now for energy lobbyist Bracewell & Giuliani, has been active in supporting wind development in Highland County, Virginia. Seems the coal industry has begun to recognize their great distraction value.
Posted by Marnie on Sep 7, 2005 at 11:04 AM I’m not sure how many times I can repeat and you can ignore the argument that every mW of electricity generated by wind is a mW NOT generated by fossil fuel combustion. I do not need to prove that every mW of wind led to a DECREASE in a mW from fossil fuels to claim accurately that there is a very significant displacement affect. Where else did the energy come from??
AND...you’re just wrong about Denmark. A commitment to wind energy allowed the Denmark to commit to the highest level of CO2 reduction under Kyoto and that commitment led, in turn, to changing the original design of the Avedoere II power plant from a fossil fuel facility to one that used a mixture of generation, including wind and other renewables. And that’s only ONE example of wind generation facilitating the ACTUAL conversion of what was to be a fossil fuel plant.
And as an aside: Yes, I know Frankie “the Weasel” Maisano. We both got our start via the same guy - Scott Segal, the infamous Bracewell energy lobbyist. But you know the old saying, keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
Now, if we can put the guilt-by-association accusations behind…
I agree that the wind energy should allow the bat conservation groups in. But my point has always been that the bat folks are holding wind power to a much higher standard than the energies it seeks to replace. As my first post suggested, we all need to be smarter in making cost-benefit analyses of better energy alternatives.
Posted by Chris Cooper on Sep 7, 2005 at 2:16 PM Every day I drive my son to school and later drive to pick him up. If I start taking a walk before lunch, every mile I walk is a mile I don’t drive. Considering the price of gas, that walk sure will help!
Posted by Marnie on Sep 7, 2005 at 3:49 PM By that logic, Marnie, folks are consuming energy simply because it’s there. Do you think for one second that, if consumers demanded more energy, fossil fuel and other dirty industries wouldn’t be fighting to provide it? We’re not talking about a society that ONLY drives to school in the morning and afternoon. They are CONSTANTLY driving! And any walking at ALL would be a marked improvement.
Posted by Chris Cooper on Sep 8, 2005 at 8:22 AM If your (now convoluted) analogy is trying to argue that there’s an “if you generate it, they will consume it” mentality...then all the more reason to generate energy from green, renewable resources. Because, in their absense, all of that energy would come from dirty sources. It’s not as though increased demand would just go unmet or that tehre would not be increased demand simply because there was limited supply. That’s just silly.
One can be FOR green energy alternatives AND for energy efficiency and conservation at the same time, you know.
Posted by Chris Cooper on Sep 8, 2005 at 9:37 AM My analogy was to illustrate the fallacy of your “every MW from wind is a MW not from fossil fuels” reasoning that you don’t have to show a reduction in fossil fuel use to justify industrializing the landscape with wind turbines.
If you had read it more carefully, you would have noticed that the addition of walking to my daily routine had no impact on the driving.
That is, if you argue that wind power can supply a significant amount of our energy needs, then I think you do have to show the reason for that conclusion (as can easily be done with natural gas), namely a clear impact on other sources (let alone pollution or greenhouse gas emissions).
It’s nice to have such faith as yours but when you’re talking about turning rural and wild areas into sprawling power plants (50 acres/MW capacity), I think you’d agree that you need real evidence, not just a sales pitch, to justify it.
Posted by Marnie on Sep 8, 2005 at 1:42 PM And it’s your analogy that proves my point. If you are driving all the time...all day every day...then every mile you are driving via wind power is a mile you are NOT driving by burning gasoline. I don’t have to prove that turning to wind means you give up your car in order to prove a very significant trade-off between wind and fossil fuel combustion. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the only determinental effect of combustion facilities is the facicilities themselves ("industrializing the landscape” as you put it). Hardly. There are many other environmental effects, not the least of which is the massive disruption to bat environments from the extractive mining necessary to find the fuel to burn in those facilities. It doesn’t require “faith” to know that current ways of producing energy are more damaging in the long-run to the “rural and wild areas” that your so keen on protecting.
Posted by Chris Cooper on Sep 8, 2005 at 1:54 PM I think we can all agree about two things:
1.) Wind power is cleaner and more energy efficient than burning fossil fuels.
2.) The wind industry is relatively new and has a lot of potential.
Perhaps the focus should be on how we can encourage FPL to accept the resposibility of implementing their technologies and instead of cutting funding to scientists, working with them to find a mutually positive solution. After all, I would argue that a company utilizing a green technology that isn’t worried about having a green bottom line is trying to implement an end without the means.
Posted by Jeremías on Sep 8, 2005 at 2:53 PM Chris—electricity is indeed used all the time, but the demand varies through each day and by season. It is the need for the grid to respond instantly to the exact demand at every moment that makes nondispatchable sources such as wind power a problem. It has been figured from the west Danish grid operator’s annual report that 84% of their wind-generated power is exported at a loss, because it is produced when there is no need for it. Utilities the world over want the ability to shut wind turbines down when they are producing but there is no demand.
The analogy to driving would be a bus service to alleviate traffic but its schedule is highly variable and unpredictable. It might run all its buses all night but then none at all when people need to get to work. Or it might load up with lots of riders but then stop before they get where they need to go.
Similarly, the grid, besides having to dump unneeded power, can not rely on wind but has to keep back-up power running and ready to go on line equal to the maximum output of the wind plant. This is apparently why we don’t see any positive change due to wind power.
This is why generating a MW of power from wind does not mean a MW of power from another source is not generated. The wind MW may come when nobody needs it, and when needed the grid needs to keep a backup MW burning in case the wind drops.
Posted by Marnie on Sep 8, 2005 at 4:25 PM Wait...so NOW your argument is that wind power is a bad idea because it produces TOO much energy??
First, the situation in Denmark hardly applies to the U.S. where any “excess” wind-generated power on the grid can displace power generated through the combustion of fossil fuels (dump the bad energy, keep the good...pretty simple).
Second, it seeems your real agument collapses back to “variability”. But you’ve already admitted that on-site electrolytic hyrdogen production solves that problem without the need for a huge hydrogen infrasturcture. By acting as a universal storage mechanism, hydrogen can “store” the “excess” energy produced by wind and save it for when the wind isn’t blowing.
Third, you overclaim the variability problems. New turbine designs allow wind-generated energy to flow about 98% of the time, a stability on par with most combustion systems. These are not your father’s windmills. The technology has evolved in leaps-and-bounds (which can’t be said of combustion systems, unfortunately).
Posted by Chris Cooper on Sep 9, 2005 at 9:27 AM Those new wind turbines that produce energy 98% of the time are as wondrous as your hydrogen storage. Unfortunately, they don’t exist. Your 98% figure is how much they are available, not how much they are actually producing electricity. It is the wind that produces the electricity, and it has to be blowing between 10 and 60 mph. To produce at the turbine’s maximum capacity, the wind has to be sustained above 30 mph.
Again it’s clear that you don’t read carefully. Excess power is excessive because power demands are already being met. If a wind facility suddenly throws 100 MW into the grid, especially during off-peak periods, when only the base load plants are running, 100 MW from those other sources can’t simply be turned off (they may take several hours to ramp down or up). Even when quick-response plants are on line, and can be turned off, they may have to be turned right back on again in the next hour—a very inefficient way to run them which makes them more polluting.
Wind turbines produce too much energy because even their tiniest output rarely corresponds with actual demand. And there is no widespread storage method today that mitigates this problem.
Your apparent lack of knowledge (or deliberate bfuscation) about wind technology is matched by your apparent lack with combustion technology as well. There will always be problems—political, social, and ecological—but combined heat and power systems have effectively doubled the energy output from fossil fuels, and scrubbers can effectively remove almost all of the toxins and even much of the CO2 from coal plants. The example of Mt. Storm in West Virginia—from the 2nd dirtiest plant in the country to one of the cleanest—shows a real cleaning up of the air which wind turbines could never achieve. Finally, in the new coal gasification process, the same “clean” combustion can be achieved without scrubbers. As I said, there are problems with coal other than the emissions, but coal certainly isn’t going to go away because of wind power, so these developments ought to be supported.
The only thing that has changed in wind turbines—besides size—is the ability to use a range of rotor speeds to turn the generator and still produce AC power in sync with the grid.
Posted by Marnie on Sep 9, 2005 at 11:19 AM Ah...so the truth is out...what you’re REALLY advocating then is what I’ve suspected all along - expanded combustion methods and “clean” coal technology (an industry-created euphemism if there ever was one), technologies that, among other things, require vast amounts of extractive mining that, no doubt, bats find terribly disruptive. I think we can do better than that.
Electrolytic hydrogen produced through renewable sources (like wind) is no Jetson-era wishful thinking. This is relatively simple technology that we are entirely capable of implementing today.
For someone casting aspersions on another’s lack of knowledge about wind technology, you sure make some counter-intuitive claims:
“Wind turbines produce too much energy because even their tiniest output rarely corresponds with actual demand.” <???>
Maybe you’re not reading carefully. You call the power “excess” because demand is already being met by dirty combustion systems. But that’s precisely the point.
Wind energy is not meant to ADD energy on top of increased output from combustion facilities. It’s meant to REPLACE that output by meeting future demand through an alternate energy source. ALTERNATE. (Recall my “Dump the bad, keep the good” statement?)
And you keep hammering away on variability and the need for dirty back-up generation without ever addressing available alternatives like hydrogen storage. Just because there are BAD ways to do wind doesn’t mean that’s the way it should be done.
Posted by Chris Cooper on Sep 9, 2005 at 11:40 AM Yes, wind is meant to replace bad energy. But it doesn’t. Perhaps it could, but the reality has been that it doesn’t, and that has to be the basis for judgement right now.
If indeed hydrogen storage can be implemented today, then why doesn’t the industry or its enablers insist on doing so?
Posted by Marnie on Sep 9, 2005 at 11:49 AM What *is now* has never been a very good argument against what *could* or *should* be. Perhaps wind energy doesn’t replace bad energy NOW because there isn’t enough of it. Or because people listen to argments like yours above. Or because there are very powerful corporate interests that stand in its way. Or because an obscene amount of public subsidies favor combustion methods.
In answer to your question...how about this: Let’s you and I and everyone else out there that cares about it be the ones who insist on implemententing on-site electrolytic hydrogen storage systems...to “the industry”, it’s enablers, policymakers, our neighbors, anyone who will listen.
After all, shouldn’t we spend our time advocating for how things SHOULD be, instead of resigning ourselves to how they ARE?
Posted by Chris Cooper on Sep 9, 2005 at 11:59 AM But there IS enough of it in Denmark, where everything possible has been done to integrate it into the system. Yet it does not replace “bad” energy.
I won’t join you in calling for hydrogen storage systems at every wind site, because even with that I don’t think the practical or even possible contribution from wind is worth erecting the damn things. But if you seriously believe it will work, I hope you do press for it.
You will probably be interested in Prince Edward Island’s plan to build a wind-hydrogen village, if you haven’t already heard about it.
Posted by Marnie on Sep 9, 2005 at 3:23 PM The emphasis here should be on the lack of understanding of how bats and wind turbines interact. The American Wind Energy Association’s official position is that “the wind farm in PA is a unique situation and that there is no evidence that bats are endangered at any other facility.” Of course they can make that claim because there is no evidence. Jessica Kern’s is one of the first researchers to even to examine this issue.
One turbine operator in OH has observed that bats are only affected when the blades are at a certain speed. But this hasn’t been studied.
A study in an IA agracultural area recorded considerably fewer bat deaths than Kern’s study in PA where the turbines are located in heavily forrested areas. We need to better understand how all avians (birds and bats) interact with turbines so we can choose better locations for future turbines.
The only way to do this is to require studies based on a standard method and make all the data publicly available for comparison.
Daniel A.
Southfield, MI.
Posted by dja1701 on Sep 12, 2005 at 6:47 PM Thanks to Mischa Gaus for revealing the threat to bats and wildlife due to corporate wind energy development.
However, the story has a few errors. First, the number of bats killed by wind turbines studied by researchers was likely twice as large 2,900, as this number represents the estimated mortality for only the 6 week study period - bats migrate much earlier and later than the limited time the researcher were able to investigate this impact.
Second, it sadly is incorrect to state that “wind power does not clear forests”. In fact that may be the biggest ecological impact resulting from wind power development in the eastern US. About 5 acres of forest were bulldozed for each turbine installed at the WV windplant strung together by huge new road that goes for miles along the formerly forested ridgecrest. The result of this forest fragmentation is the loss of much larger acreage of “forest-interior” habitat, which is ecologically very important for many species - see: http://johnrsweet.com/Personal/Wind/windpix4.html
Posted by george marsh on Sep 16, 2005 at 10:11 AM Maybe this was addressed earlier. In regard to the injured wildlife, what’s wrong with the idea of simply caging the blades of the windmills? You can’t tell me that a light, aluminum mesh around the windmills’ blades and rotor would cost too much.
Somebody answer please.
Posted by kyle450 on Sep 21, 2005 at 11:15 AM The rotor area of an industrial wind turbine is 1-1.5 acres. That’s a big mesh to support and keep clean. It would likely add to the noise problem, too.
Posted by Marnie on Sep 21, 2005 at 12:01 PM I’ve heard someone mention the idea of ultrasonic beacons on blade tips that would alert bats to the danger of flying into turbines. I’m sure there are several ways to manage the problem - cooperate to expand clean, renewable wind power and protect the species already threatened by dirty, combustion energies that befoul the air, water and land where these animals reside.
Posted by Chris Cooper on Sep 21, 2005 at 12:25 PM And, of course, protect the species threatened by the expansion of wind power.
Posted by Marnie on Sep 21, 2005 at 12:47 PM ...which I think most reasonable people can agree are less than those threatened by our current ways of generating energy.
Posted by Chris Cooper on Sep 21, 2005 at 1:11 PM Certainly. The debate is whether that lesser impact is in balance an additional impact or not. In other words, does the impact of industrial wind development justified because it actually reduces the impact of other energy sources, or is it just adding to the problem?
Posted by Marnie on Sep 21, 2005 at 4:33 PM Here we are again. By that logic we will NEVER transition to a clean, renewable energy economy because there will ALWAYS be transition costs before benefits are realized. That sounds like a very dumb way of ‘investing’ in any type of sustainable energy future. YES, there are costs. Whether they are worth it requires a projection of future benefits based on the EXPANSION of clean, renewable energy, not on a snap-shot of any one single project. That’s akin to saying, well, this ONE coal-burning power plant isn’t causing global climate change. (No, but....)
Posted by Chris Cooper on Sep 22, 2005 at 8:09 AM That projection of cumulative effect (good vs. ill) is still part of the debate I described.
You apparently think doubters are shortsighted, yet they in turn argue that the enablers are shortsighted. The enablers think they are changing our energy use, but the doubters think it is just more of the same and won’t affect current use. The enablers can’t conceive of doubt, so they think of debate only in negative terms. Yet if the technology is so promising, if the record is so good, why do they shun debate?
The original topic of this article illustrates that attitude: Why did FPL halt bat research at its facilities?
Posted by Marnie on Sep 22, 2005 at 8:33 AM Who is shunning debate??
FPL *should* allow bat research at its facilities. But the original point is that evidence of bat mortalities at wind facilities should not be reason to reject expanded wind power (especially without corresponding research into the bat mortalities resulting from mining and combustion of fossil fuels). That research, hoever,should be used to find ways to EXPAND wind power and still protect bat populations, not to reject wind power in favor of a status quo that is surely less environmentally sound.
Indeed, THAT would be shortsighted.
Posted by Chris Cooper on Sep 22, 2005 at 9:26 AM You say the research should be done, but the conclusions should be ignored or at best used in favor of a predetermined agenda. That is avoiding the debate whether industrial wind power makes things any better.
Posted by Marnie on Sep 22, 2005 at 10:17 AM Erm, no. I say the research should be done and compared to similar research on the deleterious effects of fossil fuels on bat (and other) environments. Only then can we know if wind is any better. “Better”...means compared to something else, not compared to nothing.
Posted by Chris Cooper on Sep 22, 2005 at 10:54 AM See? You’re shifting the argument. Nobody denies that wind is less damaging than fossil fuels. But it remains damaging. The comparison must be whether the damage is outweighed by any benefits. As I have said before, there don’t appear to be any benefits (except to investors into whose accounts so much public money is being blown). For example, where wind is well established other fuel use continues just as before.
That is why the industry is so sensitive to independent assessment of ecological impact—it threatens the “environmentalist” charade.
Posted by Marnie on Sep 22, 2005 at 3:02 PM I think you’re the one shifting. Why do you want to re-hash the arguments we just had about capacity and variability, etc.?? The question still remains - which energy future is worse for bats (and other species): one that relies on mining and burning large amounts of fossil fuels or one the relies on harnessing the energy of the wind, the sun, and the sea?
Posted by Chris Cooper on Sep 22, 2005 at 3:24 PM So everyone agrees that a better energy future is one of expanded wind power, where siting and design decisions take into consideration bats (and other species)? Funny...I thought you were arguing to scrap wind in favor of “clean” coal and more of the same.
Posted by Chris Cooper on Sep 23, 2005 at 8:25 AM Again, you show that you only hear what you already assume. As you seem to have started to grasp, I have not been denying the problems of fossil and nuclear fuels. What you have yet to get clear is that I have been saying that wind does not change anything for the better, or at least not to any degree that could justify its negative impact.
You assume that wind is beneficial. That premise is arguable. No trade or other group has been able to come up with evidence for your assumption. That is where the debate needs to be. That is the debate that the industry and its enablers adamantly avoid.
Posted by Marnie on Sep 23, 2005 at 9:22 AM I’m listening...but you just keep repeating youself. Wind HAS had benefit and will have even MORE if expanded. Again, the fact that it has not YET replaced a significant amount of fossil fuel consumption is a reason to EXPAND wind, not reject it, especially in the absence of any alternative other than MORE combustion.
Posted by Chris Cooper on Sep 23, 2005 at 9:32 AM Oh dear gawd...about 20 posts ago we had this exchange about how every Mw generated through wind power is one NOT generated through fossil fuel combustion and that problems of variability are solved through on-site electrolytic hydorgen production that allows energy generated when the wind is blowing to be stored for when it is not...eliminating the need for dirty back-up generation from even more fossil fuel combustion. The expansion of this kind of power generation can eventually make the need for extractive mining and filthy combustion of fossil fuels unecessary. That’s a pretty huge benefit. The fact that it hasn’t happened now just proves that we haven’t DONE it yet...it says nothing about whether we shoudl or could do it. I think we can and we should.
Posted by Chris Cooper on Sep 23, 2005 at 10:41 AM I forget: Where is that on-site electrolytic hydrogen production in existing and currently proposed wind facilities?
Posted by Marnie on Sep 23, 2005 at 11:21 AM Reminder (since we’ve been here too): What IS is a poor indicator of what SHOULD be.
Posted by Chris Cooper on Sep 23, 2005 at 11:26 AM And what SHOULD be is a poor justification for what IS.
Posted by Marnie on Sep 23, 2005 at 12:44 PM Amen! Now let’s get to work changing what IS, shall we?
Posted by Chris Cooper on Sep 23, 2005 at 12:52 PM And there’s the debate: You think wind will change what is, but I think it will not.
Posted by Marnie on Sep 23, 2005 at 1:29 PM It is unfortunate that wishful thinking and faith-based arguments are being advanced to justify and support the rapid, nearly unfettered expansion of the wind industry. What the debate about windpower hinges on is not WHETHER to shift away from polluting energy technologies based on fossil-fuel combustion, but HOW to do so… Where to site these facilities is key. Unfortunately, lining Appalachia’s ridgetops with wind turbines likely poses an unnecessarily high risk of environmental harm. I fear that large-scale development of this region’s limited wind energy potential would needlessly sacrifice much for little gain. Especially given the limited amount of power this development scenario would produce. There is about 10 times as much potentially-developable wind energy off the coast of the Mid-Atlantic (from 5-50 nautical miles) as can be generated by huge wind turbines from the region’s ridgetops (see Table 2 in: www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/36313.pdf ) - enough to supply all of the electricity needs of coastal states for many decades. Planning for what SHOULD BE ought to take this alternative into consideration - if we had a long-range plan for energy development.
Posted by george marsh on Sep 26, 2005 at 7:07 AM Finally, a reasonable argument. I agree that accurate information about capacity and bat mortality (etc.) should be used to determine the best place to cite expanded wind generation, rather than to dismiss wind power out of hand.
Posted by Chris Cooper on Sep 27, 2005 at 8:47 AM Thank you George for your comments acknowledging the environmental harm from wind turbines on Appalachian ridges. Your suggestion that wind facilities might be more responsibly located offshore is an interesting one. I understand that in order to avoid migrating birds turbines shoud be located at least 15 miles offshore. Do you know of peer reviewed studies on this subject?
Posted by Lucile on Sep 28, 2005 at 10:27 AM It is absolutely wrong to say that wind power requires an equal amount of backup electricity generating capacity for use when the wind is not blowing. This is a ‘common sense’ way of thinking that unfortunately is not based on any understanding of electricity grids.
First of all, even in a relatively small country like the UK it is highly unlikely that the wind will stop blowing across the whole country at the same time. In a large country like the USA it is even more unlikely. Electricity is transported by the national grid from where it is generated to where it is needed. With wind power widely distributed across the country the total production will be far less variable than the production from a single site.
Secondly, electricity consumption is highly variable throughout the day and year. National grids are designed to cope with this variation in demand
Thirdly, national grids are designed to be able to cope with generating plants being out of action, either for repairs or because of unexpected breakdowns.
These things combined means that for every Watt of wind generating capacity much less than a Watt of backup is needed. In addition it has been calculated that in the UK if wind energy contributes less than 10 - 20% of electricity no major changes need to be made to the national grid as the variability due to changes in the wind is small compared with the variability in demand and supply that the grid has been designed to cope with. In a country so much larger than the UK the variability of wind energy should present much less of a problem. In any case, why start worrying about it now when wind power contributes to so much less than 10% of electricity generation?
Posted by ed110220 on Nov 30, 2005 at 5:38 PM Grids cope with variable demand—and even sudden loss of a plant—by using backup, namely, plants that are kept burning so they can readily switch between standby and generation.
Wind power is coped with the same way. As the wind rises, a backup plant may switch from generation to standby. Wind power has replaced that source, but it has not reduced its consumption of fuel. (That’s not really what’s being argued here, but while we’re talking about how the grid works I thought I’d put it in.)
The conviction that somewhere on the grid the wind will be blowing is simply pathetic for something that wants to be a major power source. It requires immense redundancy and huge high-voltage transmission trunks and still needs substantial backup from other sources.
Posted by Marnie on Nov 30, 2005 at 6:02 PM This “back-up generation” argument is just flat-out wrong. You must be thinking of wind turbines from the 1970’s or something.
Wind power is VARIABLE, not unreliable. Modern turbine designs adapt to fluctuations in the amount of wind supplied and can anticipate seasonal and daily supply fluctuations. These advanced modifications mean that most turbines can operate 98% of the hours in any year.
Guess what? That is a better availability than ANY OTHER form of electricity generation, including fossil fuel-fired combustion plants!! It’s true.
Posted by Chris Cooper on Dec 1, 2005 at 9:28 AM FYI - no less than our own Department of Energy has debunked the “back-up generation” myth. ZERO back-up generation is required for installing new wind-energy capacity. Go here for the facts: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/37657.pdf
Posted by Chris Cooper on Dec 1, 2005 at 10:34 AM I think you are confused. Wind turbines CAN operate 98% of the time, but they can only generate electricity when the wind is blowing within a certain range, such as 10-60 mph. They do not generate at their rated capacity until the wind is above 25-30 mph.
E.ON Netz of Germany has determined that they need ready backup for windspeed predition error of more than 50% of installed wind capacity. That is backup in addition to what is already handling demand fluctuations. (See their Wind Report 2005 at http://www.eon-energie.de/bestellsystem/frameset_eng.php?choosenBu=eonenergie&am mp;choosenId=1725)
As for the NREL factsheet, it is well documented (e.g., “Danish Wind: Too Good to be True?” David J. White, The Utilities Journal, July 2004), that Denmark actually uses only a fraction of its wind-generated power. Most of it goes to other countries, so its percentage “penetration” must be calculated from the total international grid, bringing it down from 20% to about 3%. This is the case in Germany and Spain, too.
Every model of significant wind power installation acknowledges that its capacity credit is small and actually diminishes as it represents a greater percentage. E.ON Netz concludes that Germany’s goal of 48,000 MW of wind by 2020 will substitute for only 2,000 MW of conventional power. A February 2004 study by the Irish grid came to similar conclusions.
If you want to reduce emissions and even use of fossil and nuclear fuels, the investment required to make wind power work could clearly be spent much more effectively and without industrializing thousands of square miles of rural and wild land.
Posted by Marnie on Dec 1, 2005 at 12:34 PM First, the “study” you site from E-ON is from the folks who control the grid arguing why it’s difficult for them to utilize the in-feed from wind generation. The grid monopolies may have every reason to reject wind energy because their entire system was deisgned around fossil fuel-fired centralized generation facilities.
Second, the problems cited here are more problems with the grid then problems with wind. There is very little (if any) explanation in the E-ON report as to WHY only 2,000 MW out of 48,000 MW would replace conventional fuel combustion. If the answer is “back-up”, again I think you are talking about old technology. If you factor in the number of blackouts, brownouts and other distribution problems associated with conventional electricity generation, wind power (especially distributed generation) is THE MOST RELIABLE of all generation technologies. Advanced turbine designs mean wind can generate electricity reliably and seasonal and daily fluctuations can be anticipated.
Third, what you fail to mention about Denmark is that the large surplus of electricity from centralized wind generation (which necessitates vast exports) is the result of power produced by non-dispatchable distributed generation systems in the country’s west exceeding more than 100% of demand in the region (something that could never happen in a large country like the U.S.) [see J. P. Sayler & Assocsiates, at www.windturbinewarehouse.com] This seems like a reason to INCREASE wind generation, not abandon it.
Fourth, all of your objections assume large, cetralized wind generation. Smaller, distributed geenration systems that operate independent of the grid (see for example the community-owned turbine in downtown Toronto) can displace 100% of their capacity in fossil-fuels. Every megawatt that the system uses OFF THE GRID is a megawatt that is no longer demanded of the grid and supplied by dirty, fossil fuel-fired plants.
If the grid is the problem...let’s think outside the grid!
Posted by Chris Cooper on Dec 1, 2005 at 1:37 PM It was your insistence that somewhere on the grid the wind is always going to be blowing enough to ensure that wind-powered generation is occurring that required looking at the reality involved.
If you now want to talk about a wind turbine directly supplying the user (as a home system does), that’s fine. But that’s not what developers are proposing. They need their systems to be on the grid so they can generate “green credits” as well, because that’s where the money is.
Back to Denmark’s nondispatchable surplus: It is due to a committed conversion to combined heat and power, effectively halving the amount of fuel needed to supply both. As you say, they can’t turn off the heat when the wind rises, so the wind energy has to be dumped on the international grid. Now they are planning to start reverting CHP plants and convert homes to electric heat so they can use more of their wind energy. So they will go back to more wasteful use of fossil fuel, because the appearance of using wind turbines is much more important to Vestas investors.
Posted by Marnie on Dec 1, 2005 at 2:45 PM Your argumanets are counterintuitive...converting to electric heat in order to use more wind-generated electricity is a “wasteful” use of fossil fuels??? (It’s as if you continuously confuse “the grid” with “fossil fuels” and have no vision beyond it).
I’m not sure what “developers” you’re talking about. But wind power (either centralized OR distributed generation) has enormous advantages over fossil fuel combustion. Manipulation of central electricity grids by entreched monopolies does not mean wind is not advanageous. At best it means that there are vested interests trying to stand in the way of wind’s real advantages.
The only question is: are you part of the problem, or part of the solution?
Posted by Chris Cooper on Dec 1, 2005 at 3:30 PM Converting CHP plants back to providing just electricity again is wasteful.
By developers I mean the people actually building big wind facilities, not idealistic engineers back in the classroom. The developers are in it for the money, and the money is in perpetuating the grid.
I agree with you that it ought to be otherwise, but it isn’t. The problem is the way big wind is being developed right now.
Posted by Marnie on Dec 1, 2005 at 4:06 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Mischa Gaus
- No Match? No Mas!
The Department of Homeland Security is trying to force employers to either fire workers whose names and Social Security numbers don't match. Widespread job loss often results when the government dons its immigration-enforcement blinders - The Olympic Hustle
Chicagoans are already beginning to fear what hosting the 2016 Summer Games might do to their city - Doing It For Themselves
The Coalition of Immokalee Workers turns 'corporate social responsibility' from oxymoron into reality - Interrogations Behind Barbed Wire
Who's to blame for America's new torture techniques? - Starbucks Gets Wobbly
Embattled baristas at the coffee giant turn to the Industrial Workers of the World for solidarity unionism - Students vs. Sweatshops, Round III
The Designated Supplier Program targets college clothing companies
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1968 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
