Stetsons Off to Gov. Perry on Wind Power

Like any group, not all environmentalists are created equal. There seem to be trolls under every bridge. Many fake environmentalists are actually just trying to discredit the competition for their chosen scheme. I see this frequently with solar agents trying to discredit wind and with Donald Trump claiming to be concerned with offshore wind turbine's effect on birds and natural beauty while bulldozing a few hundred acres of the environment to install a golf course. He probably did not get to skim money off the wind investment.

The left may be pro-renewable energy, but they are firmly anti-business (an interesting paradox). This is why the US has lost it's status as #1 in the world in wind power under Obama. I suspect that if Obama continues as president, the US will lose #1 status in biofuel, and geothermal as well.

Sounds like the critics are right. Bush and the utility commission (and the political influence of people like Pickens) are the ones Texan's should be thanking, not Perry. Has the bar really been set so low for politcians that you need to give them credit for doing nothing instead of stepping in and making things worse nowadays?

And John, most people on the left are not anti-business. They are against corrupt business practices, polluters and predatory capitalism, so unless you think all businesses fall into these groups then you need to paint a little less with that broad brush of yours.

Per ERCOT, at an 8.7% capacity factor the true wind power available in Texas is about 800MW. Wind provides about one(1%)percent of Texas 75 GW summer capacity. Basically a taxpayer funded boondoggle.

@John-Bronson, what an inane statement - pure political bigotry. Any drop in the rate of windpower installation in this country has nothing to do with an anti-business swing by any administration. In fact, if anything the climate has improved, especially offshore - witness Cape Wind finally got permitted and many other projects are now marching forward under revised rules.

The reason for the slow down was the Bush recession and the drop in the price of NG. Go peddle your right-wing BS elsewhere.

Following in the footsteps of Ed the Sock, Rolf Westgard can't say anything good but he says it often. The fact is that this summer, wind on average contributed about 4% of ERCOT average demand.

Consider WE Aug 3 where wind provided 6.6% of on-peak power best case and over 2% worst case. Of course, you can misrepresent the data: ERCOT assumes wind power to provide 8.7% of nameplate (2008) as firm capacity including allowances for grid congestion (which is substantial in Texas) - this is the rock-bottom estimator not the capacity factor - although many vandals like to put this spin on it. The average capacity factor is around 22% but could be higher as Texas improves its transmission capacity and integration of wind power.

Thanks for the clarification Gerald, its nice to see some facts here to offset the concern trolls who spend all their time criticising renewable energy on the comment boards.

I often wonder if these people are the dupes of things like red state, rush limbaugh and other right wing propaganda outlets or if these people are paid disinformers who get a stipend for spreading their BS to the masses.

good point Trawson,
why would someone like rolf w. comment here? maybe he can't find a site like 'let's conserve the system we've got and burn oil and coal until it's gone.com'
everyone else : let's look to the future

In Texas, wind (and maybe solar) is the only energy supply that is not regulated, and because of this, the wind industry is not following any guidelines that ensure that serious environmental problems are not being caused by wind turbines. Along the Gulf Coast south of Corpus Christi, there is a corridor of bird migration and now there are several wind farm installations. Are these installations killing birds and bats. The wind industry is not letting anyone assess the damage to wildlife, mainly birds, caused by these installations. Should be raving about Texas' adoption of wind power? If it were properly regulated that the wind industry was concerned about their environmental impact, then yes, we should. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Let's just run rufshod over the envirnment - to hell with nature!

The wind power industry is established enough to have some Republican defenders, especially in windy Texas.

Perry is opposed to clean air rules and clean water rules. And he is fanatical about small government, which means no R&D for renewable energy technology.

Extensive studies have proven that the threat to birds and other wildlife from modern wind turbines is minimal. Domestic cats and windows are of much greater threat to birds and other wildlife than any modern windmill.

And you go on to claim that the wind industry isn't allowing this to be studied? That's complete BS!

The fact is that one of the many regulatory hurdles any wind or solar farm has to endure is an environmental impact study. And they all pass since their impact is much less than that created by many other common man made structures.

I'd ask you to post one study or legitimate report showing otherwise, but I see you are already staking out the conspiracy theory that the big, evil wind industry is suppressing such information.

rolf-westgard-67277 is wrong about the capacity factor he quotes, in comment 4 above, of 8.7%. The Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts states "In Texas, the average capacity factor of wind farms installed in 2004 through 2005 is 39 percent, compared to 32 percent for projects installed between 2000 and 2001 and 19.6 percent for those installed before 1998. The West Texas wind farms that generate power for the city of Austin's utility company, Austin Energy, have capacity factors ranging from 35 percent to 40 percent." These are excellent capacity factors, nearly twice the estimate I've seen of 21% nationally. The newer turbines are taller and more efficient and it shows in these numbers. I imagine this is very profitable for everyone involved.

trawson: "Extensive studies have proven that the threat to birds and other wildlife from modern wind turbines is minimal."

Aug 3, 2011, LA Times: 6 protected Golden Eagles killed by wind turbines at an LA DPW wind farm built in 2009.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/03/local/la-me-wind-eagles-20110803

At any other industrial facility, the deaths of eagles would result in immediate calls for the facility to be shutdown until the cause was remedied and for fines. The Sierra Club has been utterly silent on this report. The Center for Biodiversity issued several press releases on the eagle deaths at the Altamonte Pass area, but their assumption has always been that replacing the low-to-the-ground, high-rpm older turbines with tall, "modern", low-rpm ones would fix the problem. Guess what, the Pine Tree wind farm is a "modern" wind farm. Only Audubon shows any concern for the eagle deaths:
http://www.audublog.org/?p=5690

Next, trawson gives the classic "cats kill birds" argument. That makes as much sense as claiming that tigers don't need to be protected because thousands of feral housecats die each year. Cats don't kill raptors or bats, they kill small ground-hugging birds, quail and doves, which have high reproduction rates.

Instead, the eagle deaths will be "studied".

Aug 23, 2011: Xcell Energy asks it's TX-NM customers to voluntarily limit their power usage until 8 pm.
http://www.xcelenergy.com/About_Us/Energy_News/News_Releases/Xcel_Energy_declares_Energy_Alert

Xcel Energy advertises themselves as "the nation's number 1 wind power producer", and in the TX-NM service area, 16% (673 MW) of Xcel's capacity is wind power. (50% is coal-fired, 32% is NG-fired steam turbines and 2% is NG gas turbines.) In other words, one-sixth of Xcel's TX-NM power production capacity is from wind.

On Aug 23rd, the TX wind output dropped to approx 16% of the rated capacity from 1 pm to 9 pm. While ERCOT doesn't publish numbers on individual wind farms, I can't imagine that Xcel's wind input (all of which is purchased in the TX-NM service area) was going gung-ho while the rest of TX wind frankly sucked.
http://www.ercot.com/gridinfo/generation/

So with the high demand and Xcel's 673 MW of wind capacity actually producing about 108 MW, Xcel had to be running their other plants pretty hard, and has probably been doing so all month. Their two coal plants were built between 1976 and 1982, and their three NG steam plants were built between 1952 and 1974, so none of them are spring chickens, even if they have been well maintained.
ERCOT's hourly graphs smooth out the sub-hourly variations. I believe that the standard wind metrology logging requirements are 10 minute intervals or less. Wind farm operators are notoriously tight-lipped about providing actual output numbers. Even the FERC data is hourly at best, and sometimes reported by the independent wind farm LLC's as a single line of data for an entire quarter. As far as I know, the only US wind power data that is reported in near-realtime and sub-hour increments is BPA's:
http://transmission.bpa.gov/Business/operations/Wind/baltwg.aspx

continuing:
The sub-hourly variations are also well-known in the utility industry, otherwise, why would GE have developed a combined-cycle gas turbine particularly for wind-following oeprations: http://www.ge-flexibility.com/index.jsp , and why would CA PUC have approved the construction of the 800 MW CPV Sentinel power plant, composed of eight LMS100 open-cycle gas turbines?

The NG industry loves wind power, because they know that backing it up is less efficient than if the utilities simply purchased high-efficiency combined-cycle gas turbine units. Here's RFK Jr speaking to the Colo O&G Assoc last July: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcm1gmPL50s . Aubrey McClendon, Chesapeake Energy CEO and American Clean Skies Foundation Chairman, is on record as stating that the NG industry would like NG prices to rise to $5-$6 per MMBTU, which is 25-33% about current US prices. Is anyone unclear of the effects on electricity prices this would have? In their push to "reduce america's dependence on foreign oil" (a false statement in terms of electricity production), wind & solar advocates are simply placing us at the mercy of our own home-grown "gas ticks".

Perry can be commended for encouraging wind power as a method of siphoning as much federal Section 1603 money as possible to TX. That way, he can claim increased employment, the private landowners get their lease payments, the wind farm developers grab the section 1603 money that is not dependent on site quality or actual wind output, and the state of TX gets increased tax revenue. Everyone wins except the US taxpayer, who has footed the bill for a substandard, unreliable energy source.

The poster, Lauren Glickman is Social Media & Online Advocacy Manager, AWEA.

AKA paid industry shill.

Don't just take my word on it, even the audubon society backs me up on this one . . .

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2006/12/for-the-birds-audubon-society-stands-up-in-support-of-wind-energy-46840

My point, like the audubon society's, is that many things kill birds, but the big picture is that wind farms are the least of mankind's impact on flying animals. That being said I agree with the society that farm locations must be carefully sited to have a minimal impact on all animals that may be effected by them.

Opposing wind power for the sake of birds and bats is as stupid as opposing electric cars by complaining that they might run over a few endangered animals when they hit the road.

trawson, give it a rest. We know you value birds more than a healthy ecosystem, more than humans, and more that jobs and a sustainable economy.

Consider for a moment the devastation that has occurred in the name of fossil fuels. Wars, spills, blow-outs, ruined aquifers, land laid waste. Have you forgotten the oil-soaked birds in the Gulf of Mexico or entire year classes of fish species wiped out? How do you like your mercury? From the fish you eat or the air you breath? Or maybe its OK that fracked gas is ruining groundwater and aquifers and killing animals.

No technology is without impacts - especially energy-producing technologies. I appreciate your concern for these six golden eagles. But those losses need to be put in perspective based on the larger threat from dirty energy.

trwason: you cite a 2006 article written by the AWEA Communications Director?? I would submit that at the time of this writing, National Audubon had taken the assurances of the AWEA at face value.

Look at the public comments submitted by various avian conservation groups in regards to the Draft Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines: http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/Guideline_Comments.html
They urged mandatory compliance with the guidelines and strenghtening of the guidleines.

Contrast that with the comment submitted by the AWEA:
http://www.awea.org/issues/siting/upload/AWEA-Comments-on-USFWS-Wind-Energy-Guidelines_May-19-2011.pdf
The AWEA wants voluntary guidelines, minimization of pre- and post-construction monitoring, etc.

Cliff_Goudey: I'll respond, since you addressed your "go away" comment to the wrong person.

You are a very experienced engineer. Yes, six eagles were found, but in rough, open terrain, the general assumption is that half of the carcasses are carried off before being found by humans. It is not a similar region to the Newburyport wind turbine. Also, unlike inlets for cooling pumps, there is no equivalent to wedgewire screens that can be placed in front of a wind turbine. Furthermore, how do you address the fact that wind turbines require backup power sources, that the typical fuel for those generators is NG, and that NG is only inexpensive in the US right now because of "fracking". In Japan and Germany, NG costs $13/MMBTU, three times the US cost.

Your post is a disservice to your (and my) profession. Do you have a technical rebuttal to my posts?

I also suggest that you do a lot of reading over at Brave New Climate.

I want to encourage healthy debate associated with this blog, but I also want to remind people to be civil and refrain from name calling or derogatory remarks towards one another.

Paul- I'm not sure what you accomplished by pointing out that a blog posted on the company page of AWEA on renewableenergyworld.com was in fact posted by someone who works at AWEA. I've never claimed otherwise. Our world is facing a serious energy problem one that can only be solved with a diverse energy portfolio. I am proud to be part of an energy sector that is helping to achieve that goal.

As for the birds, some one stated it before but it's worth repeating nothing we do as humans has zero impact. We take our impact on birds of all kinds very seriously and have been actively involved with http://www.awwi.org/ working to minimize our impacts as much as possible.

As far as the guidelines, we worked as part of the Wind Federal Advisory Committee to come up with guidelines that both conservation groups and the industry agreed on. http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/windpower/wind_turbine_advisory_committee_information.html Our comments to US FWS reflect that agreement.

While we all won't agree all the time on everything and when we don't there is nothing wrong with a little healthy debate, but at some point you need to agree to disagree and move on.

Well put Lauren.

And since some people here prefer to attack the messenger when they don't like the message, here is a direct link to what I think is the audubon organization's well balanced policy concerning the reality of wind turbines effects on flying animals . .

http://policy.audubon.org/wind-power-overview-0

Lets also give credit to the wind power producers, since unlike other forms of energy production that wipes out vast parts of the ecosystems they come up against, their impact is minimal in comparison and they are the ones reporting these bird deaths instead of trying to cover up these events.

The following is a good article that shows the reality of a large bird being injured or killed by a wind turbine and pointing out the rational and balanced approaches those involved are doing to minimise such impacts.

http://magblog.audubon.org/video-bird-collides-wind-turbine-blade

As I mentioned earlier with my electric car analogy, humans have many negative impacts on the world around them. Using that as an argument against greener technology is nothing more than concern trolling, since unless you propose getting rid of humans and/or our supporting technologies, what do you propose as an alternative?

No one seems to have mentioned all the work done on the bird and bat problem by the American Bird Conservancy and on bats by the Bat Conservation International. Neither of these organizations, as I recall, think much of the work of the advisory committees. The problem is that there are no efforts at mitigation in case of serious bird or bat problems. The industry has not promised to shut down for a short period, turbines during migration if bird kills become a problem, and there are no regulations that require mitigation.

To think Texas produces environmental impact statements on anything is really a joke!

Buildings 550 million 58.2 percent
Power lines 130 million 13.7 percent
Cats 100 million 10.6 percent
Automobiles 80 million 8.5 percent
Pesticides 67 million 7.1 percent
Communications towers 4.5 million 0.5 percent
Wind turbines 28.5 thousand <0.01 percent
Airplanes 25 thousand <0.01 percent
Other sources (oil spills, oil seeps, fishing by-catch, etc.) not calculated
Comparitively: the Washington Monument has a higher bird kill than the largest wind farm - the Washington Monument serves no utilitarian purpose.
I should be noted that lighting is a well known associated cause for bird kill with any kind of tower structure. A case in point is the warning beacon placed on the top of these structures where an intense white strobe is much less hazardous than a blinking or steady red light (for example). For complex reasons, these kills are not counted against airplanes. However, a significant portion of these kills are preventable (just change the lighting).
Auto rates are probably underestimated as the removal rate (crows, ravens, buzzards, raptors, foxes, cats, etc) has such a short time constant that it cannot be readily accounted for in studies, nor can injuries that are not immediately fatal.
One study puts cats closer to 470 million.

Anon: of those numbers, how many are raptors? Pure numbers are meaningless since they are mixing raptors with grackles with chickadees with quail.

If it's cat vs eagle, I'll bet on the eagle.

the average house cat kills 30-40 birds per year.
think we should snuff Fluffy ?

#25, I liked your responce, but you didn't note your reference.

Dear plindsey: 'all God's critters got a place in the choir'. Raptors aren't the only avian class that deserves consideration. A raptor that took an overly zealous interest in my mother's budgie experienced the business end of her broom - there are a few ways to look at that.
Some raptors are big, others not so much. I wouldn't want to handicap a cat fight ... I had a tomcat who put my neighbor's doberman in the pet hospital. Might have killed a red tailed hawk if not apprehended in time.
Raptors are more highly represented in some categories than others. They seem to have a penchant for electrocution which is a high runner ('smart' power pole design can reduce the kill rate). They, along with migratory birds, have a penchant for flying into guy wires (so don't hold up towers this way). They also experience a lot of low altitude collisions with fence wire and other obstructions including the blades of low hub height wind turbines, possibly mostly while stooping. They also hurt themselves chasing pigeons and other birds into plate glass windows. A large percentage of vehicular accident is second harvest when they dine out on road kill. Some of the non-counted deaths are raptor rich, for instance, bald eagles that get involved with oil spills and fishing nets.
Oddly, a substantial number of raptor kills that are not counted in the general stats include shooting/hunting, poaching, netting and poisoning which are all substantial.
For some reason, the focus is on fatal incidents rather than fatal conditions - all of the incidental deaths above are dwarfed by the effects of pollution and urban sprawl, particularly on raptor populations.

well said
all of the incidental deaths above are dwarfed by the effects of pollution and urban sprawl, particularly on raptor populations.

which is exactly why these same people (if educated about this info.) should whole heartedly support wind mills, not slow down their approval process.

trawson, sorry for the mistake.
plindsey, thank you for recognizing my mistake and responding.

First of, I didn't say "go away" I said "give it a rest." And I meant we got your point - there is no need to belabor it.

You are right, there is no practical way to screen wind turbines to prevent bird strikes. But realize that given the relatively low blade speed and given the blades are narrow and given there are only three of them, the chances of being hit as one flies through the turbine is small. Also, the "wedgewire screens" you mention that are used on intake-cooled fossil or nuke plant only protect some, others get pinned against them and die, others (larvae - the next generation) go right through and die from the temperature change.

Fortunately, most birds avoid the risk by flying around the wind turbines. Radar studies of migrations through an offshore wind farm have demonstrated that having a bird brain may not be so bad.

Massive Offshore Wind Turbines Safe for Birds http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/18167/

Wind farms pose low risk to birds
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4072756.stm

You asked, "how do you address the fact that wind turbines require backup power sources, that the typical fuel for those generators is NG, and that NG is only inexpensive in the US right now because of "fracking". In Japan and Germany, NG costs $13/MMBTU, three times the US cost."

Every MW generated by wind displaces a MW generated by some other energy source. The so-called intermittency of wind is a red herring. The grid must cope with far larger and more sudden changes in supply and demand than a 3 MW wind turbine becoming becalmed.

Please explain why my post is a disservice and your five successive raptor rants are not.

The faster we can drive eV plains, trains, and automobiles the faster we have a more stable grid. This is one area that I AM pleased with our present administration. We are ramping up fast with battery R&D, battery companies, eV companies, etc. And simaltaneously less imported oil. Which should be every ones Mantra. Now every one say out loud " LESS IMPORTED OIL "

Less oil, period! Then again you have the right idea Steve.

you watch the Europeans and Asians get big in eV's before us.
(their energy policy is not run by Exxon)

the oil cartels will spread false rumors about eV's and promote boifuels to EXTEND their oil regime.

heck ! they invented the term " range anxiety ".
is that a good one? scare people that if they get low on their electric charge they will experience ANXIETY. soon there will be a prescription drug for it.

plindsey...your critera seems to be a concern for animals that are not in abundance, cute, quirky or some other reason. There is no suggestion by anyone, ever, that wind turbines are going to make a species extinct. No mate, the numbers don't lie. The criticism of wind turbines is not balanced.