Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Siting Guidlines Needed for Wind Power Developments:

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 04:37 PM
Original message
Siting Guidlines Needed for Wind Power Developments:
Edited on Tue Jan-26-10 04:37 PM by amborin


snip

"conservation groups are working with federal agencies and the wind industry to develop national siting guidelines that minimize bat and bird deaths and other environmental impacts.

"Being renewable is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being 'green,'" says Defenders' climate change associate Aimee Delach, a member of the federal advisory committee drafting recommendations for the guidelines. "We are trying to get developers to think about wildlife and habitat right at the outset, so that we can enjoy the benefits of wind while minimizing adverse consequences." (See sidebar, page 18, for more on how Defenders is working to limit the wildlife impacts from wind energy.)

These rules are sorely needed, because wind energy is expanding rapidly. Installed U.S. wind power capacity has tripled since 2004 and now totals more than 31,000 megawatts in 37 states—enough to power nearly 9 million homes. Now some developers are looking offshore, where winds blow harder and more steadily than on land.

It costs more to build turbines in ocean waters, but offshore wind also has advantages. Many windy U.S. lands are in rural areas such as the northern Plains, far from population centers. But the Atlantic and Gulf coasts and the Great Lakes have good wind resources near large cities, so electricity can be generated near where it's needed without building long transmission lines.

Offshore turbines have to be massive to withstand the force of waves and storms, but their size produces economies of scale. For example, Cape Wind plans to use 130 turbines that reach 440 feet above the water when their blades are vertical. Each turbine tower will generate up to 3.6 megawatts—roughly the same output as a solar plant operating today in Arizona that covers 44 acres of desert. More energy per turbine increases profits, which helps wind compete with fossil fuels and nuclear power.

Seventeen state and federal agencies have jurisdiction over various parts of Cape Wind. For Mass Audubon, though, one review mattered most at the outset. Under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Army Corps of Engineers was required to do a broad review of Cape Wind's environmental impacts. Assessing how the project could affect birds was challenging: even though Nantucket Sound was widely recognized as important avian habitat, little hard data existed to show how different species actually used the area.

To fill the gaps, Mass Audubon highlighted three critical questions for Cape Wind: how songbirds migrated across the sound, where wintering water birds concentrated, and whether terns crossed through the project area as they prepared to migrate. "We told the Corps very strongly that they needed at least three years of study on these three issues," says Taber Allison, the group's vice president for science, policy and climate change. "When they didn't require that much from the developer, we decided we'd have to get the information ourselves." (Ultimately the developer paid for radar studies of songbirds.)....

snip

Cape Wind is still securing other permits but hopes to start construction this year. Meanwhile, offshore wind proposals are dotting the Atlantic coast. Another developer, Bluewater Wind, has proposed a 450-megawatt wind farm 11 miles off the coast of Delaware. Rhode Island has chosen a third company, Deepwater Wind, to build an offshore wind farm big enough to generate 15 percent of the state's electricity supply (roughly 400 megawatts), and New Jersey is considering several projects that could add up to 1,000 megawatts of capacity. Still other companies are studying sites off Galveston, Texas and in Lake Erie.

Is an offshore wind boom coming? Maybe, says Laurie Jodziewicz of the American Wind Energy Association. "Things may look good at an early stage, but a lot has to come together for a successful project," she cautions.

Financing is tight, but the Obama administration—which strongly supports developing more clean energy and limiting greenhouse gas emissions—is working to move renewables forward. Last spring the Interior Department published guidelines for offshore renewable energy development, a step that developers welcomed because it creates rules for leasing areas off U.S. coasts. "I expect we're going to see wind turbine projects with significant power generation in the next several years off the Atlantic," said Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

This push raises a new issue for wildlife: even if individual projects won't cause harm, what about cumulative impacts? Would some species lose more habitat than others or have to detour farther? (Studies at Danish offshore wind farms have found that waterfowl tend to shift their foraging areas and adjust flight paths to avoid project zones.) Scientists say they can't answer those questions yet.

"The Atlantic coast is huge. There's a lot of information from past bird surveys, but there are big gaps between data sets and some studies are very old," says Andrew Gilbert, an ecologist with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Relatively few Atlantic coast bird surveys have been conducted since 2000, especially on a regional scale, and little data exists from North Carolina's Outer Banks down through Florida.

Gilbert and other USGS scientists are developing a model that will use existing data from Atlantic bird surveys to predict where and how about a dozen key species, including loons, eiders, gannets, petrels and terns, use the ocean. By relating bird observations to information on ocean temperature, plankton concentrations and water depth, they aim to pinpoint other areas that might also be important for birds.....

snip

http://www.defenders.org/newsroom/defenders_magazine/winter_2010/wind,_water_and_wings.php

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. I've asked you before: What is your alternative to renewables?
You always run from the question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. no need for an alternative with proper siting guidelines; why
Edited on Tue Jan-26-10 04:56 PM by amborin
do you present a false dichotomy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Proper guidelines have been years in the making - you reject them
You universally attack renewable energy on this forum - I invite anyone to do a search and verify that statement. You use the PRETEXT of caring about wildlife but the policies you attack are the most friendly to wildlife of all the available alternatives.

So I repeat, what is your alternative to renewable energy?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. your allegations are astonishingly false; if you're as full of
rage IRL as online, well....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. What is your alternative to renewables?
Proper guidelines have been years in the making - you reject them - so what is your alternative to renewables?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. take it up with Audubon:
"At the same time, it is critical that this expansion be managed responsibly, because it is clear that wind facilities are capable of killing a large number of birds and other wildlife. Some early wind projects like Altamont in California are notorious for killing many raptors, including Golden Eagles. The lessons learned from Altamont still loom over the industry: if wind turbines are located in the wrong places, they can be hazardous and they can fragment critical habitat. In cases where the birds affected are already in trouble, such as sage grouse in windy parts of the Plains States, the turbines could push them closer to extinction.

Much work remains before scientists have a clear understanding of the true impacts to birds and wildlife from wind power. Scientists are particularly concerned about the potential cumulative effects of wind power on species populations if industry expands dramatically. Significant development is being considered in areas that contain large numbers of species or are believed to be major migratory flyways, such as the Prairie Pothole region and the Texas Gulf Coast.

On balance, Audubon strongly supports wind power as a clean alternative energy source that reduces the threat of global warming. Each individual wind project, however, has a unique set of circumstances and should be evaluated on its own merits."

snip

http://www.audubon.org/campaign/testimony_0507.html

*******************************************************

and stop your false accusations

you seem only capable of black/white thinking
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. It isn't a false accusation.
In all cases you REJECT wind. Your OP REJECTS the very process that Audubon endorses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-27-10 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Wrong!
I've never rejected wind power.

You impute positions to me that I don't hold.

You continue to attack and level false accusations. You lack even a shred of appreciation for science or environmentalism.

Your posts lead me to suspect you have invested $$$$ in windfarms and don't want conservation groups to interfere.

Environmentalists urge siting studies beforehand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Oh please...
First of all, the question of whether so called "renewables" are either green, sustainable or economic is one that every "solar and wind" advocate addresses with denial.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Peer reviewed denial...
http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. If you cite this paper 832,040 times, it will still represent the fact that in the
"renewables will save us" cults, people hear only what they want to hear.

Anyone who is remotely familiar with the scientific literature will tell one that citing the same paper over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over to address every situation is trash thinking.

Of course, next we're going to hear how trash talk will make trash to energy schemes - for all the people they kill - is well, garbage.

Actually - not that there is ONE "renewables will save us" advocate on this website who is familiar with the contents of the scientific literature - many results, even by good or great scientists are published that are wrong.

For instance, the great Nobel Laureate chemist H.C. Brown wrote scores of papers trying to prove that non-classical carbocations don't exist. He was, um, wrong, not that he ever confessed as much.

Come to think of it, Albert Einstein, was wrong about some of the theory he helped invent, quantum mechanics.

And yet, uncritically, we have here trash talk saying that one paper must be true because it's published in a journal. Only a scientific illiterate could make such a claim.

I have actually accessed this garbage paper. It has, for all of its useless verbiage, the word "toxicology' in it once and that in the references section as part of a title.

Any paper that presumes to talk about acceptable energy - especially the toxic semiconductor industry that underpins the solar fantasy - without referring to toxicology, is well, toxic.

When I want to demonstrate exactly how weak the "renewables will save us" trash is, this sort of remark represents a screaming case of "QED."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Well perhaps you can produce peer reviewed literature that focuses on all the alternatives
Edited on Tue Jan-26-10 11:46 PM by kristopher
And gives an overall evaluation and comparison of the environmental impact of their use to meet our energy needs?

Or, since you focus on saying that renewable energy cannot meet our needs, perhaps you can provide a peer reviewed paper that demonstrates (not just claims, but DEMONSTRATES) why they cannot meet our needs.

Four Nuclear Myths: A Commentary on Stewart Brand's Whole Earth Discipline and on Similar Writings
Journal or Magazine Article, 2009
http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2009-09_FourNuclearMyths

Some nuclear-power advocates claim that wind and solar power can't provide much if any reliable power because they're not "baseload," that they use too much land, that all energy options including new nuclear build are needed to combat climate change, and that nuclear power's economics don't matter because climate change will force governments to dictate energy choices and pay for whatever is necessary. None of these claims can withstand analytic scrutiny.

Report or White Paper, 2009
http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E09-01_NuclearPowerClimateFixOrFolly

This semi-technical article, summarizing a detailed and documented technical paper (see "The Nuclear Illusion" (2008)), compares the cost, climate protection potential, reliability, financial risk, market success, deployment speed, and energy contribution of new nuclear power with those of its low- or no-carbon competitors.

Nuclear Power's Competitive Landscape
Presentation, 2009
http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2009-15_NuclearPowersCompetativeLandscape

A hotly debated topic, the present and future state of nuclear power and its competitors are the subject of this presentation by Amory Lovins at RMI2009. This presentation was part of a plenary debate with Robert Rosner entitled, "Nuclear: Fix or Folly?" The accompanying video of the entire debate is available at http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Videos.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC