[va-bird] Re: windpower Post article

Tom,



My agenda is to insure that the environmental tradeoffs associated with wind
development are recognized and fairly evaluated.



It seems to me that the benefits are very well known and that wind
development has plenty of outspoken advocates. Some, in fact, are so ardent
that they have no patience for any questions at all. It makes for a
difficult discussion.



I am fully aware of the problems associated with our coal-based energy
system. I have lived in the West Virginia "coal fields" and I have
first-hand knowledge of the environmental and human costs of coal mining.
For the last twenty years I have worked as a research scientist focused on
the effects of coal-related air pollution on central Appalachian streams and
forested mountain watersheds. Believe me, I've got the picture.



That said, I'm for preserving the integrity of what remains of our wild
county and natural landscapes. Birds need it and so do we.



The production and use of coal has indeed been environmentally egregious.
Let's not now compound the problem by throwing out the precautionary
principals that conservationist have worked so hard to establish.



If any industry can do it right, it should be the wind industry





Rick Webb

Monterey, Virginia







----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Gray" <tomgray@xxxxxxx>
To: <va-bird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 7:46 PM
Subject: [va-bird] Re: windpower Post article


> 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: