Revisited: JLF's Wind Energy "Report"
I just wanted to make a quick response to the JLF’s recent “report” on the danger of offshore wind energy in North Carolina. As I said in my initial response, this dishonesty and misinformation contained in their piece is enough to leave anyone speechless. While wind energy is the fastest growing form of renewable energy, this exact type of misinformation has prevented the type of growth that this industry has the potential for (and deserves).
I. Does Not Help the Environment
The report claims that the National Academy of Sciences has reported that wind power would not significantly reduce emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide. However, they fail to quote (or to even acknowledge) the rest of the exact same sentence they are relying on. There is the sentence that they are relying on from a report by the National Research Council entitled Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects, which the National Academy of Sciences was a contributing organization:
“However, because current and upcoming regulatory controls on emissions of NOx and SO2 from electricity generation in the eastern United States involve total caps on emissions, the committee concludes that development of wind-powered electricity generation using current technology probably will not result in a significant reduction in total emission of these pollutants from the electricity sector in the mid-Atlantic region.”
As you can see, and JLF’s Daren Bakst couldn’t, nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions are already being reduced (theoretically) under the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).
II. Wind Energy is Unreliable
The report also claims that wind energy is not a reliable source of energy. Mr. Bakst is correct on this point, but he fails to mention that so are all forms of electricity. In a blatant attempt to scare North Carolina citizens, the report highlights a recent situation in Texas where a sudden drop in wind power caused electricity to some customers to be cut off in order to prevent a blackout. Once again, Mr. Bakst fails to read anything beyond the headlines of stories (they must be working their hired guns too hard over at the JLF). The rest of the story is that he system operators has to cut power to “interruptible customers” for about 90 minutes. LINK Interruptable customers are generally large industrial customers who are PAID to reduce power use when emergencies occur. In fact, these customers who were paid were the only ones to temporarily lose power and NO REGULAR CUSTOMERS lost power. Most importantly, multiple power suppliers fell below the amount of power they were scheduled to produce. LINK
“But the state's grid operators say a problem they could normally handle was complicated when a number of traditional power plant operators failed to provide the amount of electricity to the grid as promised.”
So let’s get this straight, the temporary loss of power to customers who are paid to experience losses of power was caused largely by traditional power sources’ failure to provide the amount of energy they were supposed to supply at that time (i.e., they were unreliable). Wow, the JLF’s report failed to mention this. I am afraid that if they find out they may send out warnings to North Carolina citizens to be scared of all forms of electricity.
In an ironic twist (that Mr. Bakst must have been unable to read about), on the exact same day, a NUCLEAR power substation blackout in Florida triggered rolling blackouts across the state. LINK This blackout occurred around 1:00 pm and caused around 2 million people to lose power. Under Mr. Bakst’s logic, we are starting to run out of power sources.
III. Bird Collisions (JLF hearts birds)
According to the report, wind turbines kill birds and bats. It refers to a study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that, it claims, concluded recent efforts to mitigate deaths of birds and bats have been unsuccessful. The GAO’s 2005 study actually concluded…. heck, I’ll just let them tell you their conclusion: LINK
“In the context of other sources of avian mortalities, it does not appear that wind power is responsible for a significant number of bird deaths.” (p.43)
The study does find that more research is needed into methods of mitigating future deaths caused by avian collisions but does not mention what the JLF says it did in its Carolina Journal Article. It appears Mr. Bakst made that one up.
This is the exact argument that was used several years ago but has subsequently been put to bed. In fact, when I read this in the report I had to quickly check the date because I thought it was from years ago. The source of this concern is a complete disaster known as the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. LINK This wind farm was developed in California in 1982 and serves as the model of what not-to-do when sitting wind energy farms. Poor planning allowed wind turbines to be placed within an area that is not only a major raptor migration corridor, but also has high wintering concentrations of raptors and is in the heart of the highest concentration of golden eagles in North America. As you can imagine, this wind farm has the highest numbers and rates of raptor kills of any wind facility in the world. Although this was more than 25 years ago, it continues to be a fairly large blemish on the wind energy industry and has brought development to a near crawl. Concerns about avian collisions in the wake of this fiasco were well-founded, but now the technology and oversight has changed significantly (although both still have a long way to go). The fact that JLF only references this wind farm in its report is telling.
In reality, even the National Audubon Society “strongly supports wind power as a clean alternative energy source.” LINK They, along with most other people, think that wind energy is the future as long as the wind farms are appropriately positioned. By appropriately siting wind farms, the migratory paths of birds can be avoided and the potential risk averted. It is also important to consider, as scharrison said in his/her response, the laundry list of harmful impacts global warming could cause/is causing for birds (e.g., losses of habitat due to sea level rise; more frequent and severe wildfires; loss of prey species; flooding and droughts; increased invasive species).
IV. Potential Health Hazards for People
The report also warns of potential health hazards for humans cause by the noise of wind turbines. It references a report by the French National Academy of Medicine and the United Kingdom Noise Association that recommend sitting wind energy facilities at lease 1 mile from homes. Luckily, there are no homes in the ocean so this warning can be easily heeded. It should also be noted that the one of the study’s “Overall Conclusions” is that “[f]or many people living relatively close to turbines, the noise does not present a problem.”(p.20) Even more telling, it also reports people feeling disturbances “in their bodies”.(p.20) I will allow you to draw your own conclusions from this piece of information reported to us by the “noise association.”
V. Conclusion
While there are plenty more points to make, you get the picture. Despite that the report claims, North Carolina has significant potential for offshore wind energy development and it poses a unique opportunity for the state. Europe appears to be light years ahead of us in this area, but the United States can still claims this industry. While North Carolina’s manufacturing industry is gradually being shipped overseas, the wind energy sector provides us with not only a valuable source of renewable energy, but also provides us with a chance to replace those manufacturing jobs with a new industry.
- NCenvtl's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
Thanks for the missing info
Also, when you put in a link, you have to attach a closing tag on the end of the target word (or group of), or the rest of your text will be included in the link. After you've inserted the link (and gotten rid of the extra http//), click your cursor on the other side of the word(s), and click the globe again.
Thanks
Ah, I see now. Thanks. When I posted, it did not look right but my battery was dying. Thanks for fixing the links for me.
Thanks for this excellent response to JLF
I fp'd it and highlighted it in our top block.
Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.
Author's Response
Since NCenvtl makes claims that I was dishonest, I'm responding to this post and a previous comment.
I. Sulfur Dioxide and Nitrogen Oxides
Claim: I didn’t mention that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) attributed existing regulations as the reason why wind power would not have a significant impact on emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide.
From my Report : “The National Academy of Sciences has stated that wind power would not significantly reduce these emissions, largely due to existing regulations on conventional sources of electricity.”
BTW: Even if I didn’t include this, it wouldn’t make a difference regarding the conclusion NAS makes about wind power and emissions.
II. Wind is Unreliable
Claim: The claim appears to be that while wind power is unreliable, so are other sources of electricity.
First, the capacity factor of wind power is about 30 percent of its nameplate capacity. To simplify things, a wind turbine would be expected to generate over a course of a year about 30 percent of its “maximum capacity.”
Since nuclear power was featured in the post, according to the United States Energy Information Administration, nuclear power has a 90 percent capacity factor.
Capacity factor alone though doesn’t completely describe the reliability problems with wind power. Its intermittency and variability makes it more difficult for grid managers. These grid experts must ensure that electricity generation supply and demand is in balance at all times.
NCenvtl tries to argue that traditional power plants were the cause of the near-blackout in Texas.
I’ll let one of NCenvtl's own articles describe what happened in Texas: “A drop in wind generation late on Tuesday, coupled with colder weather, triggered an electric emergency that caused the Texas grid operator to cut service to some large customers, the grid agency said on Wednesday.”
There isn’t anything ambiguous about this statement.
From my report, citing a Fort Worth Star-Telegram article (discussing the Texas near-blackout and the problems with wind—note that ERCOT is the Texas grid operator):
“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 instability that can result from the resulting power dip on the grid, he said.”
Even the article that NCenvtl uses to try and blame traditional power plants for the Texas near-blackout explains that the drop in wind power precipitated the problems. Normally the grid could handle the problem caused by wind, but the traditional power plants did not react to the drop in wind power like they normally do.
Finally, NCevntl argues that nuclear power is no better because that same day in Florida, a “NUCLEAR power substation blackout in Florida triggered rolling blackouts across the state.” [EMPHASIS added by NCenvtl].
The problem wasn’t nuclear power, it was a problem at an electrical substation. Therefore, it was a grid issue, not an energy source issue. Also, other power plants shut down as well, not just nuclear. These plants that shut down acted as they were supposed to. Again, from NCenvtl’s own article (quote from Florida Power & Light’s president):
"In a fraction of a second, the demand was far greater than the power plants that were online generating electricity could handle," he said. "When you have that kind of imbalance, we have a system that kicks in and it starts turning people's lights off, essentially balancing the demand with what's available."
III. Birds and Bats
Claim: “The study does find that more research is needed into methods of mitigating future deaths caused by avian collisions but does not mention what the JLF says it did in its Carolina Journal Article. It appears Mr. Bakst made that one up.”
Huh? I have no idea what this means.
The GAO study, as I explain in my report, found that mitigation efforts to date have been a failure. Here is the GAO quote (which is not made-up, if that's what was being suggested):
“A recent 4-year study conducted by the California Energy Commission in Altamont Pass tested some of these mitigation efforts attempted by industry and suggested possible future mitigation strategies. This study found that some of the strategies adopted by industry, such as perch guards on turbines and rodent control programs that reduce prey availability, were ineffective in reducing kills. Another study compared the differences between turbines painted with ultraviolet reflectant or nonultraviolet reflectant to see whether one would act as a visual deterrent, but the study found no evidence of a difference in mortality between the two treatments.”
If that's not enough, in my report I explain:
“In 2007 testimony, Dr. Michael Fry of the American Bird Conservancy stated ‘Unfortunately, to date, collaborative efforts to successfully address the impacts of wind projects on birds and wildlife have been a failure.’"
Claim: “The fact that JLF only references this wind farm [Altamont Pass, CA] in its report is telling.”
From my report (again citing the GAO report): “A 2004 study conducted in West Virginia estimated that slightly over 2,000 bats were killed during a 7-month study at a location with 44 turbines.”
My report provides estimated annual number of bird (not bat) deaths at wind farms across the country:
“There is an estimated 33,000 bird deaths a year due to wind turbines, but as the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has explained, ‘This may be a considerable underestimate.’”
IV. Noise
Claim: “It [My report] references a report by the French National Academy of Medicine and the United Kingdom Noise Association that recommend sitting wind energy facilities at lease 1 mile from homes. Luckily, there are no homes in the ocean so this warning can be easily heeded.”
Again, huh? Even for the coast, there is such thing as on-shore wind turbines, and homes that could be within one mile of these turbines. My report also is concerned with all wind power plants, not just those on the coast.
V. Citation
Claim:: “First of all, what type of report fails to cite any authority for the claims that it makes?" This is from his comment.
This statement makes me wonder whether NCEnvtl knows that a CJ article is not the report. Here are the "non-existent" citations from my report:
End Notes
1. North Carolina Senate Bill 3 (2007), www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2007&Bil....
2. La Capra Associates, “Supplemental Responses to Senate Agricultural Committee Meeting and House Energy and Energy Efficiency
Committee Meeting,” March 15, 2007.
3. A vote history on SB 3 is viewable at www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2007&Bil....
4. “Wind Energy – Energy from Moving Air,” United States Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, www.eia.doe.gov/kids/
energyfacts/sources/renewable/wind.html.
5. U.S. Wind Energy Projects web page of the American Wind Energy Association, www.awea.org/projects.
6. “Southeastern Utility Commissioners to Congress: RPS Means Higher Prices for Consumers: Nine SE States Urge Congress to Reject
Federal RPS,” United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources press release, June 6, 2007, energy.senate.gov/public_new/
index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=183a660e-c6ea-49e5-b4ce-8a0fe060365e&Month=6&Year=2007&Party=1.
7. See the following United States Department of Energy maps: www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/ilands/fig13.html and www.eere.energy.
gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/images/windmaps/nc_50m_800.jpg.
8. La Capra Associates, “Analysis of a Renewable Portfolio Standard for the State of North Carolina,” December 2006, p. 30, www.ncuc.
commerce.state.nc.us/reps/NCRPSReport12-06.pdf.
9. Op. cit., note 7.
10. Op. cit., note 8, at p. 32.
11. Op. cit., note 7.
12. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113-205 et seq., www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByArticle/Chapter_....
13. Duke Power 2003 Annual Plan, North Carolina Utilities Commission, Docket No. E-100, Sub 98, p. 33, ncuc.commerce.state.nc.us/cgi-bin/
webview/senddoc.pgm?dispfmt=&itype=Q&authorization=&parm2=1AAAAA64230B&parm3=000120555.
14. See, e.g., Wade Rawlins, “Coastal wind farm proposed,” The News & Observer (Raleigh), February 6, 2008, www.newsobserver.com/news/
story/926691.html.
15. Progress Energy 2003 Annual Resource Plan, Docket No. E-100, Sub 98, p. 4, ncuc.commerce.state.nc.us/cgi-bin/webview/senddoc.pgm?dispfm
t=&itype=Q&authorization=&parm2=KBAAAA54230B&parm3=000120555.
16. Courtney, Richard S., “Wind Farms Provide Negligible Useful Electricity,” Center for Science and Public Policy, March 2006, p. 14, ff.org/
centers/csspp/pdf/20060331_wind.pdf.
17. See, e.g., “Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects,” National Research Council, May 2007 (Prepublication copy), p. 34, www.upcwind.
com/UserFiles/File/National%20Research%20Council%20Wind%20Report%202007_2.pdf.
18. “Wind Power Report Shows Facts Instead of Myths,” ABS Research press release, August 8, 2006, www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/
partner/story?id=45658.
19. Op. cit., note 14.
20. R.A. Dyer, “Texas power grid operators narrowly avoid rolling blackouts,” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, February 27, 2008, www.star-telegram.com/news/story/499512.html.
21. Op. cit., note 17, at p. 46.
22. Ibid. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) estimated that wind power would offset carbon dioxide emissions from electricity sources by
about 1.2 percent to 4.5 percent. In 2005, according to the study, electricity generation accounted for 39 percent of carbon dioxide emissions
in the United States. Assuming that electricity generation remains at 39 percent in 2020, the carbon dioxide emissions from all energy use
would be .05 percent to 1.8 percent. This simple calculation also was independently done by a member of the NAS committee that wrote the
report, Dr. James (Rick) Webb, a senior scientist at the University of Virginia; see, e.g., www.vawind.org/Assets/Docs/Perspective/Key_Points_
About_Wind_Development.pdf.
23. Total United States petroleum consumption data can be found on the EIA site at www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html; total
petroleum consumption for electricity generation can be found on the EIA site at www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat4p1.html.
24. “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants” (NUREG-1437 Vol. 1), United States Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, May 1996, www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437/v1/index.html. While the NRC report is from 1996,
the estimates likely are conservative when it comes to determining acres required for electricity generation. See, e.g., H. Sterling Burnett,
“Wind power puffery,” The Washington Times, February 4, 2004, www.ncpa.org/prs/cd/2004/020404wpp.htm; also see this Texas State Energy
Conservation Office web page discussing a wind farm (Horse Hollow Wind Energy Center) in Texas, www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/re_wind.htm.
25. Op. cit., note 8, at p. 33.
26. This assumes electricity generation of about 30 percent of maximum capacity.
27. Op. cit., note 8, at p. 33.
28. Op. cit., note 26.
29. Op. cit., note 9, at p. 33.
30. H. Sterling Burnett, “Altamont Pass Settlement Fails to Reduce Bird Kills,” Environment News, March 1, 2008, www.heartland.org/Article.
cfm?artId=22774, citing “Developing Methods to Reduce Bird Mortality In the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area,” California Energy
Commission, August 2004, www.energy.ca.gov/pier/final_project_reports/500-04-052.html.
31. “Interim Guidelines to Avoid and Minimize Wildlife Impacts from Wind Turbines,” United States Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service, 2003, p. 50, www.blm.gov/nhp/what/lands/realty/FWS_wind_turbine_guidance_7_03.pdf.
32. Ibid.
33. “Wind Power: Impacts on Wildlife and Government Responsibilities for Regulating Development and Protecting Wildlife,” United States
Government Accountability Office, September 2005, p. 14, www.gao.gov/new.items/d05906.pdf.
34. Ibid. at p. 20.
35. Testimony of Dr. Donald Michael Fry, Director, Pesticides and Birds Program American Bird Conservancy, before the House Subcommittee on
Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans, United States House Committee on Natural Resources, May 1, 2007, resourcescommittee.house.gov/images/
Documents/20070501b/testimony_fry.pdf.
36. Op. cit., note 31.
37. See, e.g., North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association web page on wind power, www.ncsustainableenergy.org/resources/renewable/wind.
38. “Location, Location, Location, The Noise Association (UK), July 2006, www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/UKNA-
WindFarmReport.pdf.
39. “Le retentissement du fonctionnement des éoliennes sur la santé de l’homme,” Académie Nationale de Médecine, March 2006, ventdubocage.
net/documentsoriginaux/sante/eoliennes.pdf.
40. Op. cit., note 38, at p. 21.
41. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., “An ill wind off Cape Cod,” The New York Times, December 16, 2005, www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/opinion/16kennedy.
html?ex=1292389200&en=58e5dd67e381fd58&ei=5090.
Daren Bakst
WT's and birds
Another well written source about bird fatalities:
http://strandedwind.org/node/92
If wind energy is an interest of yours, you might enjoy poking around the strandedwind.org site - enjoy !