(Page 2 of 2)
The Danes' clean bill of health is boosting prospects for the Cape Wind project because its ecosystems are similar; in particular, many of the bird species they observed also frequent Nantucket Sound. In contrast, most estimates of Cape Wind's impact on Nantucket Sound's rich bird life have been extrapolated from studies of onshore wind farms, leaving plenty of room for disagreement. In a draft environmental assessment issued in 2004, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimated that Cape Wind would kill no more than 364 birds per year, whereas Mass Audubon argued that the data could just as easily predict mortality as high as 6,600 birds per year.
Allison says that TADS and the Danish study as a whole have now narrowed the range of probable impacts. "We certainly haven't seen any mass mortality event," Allison notes. A second environmental assessment for Cape Wind, expected imminently from the U.S. Department of the Interior, will include the Danish results.
Nevertheless, Allison insists that Cape Wind must perform its own studies to confirm the project's safety. Furness agrees: "The problem of bird collisions is rather site specific. The industry would like to say, 'Oh well, the Danes have done it, so we don't have to worry about it.' I don't think that's a reasonable approach."
Mimicking the bumps on humpback-whale fins could lead to more efficient wind turbines.
Guest (Rand)
I know it depends on location, but does anyone know the percentage of time that turbines produce, say, less than 75% of rated output and the approximate cost per kwh?
Wind turbines are useful less then 25% of the time.
Lovelock, in his recent "Revenge of Gaia" on p 83 says:
Windpower "at best provides energy only 25% of the time".
I believe windpower (without subsidy) costs 2.5X to 3X the cost of conventional power.
Guest (Todd)
Windpower is currently 3-5 cents a kwh, and building of new wind turbines is growing at over 20% a year because it is cheaper than coal now.
What looks really interesting is 'kitegen' technology, which uses kites and a vertical turbine rather than a horizontal turbine with propellers.
Power = 0.5*rotor sweep area*(wind Velocity)^3*Air density
Is the equation used for wind power. New Kitegen technology has a sweep area about 10x larger and a wind velocity roughly 2x higher and occurs more consistently than at the altitude of a normal turbine w/o a much higher cost of setup. They claim 0.1 cents a KWH with a kitegen turbine (as opposed to 3-5 cents for conventional turbines or 5-8 cents for coal). However they are currently only building the first 5 MW prototype. If this works it'll change the world of energy.
www.chim.unisi.it/portovenere/portovenere/PPT%20PDF/Milanese.pdf
http://www.sequoiaonline.com/blogs/htm/progetto_eng.htm
The average capacity factor cited by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, for wind farms for the majority of 2005 is 35%. That being average, some farms are in the mid to high 20's, and some are in the low to mid 40's. Farms running at "less than 25%" would not be economically viable in today's market.
I'm sorry, but the comment on subsidies is absurd. Coal power plants produce at 3-4 cents/kWh, gas is 4-8 cents/kWh FOR FUEL ALONE, but when you note subsidies for wind power without commenting on subsidies for conventional power, you lose all credibility. Go to www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/Subsidy.pdf and take a look. I'm honestly interested if you can poke holes in the numbers, but the American Wind Energy Association prides itself on solid numbers.
Wind turbines on towers aren't the best looking things, but wind generators on kites would look cool.
I suspect, rather than being THE savior, wind will form part of the future power mix. In any case, our problem is really more in storing power than in generating it.
VRB Power Systems has developed a system that addresses this problem. They are going to be implementing it on a planned 39MW wind farm in Ireland. The storage system proposed for the Sorne Hill Windfarm will be able to supply 12 megawatt-hours of electricity, or 1.5 megawatts over eight hours. It should be enough to power 300 to 400 homes on a typical working day.
Even if lots of birds/bats/moths crashed into the turbines at first, shouldn't we expect these fast-breeding species to evolve to avoid the blades?
In the context of wind power generation and the rapid mass extinction occurring here in the Anthropocene, we'd do better to evolve the technology and placement of it. The bat issue is being worked on, but fears over birds are mostly just that, fears.
Fails to address #1 U.S. concern
This study seems to concentrate on the threat of seabird collisions in offshore wind farms.
But the study does not address the main potential threat of offshore wind farms off the U.S. east coast: songbird collisions due to Aircraft warning lights required on tall towers by the F.A.A. (Federal Aviation Administration)
Aircraft warning lights on towers, especially red or yellow lights or those that do not pause long enough between pulses, cause songbirds to circle towers until they become exhausted or collide with guy wires, towers themselves or turbines.
So unless these infrared devices are sensitive enough to see warblers and other tiny songbirds in bad weather (often a contributing factor with tower lighting in tower-collisions), they offer false hope in detecting bird deaths.
At any rate - the study mentioned in this article DOES NOT address the most serious concerns about offshore wind farms off the eastern U.S. coast.
Nathan Dias
Executive Director
Cape Romain Bird Observatory
Re: Fails to address #1 U.S. concern
Considering the system was able to identify a *moth* I'm fairly certain it would be able to identify small songbirds...or any other sort for that matter.
Re: Fails to address #1 U.S. concern
Moths yes, but IN BAD WEATHER?
Important, since bad weather is when bird strikes tend to take place...
Re: Fails to address #1 U.S. concern
In all the controversey about birdstrikes, I fail to see any references to combating the problem of birdkill in the cities with tall buildings. These bird kills do not seem to appreciably decrease the population of birds in the cities. Is there any research in stopping birds from flying into these buildings? Producing energy is far more important in many respects than worrying about a few birds being killed. That said, I am an ardent tree hugger but I think producing pollution free power is a far more important task AT THIS TIME than worrying about some bird kill.
Re: Fails to address #1 U.S. concern
In a similar vein, how many birds are killed by cats each year? Plenty. One suspects that the bird "issue" is a proxy for an objection that is less easily made. After all, it would be hard for a summer resident of Hyannisport to convince a crowd that his view is more important than the energy/climate crisis.
Re: Fails to address #1 U.S. concern
I agree that cats are a huge problem.
That is why I trap feral cats and roaming ones as well, to turn into the shelter to be eventually destroyed if not adopted (seldom the case).
Re: Fails to address #1 U.S. concern
This makes a mockery of the 'it will spoil my ocean view' objection: http://va4wind.com/wind-411/debunking-the-myths/ In the photo, you can barely see the turbines in the distance, and what looks ugly are the numerous vehicle tracks scarring the beach.
Re: Fails to address #1 U.S. concern
We are talking about MIGRATING birds here. Ones that pass overhead by the millions unseen while you sleep.
The discussion is not about "local birds" at all.
Biggest Obstacle of Cape Cod Wind Farm
The biggest obstacle to the proposed wind farm off the shore of Cape Cod is, of course, Ted Kennedy. Can anyone seriously doubt that if the project was proposed anywhere other then near his vacation home that as a committed environmentalist he'd be a passionate advocate in favor?
Re: Biggest Obstacle of Cape Cod Wind Farm
There are hundreds of citizen's groups and hundreds of thousands of people all over the world that agree with Ted Kennedy. All these individuals just don't make the news.
The desire to reduce fossil fuel emissions is commendable, but it can compel otherwise sensible people to support wind initiatives at any cost, in any location, and without any investigation into potential consequences. It must be examined whether the elusive benefits of large-scale wind energy development are enough to justify the further destruction of rural communities and our natural environment.
Don't you agree that at least some common sense guidelines on the siting these industrial turbines should come into the picture somewhere? ...or is it a giant free-for-all with these wind corporations given total control to do whatever they please? Wind advocates are beginning to sound like religious zealots who would bring back the Spanish Inquisition in a heartbeat.
Search your soul. Examine how balanced your thinking is on this matter.
Re: Biggest Obstacle of Cape Cod Wind Farm
I don't buy the "environmental-destruction-by-windmills" argument. The whole "danger to birds" thing sounds extremely phony. Probably a lot more birds die because of collision with aircraft.
Some of the most nature friendly nations have adopted windpower - eg. Denmark and Holland. There is no news of bird problems from these countries. American birds are stupider, and will fly into the blades? Get real.
http://www.windpower.org/en/core.htm
Re: Biggest Obstacle of Cape Cod Wind Farm
So what is your explanation for this?:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5108666.stm
Sounds like you are getting all your information from the powerful wind industry lobby groups. The have millions to spin their fairy tales and downplay the negatives. Would you to to a tobacco lobbyist to get the lowdown on cigarettes? Try looking at the other side of the coin:
www.windaction.org
Re: Biggest Obstacle of Cape Cod Wind Farm
Thanks moe, that's a good link - important to know.
Then it looks like the bird safety might be dependent on the actual habitat, and the type of bird species that live there.
Isn't then a *far* offshore windfarm good? There aren't too many birds flying around 200 miles off the coast, are there?
Re: Biggest Obstacle of Cape Cod Wind Farm
"most wind farms would not cause any harm to birds but that the Smola wind farm had been badly sited in a place where it put white-tailed eagles at risk."
Which really says it all. Siting a wind farm where large, relatively unmaneuverable birds are in residence was probably an error. However, as has already been demonstrated, almost all wind farms have little or no impact (or impacts) on birds.
You are, in fact, arguing the general from the specific, in that you are saying that, since one wind farm was badly sited and impacted local wildlife, all wind farms are badly sited and will impact local wildlife, which is clearly neither accurate nor sensible.
Wind farms may be expensive to install, but their maintenance costs are low and their fuel is free. long term, the energy is cheap. But, once again, the US lags behind Europe in an important technology, because of special interest groups.
Re: Biggest Obstacle of Cape Cod Wind Farm
I'd hardly call windaction.org an objective source of peer-reviewed research...
Cape Cod windfarm will help birds
The effect of an offshore windfarm could in fact improve the local ecosystem. The towers would provide underwater nesting areas for fish - a sort of artificial reef system. More fish is better for the seabirds, and also for the local fishermen.
Kennedy&Co just don't get it.
Re: Cape Cod windfarm will help birds
Still hurts migratory songbirds, which pass over the coastal waters in the millions.
Re: Cape Cod windfarm will help birds
Since you are concerned about the song birds flying along the coastal areas, you must know how far out they fly right? You have done research on their flight pattern right? Or are you just talking to hear yourself? Please present some data.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
alternativee.org
9 Comments
A huge boost for wind power
The results from Denmark and ability to perform similar collision studies at other locations are a great advancement for wind power. This combined with the recent announcement that the National Audubon Society "strongly supports wind power as a clean alternative energy source" should help reduce opposition to wind power and allow researchers and investors to focus more time and energy on improving the efficiency of the technology and establishing wind farms with minimal ecological impact.
www.alternativee.org
Reply
deirdrebeth
25 Comments
Re: A huge boost for wind power
Finally! Someone has figured out a way of proving that birds are not as dumb as many folks seem to think they are. If they can avoid raptors they can avoid blades. Not all of them, but not all of them can avoid raptors either.
Reply