Classical Values :: For The Birds

June 05, 2007

For The Birds

There is a move afoot in Congress to require new wind turbine project developers to do envionmental impact statements on potential bird kills by turbines and to monitor wind sites for bird deaths.

The Energy Policy Reform and Revitalization Act, a wide-ranging energy bill introduced this month, would create new standards for the placement and construction of turbines and mandate post-construction monitoring of their effects on wildlife.

Mark Rodgers, a spokesman for Cape Wind Associates, the Boston-based firm proposing 130 wind turbines in Nantucket Sound, said his company already has performed much of the due diligence contemplated in the bill.

But he said he was concerned about a provision that would forbid construction of new turbines until the Department of the Interior drafts the regulations prescribed by the bill.

"Any kind of de facto moratorium on renewable energy at a time we need to take action on global warming and energy independence is blatantly poor public policy," he said.

How is this bill a de-facto moratorium?

The legislation, introduced by Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., the chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources, calls for development of the regulations within six months of passage of the bill. But wind energy industry officials say they are skeptical that federal regulators will move that quickly.

Supporters of the bill said careful regulation is important with a relatively new industry.

So just how important is it to prevent bird kills from wind turbines? Here are some numbers that accompanied the article:

Human-caused bird deaths

Domestic cats: Hundreds of millions a year

* Striking high-tension lines: 130 million - 1 billion a year
* Striking buildings: 97 million to 976 million a year
* Cars: 80 million a year
* Toxic chemicals: 72 million
* Striking communications towers: 4 to 50 million a year
* Wind turbines: 20,000 to 37,000

Source: National Research Council

So how bad is it? Let us go with the low end numbers for each category mentioned. Rougly 500 million bird deaths a year due to human additions to the landscape. Let us say bird deaths from several thousand wind turbines is 50,000 a year. That comes out to .01% of the total.

A recent study released by the National Research Council found that fewer than 0.003 percent of human-related bird deaths are caused by wind turbines -- a fraction of the deaths caused by house cats allowed to roam outside. The council is part of the National Academies, which also comprise the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering and Institute of Medicine. They are private, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology and health policy advice under a congressional charter.

Gregory Wetstone, senior director of government and public affairs for the American Wind Energy Association, a trade group, said the wind industry takes the issue of bird mortality seriously.

But the wind provisions of the Rahall bill could scare away investment, he said. "This would strangle wind power in the United States," Wetstone said.

We are currently erecting about one nuke plant equivalent of wind turbines every year in America. With the building rate increasing at such a furious pace that in three or four years we will be installing two nuke plant equivalents of wind every year.

So who might be trying to kill the wind power industry in America? None other than that great protector of the environment Senator Ted Kennedy

The list of opponents is a regular lawn party, starting with our own senior senator - and alleged ardent environmentalist - Ted Kennedy. His nephew, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. , who has made a career out of tree-hugging is also violently opposed.

Also aligned with the innocuously named Alliance To Protect Nantucket Sound, according to the book, is longtime Kennedy pal Bunny Mellon, the Listerine heiress who jets back and forth to her Osterville estate all summer in a gas-guzzling Gulf Stream; her former son-in-law, Virginia Sen. John Warner, who was once married to Elizabeth Taylor; ex-Gov. Mitt Romney, doing the bidding of top GOP fundraiser Dick Egan; U.S. Rep. William Delahunt, doing the bidding of the Kennedys; Former Reebok head Paul Fireman, who has a summer place on the Sound in Osterville; and a deep-pocketed bunch of Fireman's neighbors including, oil baron Albert Kaneb, Cape Cod Times publisher Peter Meyer, who has a $1.2 million house on Wianno Avenue and whose newspaper led a jihad against the project, and oil heir and ex-America's Cup winner Bill Koch.

"The sight of them bothers me," Sen. Kennedy is quoted as telling retired utility exec - and wind farm supporter - Jim Leidell.

So why does the sight of wind farms bother Senator Kennedy?

When told that most of the time the turbines - which would generating enough energy to power Cape Cod during peak usage times - would be either invisible or barely visible from the Kennedy Compound, Ted reportedly replied, "But don't you realize, that's where I sail."

Being a sailor myself I'm all for sailing. I'm currently short a yacht at this time. If some one wanted to rectify that I'd be eternally grateful.

In any case it really looks like another case of the rich and powerful depriving the little people of a clean source of low cost (considerably lower than natural gas fired power turbines) energy all over the country in order to protect their little corner of the world. You can read Cape Wind: Money, Celebrity, Class, Politics, and the Battle for Our Energy Future on Nantucket Soundto find out more of the details.

H/T Instapundit who has some thoughts and more links.

Update:

We could do away with the need for wind turbines in time with Low Cost Fusion Power that generates no radiation or CO2 (for those that worry about that sort of thing). And yet, such a promising and relatively quicjk to develop approach is being strangled for funds. We are talking of about $5 million for a proof of concept and if that works out around $200 to $300 million to develop a test power reactor. A crash program similar to the Manhattan Project could have power producing reactors on line in 3 to 4 years after proof of concept for a cost of around $2 to $3 billion. Plant costs on a production basis would be 1/2 or less what a coal fired plant costs. Operating costs for fuel would be a few hundred dollars a day for 1,000 MW output.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

posted by Simon on 06.05.07 at 06:20 AM

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/5094

Comments

I guess their case would be slightly stronger if they could show that there were rarer species of birds affected particularly hard.

But even in that case, the obvious high-runner are the cats.

It just shows that selfishness crosses all political lines.

Neal J. King · June 5, 2007 10:08 AM

Any process that can convert cats into energy is one I'll support.

Remember... it's for the birds!

John · June 5, 2007 05:01 PM

Here is a future timeline of energy technology adoption, with substantial notes on Wind Power.

I don't see how wind turbines could kill many birds - the arms are too big, and too slow-moving, to realistically bill birds.

How often are humans killed by being eaten by a colony of ants?

James · June 5, 2007 06:09 PM

I live within a couple of miles of a large wind farm in the SF Bay Area, which the local environmentalist have been attempting to hinder if not shut down. Their complaint is that specific birds such as falcons and golden eagles are endangered by the blades. Their suggestions include using slower RPM turbines which the birds can see more easily, moving the windmills to locations where the birds are less likely to be, and shutting down the windmills during peak bird activity (which probably coincides with when the wind blows).

Half the time I think the enviros are just clueless about the economics involved since wind power still relatively expensive, making it more expensive will hinder its use.

The other half of the time I think they just want to shut down all energy production so that we will live in some imaginary utopia where we are in touch with the earth.

JaimeRoberto · June 5, 2007 06:17 PM

It just shows that selfishness crosses all political lines.

I wish... but this is a textbook demonstration of the altruism (i.e. the worship of self-sacrifice) inherent in the envirocult.

They'll push uneconomic "alternative" energy proposals all day, trying to pass themselves off as reasonable considerate of human interests... but when it looks like one of their pet projects might actually be economically viable -- and therefore *profitable* -- it becomes energy non grata.

What this clearly shows is that environmentalism is not about cleaning up our environment -- it's about cutting human beings back. This movement's end of road is not a "pristine" Earth, but Paul Watson, who lusts for a genocide greater than any in human history.

It took us a long, long time to realize that communism's road ends there too. How long this time?

Seerak · June 5, 2007 06:22 PM

How about we build a wind farm on Ted Kennedy's ass -- there should be room for enough turbines to power Vegas.

Room 237 · June 5, 2007 06:51 PM

I am currenty involved in wind power development here in CA. We have been working on the avain mortality problem, and larger turbines turning at lower speeds seem to help. But we've ran into another problem. Bats are susceptible to turbine strikes since the spinning turbine rotor may negatively effect their sonar abilities. We have some rare bat species out here. Then there is the huge can of worms regarding radar which may have global repurcussions. Aside from the NIMBY caucus, the feds could put the brakes on all wind power projects. In fact, two pending neighboring projects (not mine)are stalled due to radar concerns.

Wind power is relatively cheap and efficient, but obviously not everyone is ready to embrace green power generation.

Mr Johnson · June 5, 2007 06:58 PM

Simon,

Your statistics tell me something very important. If we (and our cats) weren't killing avians in great numbers, we'd be hip deep in bird shit by now. We need cats and high tension lines to keep our avian population under control. Without them birds would be getting into everything and ruining the environment. Do we really need billions of starving, sickly songbirds piling up in great wind-drifts across the land, spreading West Nile and Bird Flu? Do we need diesel rigs skidding on patches of canary corpses? More wind turbines, high tension lines, and cats! Do it for the children!

Alan Kellogg · June 5, 2007 07:08 PM

So what you're describing is a phony issue raised by the self-interested attacking an industry surviving off a bogus federal subsidy.

Unfortunately, there are no easy answers in energy (including utopian fusion concepts) - only politically hard choices.

Whitehall · June 5, 2007 08:05 PM

The arms may be big and slow-moving, but it doesn't take much to kill a bird. One direct hit with a 10 psi paintball gun with practically destroy a seagull, let alone the smaller birds. Only flightless birds like chickens and turkeys are durable enough to withstand ammunition up to birdshot.

If the arms of the wind turbine are moving fast enough to leave a welt if you stick your hand in it, they're moving fast enough to kill any flying bird that bumbles into them.

Tatterdemalian · June 5, 2007 08:08 PM

You obviously must be too young to remember the Alfred Hitchcock movie "The Birds". The only thing standing between us and an all out attack on our phone booths are those courageous cats - and a few windmills.

Sam · June 5, 2007 08:22 PM

No doubt a strike by a large wind turbine blade will kill, well, anything. A bird cannot see or avoid a paintball but they can see the blades. While many of these larger turbines reach close to 500 feet in height, migratory birds fly much higher than that. Unless they are near feeding or nesting areas, most birds will not even be close. Maybe things are different in Mass., but here in Cali, turbines are sited with these issues in mind. We know that we will need to show no impact or mitigate in order to get regulatory sign-off. It's called the law.

Mr. Johnson · June 5, 2007 08:31 PM

Tatterdemalian,

It seems like way more birds are flying into cats than into windmills.

M. Simon · June 5, 2007 08:51 PM

"The other half of the time I think they just want to shut down all energy production so that we will live in some imaginary utopia where we are in touch with the earth."

I think the world would be better if the enviros were 'in touch with the Earth', i.e. were six feet under. Pushing up daisies. tee hee...

Took · June 5, 2007 09:23 PM

The solution is obvious. We should burn the dead birds to generate power!

Yaakov Watkins · June 5, 2007 09:27 PM

There is an obvious social elites and economic class issue here. Those opposed to Nantucket wind power 1) sail and 2) never wash bird crap of their car. How about us unwashed masses from Red State America pay a visit, bringing all our noisy internal combustion engine powered toys!

How do we power the especially noisy diesel engines AND save the birds? Dead Cat Diesel!

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1534821.html
A German inventor says he's found a way to make cheap diesel fuel out of dead cats.

Dr Christian Koch, 55, from Kleinhartmannsdorf, said his method uses old tyres, weeds and animal cadavers.

They are heated up to 300 Celsius to filter out hydrocarbon which is then turned into diesel by a catalytic converter...

George B · June 5, 2007 11:50 PM

The numbers given are (being nice here as it is not my house) meaningless.

The threat to bats mentioned in the study appears feasible, if not quantifiable. The main things I rhink we should take away from all this is:
1. don't trust a reporter to tell you what was in a document. Ever.
2. Build more nuclear powerplants

SMSgt Mac · June 6, 2007 12:18 AM

I blogged about the enviromental-mentalism a few days ago. Enjoy.

sonicfrog · June 6, 2007 12:49 AM

I'd like to query the stats provided. 4-50 million birds are killed each year by striking communications towers? The towers don't move at all. Are more birds killed by the towers than wind turbines because there are more towers than turbines? In which case we could end up with more bird fatalities as wind power becomes more widespread. I don't think that's a good enough argument to end wind power, though. At some point, we've got to choose a new energy source, and the switch won't be painless, no matter what we choose. Personally, I'd rather risk wiping out an entire species of birds than deal with nuclear waste.

Marybird · June 6, 2007 05:02 AM

SMSgt Mac,

You're right the numbers are crap since they are basically estimates. The only numbers that matter would need to be site-specific. I am all for more nuke power, and would gladly trade a wind farm for a reactor, but wind farms are easier to build in this regulatory/political environment than a nuke plant. As far as the turbines being ugly, seeing these behemoths upclose is pretty awe-inspiring. To my subjective eye, they are rather majestic. Not that they should be sited near population centers though.

Mr. Johnson · June 6, 2007 01:15 PM

I think iit's a case of natural selection for the birds. I mean 97 million to 976 million dead birds a year due to running into buildings?
Seriously if those birds are so stupid that they would run into buildings, then the number of birds killed running into mountains and trees must be astronomical.
Good riddance to the stupid birds. Let the birds who know how to avoid inanimate objects be plentiful and multiply.

Papertiger · June 8, 2007 12:11 AM

Hi, Simon,

Good posting. (I'd intended to reply to this before, but may as well do it now.)

In addition to the information presented, an article in the journal Nature discussing the recent report by the National Academy of Sciences (based on 14 good-quality studies) on the environmental effects of windpower projects (Emma Marris and Daemon Fairless, “Wind farms' deadly reputation hard to shift,” Nature Vol. 447, Issue No. 7141 (10 May 2007), p.126), notes that “the average death toll attributable to an average wind turbine” is 3% of a bird per year (!) — that is, “it takes 30-odd turbines to reach kill rate of one bird a year.”

Michael McNeil

Michael McNeil (Impearls) · June 20, 2007 12:44 AM