[va-bird] Re: windpower Post article

VA birders,
> I am truely impressed with the knowledgeable responses I have received to 
> my original post regarding wind energy. I am especially sympathetic to the 
> folks in Highland County who  may see their landscape changed dramatically by 
> the introduction of Wind turbines. My sister  just bought land in Highland 
> county and they were very opposed to wind turbines. The times I have birded 
> in 
> Highland County have been extremely remarkable both in terms of the birds 
> seen 
> and the natural beauty of the area.  Every birding trip I have taken to 
> Highland county has left me wandering what it would take for me to move 
> there.  
       Given the global impact of climate changes resulting from our overuse 
of fossil fuels > it seems clear to me that life on our planet as we now know 
> it is dependent upon creating viable alternatives to our current dependence 
> on fossil fuels. Unfortunately, the current administration has seen fit to 
> formulate it's energy policy without the input from environmental groups. Nor 
> have they allowed the American public to even have access to the notes to the 
> meetings  chaired by Dick Cheney which will determine the direction of our 
> nation's energy policy. Even when these notes were subpoenaed by another 
> government agency (the name of which escapes me at the moment). Perhaps there 
> are 
> better alternatives to Wind Energy but I doubt that any of our current energy 
> sources can claim to be as environmentally friendly as wind energy. Nuclear 
> power plants, hydroelectric, Coal........all have major environmental costs. 
> I 
> believe there are some alternatives out there that could be significantly 
> more benign then Wind energy  including hydrogen cells and solar energy. 
> However, I cannot claim to know that for a fact. There may  be drawbacks to 
> those 
> alternative energy sources as well. Clearly we as a society and birders in 
> particular need to become more informed and more outspoken in this arena. 
> Clearly 
> birding as a hobby cannot escape the realities of the environmental disaster 
> that global warming entails. The fact that our country  refused to sign the 
> Kyoto (spelling)? treaty clearly indicates that the vast majority of 
> Americans do not believe that Global Warming is real or that it can have a 
> massive 
> impact on our environment and life on our planet. I do not share that 
> assessment. 


William Leigh
Winchester VA

> 
> 
> Thanks, Rick.  Again, some good points, and I'm ready to set aside the "pen"
> with respect to va-birds if you are.
> 
> You ask:
> 
> >Is anyone really arguing that precaution
> >is not warranted? Is anyone really arguing that adequate safeguards are in
> >place?
> 
> No, I can't argue that--mostly because I know very little about Virginia's
> regulatory scheme.  And certainly, caution is warranted to some degree.
> 
> I'm troubled, though, by the nature of your comments.  I don't have anything
> against regulation of wind, but I'd like to see it undertaken in a spirit 
> of true
> fairness.  Such a spirit would acknowledge some things that I haven't seen
> in your posts:
> 
> - Our current system of generating electricity is an ongoing environmental
> disaster.  Coal, the source of more than half our electricity, exacts huge
> environmental costs at every step of its lifecycle, from the habitat
> disruption and pollution that accompany mining to the air pollution,
> greenhouse gases, and mercury from combustion to the habitat disruption
> and pollution that accompany waste disposal.
> 
> - Global warming, caused in part by the fossil fuel combustion from which
> we obtain ~70% of our electricity use, threatens habitat destruction on a
> global scale and massive impacts on wildlife.
> 
> - Wind energy, notwithstanding its flaws, remains one of the cleanest and
> least-damaging options we have for generating electricity.  The task before
> us is not to prevent or slow it as much as we can, but to capture its 
> benefits
> while minimizing its direct impacts as far as reasonably possible.
> 
> You've defined the issues with wind pretty well.  I hope that you are 
> equally
> willing to recognize its benefits.
> 
> Regards,
> Tom Gray
> American Wind Energy Association
> 
> At 09:36 AM 12/28/2003 -0500, Rick Webb wrote:
> >Concerning the discussion about industrial-scale windpower development and
> >avian impacts:
> >
> >It is clear that well-intentioned people can reach different conclusions
> >about the potential problem. But all of us should agree that there is a lot
> >we don't know.
> >
> >Questions need to be raised about the adequacy and applicability of 
> existing
> >research. Questions also need to be raised about the environmental 
> tradeoffs
> >and whether wind development in Virginia can make a real difference in
> >relation to our ever-increasing consumption of electricity. And it's clear
> >we cannot resolve all the issues in this forum. We need objective and
> >independent assessment.
> >
> >Unfortunately, it looks like wind development in Virginia may proceed in a
> >regulatory vacuum. There is no state-level authority that will insure
> >effective pre-construction assessment and post-construction monitoring of
> >wind development. Local zoning ordinances were not written to address
> >industrial-scale wind energy projects, and rural zoning boards are not
> >equipped to deal with the issues.
> >
> >Is there any reason to expect that wind development in Virginia will 
> proceed
> >slowly and cautiously? Hundreds of turbines are already slated for
> >construction in surrounding states, and when Congress approves the federal
> >energy bill, the renewal of tax credits and other incentives will drive the
> >process in Virginia. It has been reported that officials throughout
> >Virginia's mountain counties are receiving inquiries from wind energy
> >development companies. The Highland County Board of Supervisors alone has
> >been contacted by eight different companies. The company that proposes the
> >30-turbine project on Allegheny Mountain in Highland County indicates that
> >the project will "catalyze" 900 mws of additional development in the 
> region,
> >i.e., 500-600 additional turbines from just one company.
> >
> >We are facing dramatic change in much of Virginia's remaining wild 
> landscape
> >and most-pristine wildlife habitat. Is anyone really arguing that 
> precaution
> >is not warranted? Is anyone really arguing that adequate safeguards are in
> >place?
> >
> >
> >Rick Webb
> >Monterey, Virginia
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Tom Gray" <tomgray@xxxxxxx>
> >To: <va-bird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 9:29 PM
> >Subject: [va-bird] Re: windpower Post article
> >
> >
> >>Rick,
> >>
> >>Good post, but I think I must pick a few nits (see below).
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>Tom Gray
> >>American Wind Energy Association
> >>
> >>At 05:56 PM 12/27/2003 -0500, Rick Webb wrote:
> >>>William,
> >>>
> >>>In response to your questions, this is what I understand concerning
> >>>potential avian impacts of wind development in the Appalachian Mountains:
> >>>
> >>>- Migrating birds and bats tend to be channeled along our north-south
> >>>oriented ridges in their twice yearly migrations. These are the same
> >>>locations where turbines are most favorably located for maximum wind
> >power
> >>>potential.
> >>
> >>With regard to bats, I'll accept this, in view of the unexpectedly high
> >number
> >>of bats killed at the new Mountaineer wind project in West Virginia (~500
> >>carcasses found during this year's fall migration, actual numbers killed
> >may
> >>be several times higher due to fact that carcasses are small, easily
> >missed by
> >>searchers and easily scavenged).  This is a serious issue that is already
> >being
> >>researched.
> >>
> >>With regard to birds, it is still a theory that is not supported by the
> >>fatality
> >>numbers from Mountaineer.  Another theory is that many birds use valleys
> >for
> >>migration.
> >>
> >>>- Modern turbines can be as high as 465 feet tall, including  rotors
> >>>(blades). The blades sweep large areas at speeds that are much faster
> >than
> >>>birds or bats can detect.
> >>
> >>Sentence #1 is correct, sentence #2 unproven.
> >>
> >>>- Although cell towers are associated with some bird mortality, they are
> >>>widely dispersed, they don't have whirling blades, and they have not been
> >>>concentrated on mountain ridges.
> >>
> >>True.  On the other hand, there are many, many more communications towers
> >>installed around the U.S. than wind turbines, and their number is
> >expanding
> >>faster.  Also, most are guyed, and the length of guy wire expands
> >exponentially
> >>with height--many researchers feel that the big kills associated with tall
> >>communications towers are partially the result of disoriented birds flying
> >>around them and colliding with the wires.
> >>
> >>>- Turbines must be lighted at night for aviation safety. Lights may
> >attract
> >>>and disorient birds.
> >>>
> >>>- Although much is not known about bird migration patterns and flight
> >>>levels, there are times, particularly during low cloud cover, when flight
> >>>elevation and turbine height coincide. This would be particularly so when
> >>>tower height and ridge height are combined.
> >>>
> >>>- Wind development of the magnitude required to meet renewable energy
> >>>objectives will require many thousands of turbines, creating a turbine
> >>>gauntlet. For example, one pending project in WV will involve 200
> >turbines
> >>>along 12 miles of the Allegheny Front.
> >>
> >>Whether "gauntlet" is an accurate characterization remains to be seen, and
> >>depends to some degree on how accurate the theory about ridgeline
> >>migration is.
> >>
> >>>- The new Mountaineer Wind Farm in WV provides recent examples of avian
> >>>impacts in the Appalachian region, including 30+ birds found killed after
> >>>one foggy night last August and 475 bats found killed over the summer of
> >>>2003. Total mortality may greatly exceed observed mortality due to
> >>>collection inefficiency and removal by scavengers.
> >>>
> >>>Although there is much we don't know about the potential magnitude of the
> >>>impact, we do know that the magnitude of wind energy development may be
> >very
> >>>large. If this development is to proceed in a responsible manner, we will
> >>>not throw caution to the wind. We will go slowly and study the potential
> >>>problems carefully.
> >>>
> >>>Rick Webb
> >>>Monterey, Virginia
> >>
> >>This last is certainly sage counsel.  Perhaps we could also keep a few
> >other
> >>things in mind:
> >>
> >>- Wind energy has been around for more than 20 years, and our country
> >>now gets 0.4% of its electricity from wind.  In general, we HAVE gone
> >>extremely slow, although I realize that the last couple of years have seen
> >>a sudden flurry of proposals in Appalachia.
> >>
> >>- In general, wind energy displaces electricity from other sources that
> >are
> >>more damaging to birds and to the biosphere as well.  I won't include a
> >>recital here, because I dislike being a "bully" by writing long responses
> >to
> >>short messages.  I'll just cite one reference, "The Environmental
> >>Imperative for Renewable Energy: An Update" --it's on the Web and
> >>anyone can find it using Google.
> >>
> >>It is appropriate to insist that wind projects be designed and built in
> >such
> >>a way as to minimize environmental impact as far as reasonably possible.
> >>However, the net environmental effect of wind projects is likely to be
> >>strongly positive, even if there are some negative local impacts.
> >>
> >>You are subscribed to VA-BIRD. To post to this mailing list, simply send
> >email to va-bird@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe, send email to
> >>va-bird-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >You are subscribed to VA-BIRD. To post to this mailing list, simply send 
> >email to va-bird@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe, send email to
> >va-bird-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field.
> 
> You are subscribed to VA-BIRD. To post to this mailing list, simply send 
> email to va-bird@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe, send email to
> va-bird-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field.
> 
> 



You are subscribed to VA-BIRD. To post to this mailing list, simply send email 
to va-bird@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe, send email to
va-bird-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field.

Other related posts: