New York Sees Renewables Progress

The summary of a report on New York's Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) makes for some interesting reading. Some highlights:

Two solicitations for renewable energy have resulted in contracts for approximately 3 billion kilowatt hours (MWh) of renewable energy from 26 projects, totaling more than 800 megawatts (MW), or enough clean energy to supply approximately 400,000 average-size homes.

The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) estimates that more than $1.9 billion will be invested to build the New York-based renewable generation facilities awarded contracts under the RES. NYSERDA estimates that these investments have the potential to yield more than $720 million of in-state economic benefits over a 20-year period.

In addition to the significant economic benefits, the facilities awarded contracts under the RES could result in potential reductions of 2,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, 4,400 tons of sulfur oxides, and 1.3 million tons of carbon dioxide per year.

NYSERDA is planning a third solicitation this fall, and says, "Considering the large number of wind projects under development, a significant number of potential bidders are expected, and consequently, reasonably priced bids are anticipated."

What is happening in New York is a good example of what can happen with strong leadership at the state level. Former Gov. George Pataki (R) and current Gov. Elliott Spitzer (D) deserve enormous credit for pushing this effort forward.

Regards,
Tom

Renewable Energy: The Regional Debate, Part 2

We've spent some time at the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) researching the issues raised in my recent post on the question of whether using more wind would unfairly disadvantage less windy states. Here are results from a fact sheet we are sending up to Capitol Hill, where the U.S. Senate will vote tomorrow on the Bingaman Renewable Energy Standard amendment:

WIND ENERGY:
THE MOST HOME-GROWN AMERICAN ENERGY SOURCE

Wind energy is currently produced in more states than any conventional electric power fuel source.

All states currently import and export energy sources such as coal and natural gas, to meet each state’s energy needs.

Nearly 40 states currently import natural gas and coal from other states. Under a National 15% [Renewable Energy Standard], some states may have to import renewable energy from other states. However, most states have some indigenous renewable energy sources including wind, solar, biomass and geothermal. States that do not produce sufficient renewable energy have the option of securing market credits to meet renewable energy goals.

Wind and other renewable resources are domestically produced energy sources. The U.S. currently imports 3% of our coal, 19% of our natural gas, and 80% of our uranium from foreign nations.

Four states produce uranium, 28 import it;
25 states produce coal, 39 import it;
32 states produce natural gas, 38 import it;
35 states produce wind power, 10-20 import it.

(In addition, the U.S. Department of Energy found in a 1991 study of wind resources nationwide that 9 additional states, besides the 35 currently producing some wind power, have sufficient wind resources for commercial production, making the total number of potential and actual wind producers 44 of 50 states.)

The Senate will vote tomorrow on the Bingaman amendment. If you support this first meaningful step to fight global warming, contact your Senator's office through the U.S. Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121 and let him/her know you support the Bingaman Renewable Energy Standard. Or go to powerofwind.com.

Regards,
Tom

Maple Ridge Wind Farm Bird Collisions Few

The latest of many avian studies at wind farms has been released, a heavy-duty look at bird and bat kills at the new Maple Ridge wind project in upstate New York. The results?

Bird collisions were very few in number, which is typical of U.S. wind farms. Regular searches around 50 wind turbines found 125 birds (not all necessarily killed by the turbines).

Only one raptor (bird of prey) was found, an American kestrel (a common species).

Bat mortality was higher and remains an issue. 326 bats were found, equating to roughly 10-15 per megawatt of generating capacity. This is fewer than at Appalachian sites in Pennsylvania and West Virginia where the bat problem appears to be centered, but definitely not negligible. (The wind energy industry, Bat Conservation International, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are partners in a multi-year research effort to understand the bat collision problem and find ways to reduce mortality. Currently, that program is aimed at testing a sonic deterrent to warn bats away from wind farms.)

No threatened or endangered bats found. This continues the pattern at U.S. wind sites.

The detailed language from the Maple Ridge report provides some very interesting insights:

People/agencies who reviewed the proposed scope of work [for the study] included staffers from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE), Environmental Design and Research (EDR), New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, developers (PPM and Horizon), and others. Representatives from some or all of these groups have been included in a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), which has the responsibility of reviewing and commenting on progress reports, annual reports, and other updates from this project.

This is typical of wildlife studies at wind farm sites. Studies are often attacked by anti-wind groups on grounds that they are carried out by consulting firms that are supposedly pro-industry. However, a Technical Advisory Committee with government agency experts who have no vested interest is a common practice.

The methods used include searches under turbines in concert with studies of carcass removal rates (scavenging) and searcher efficiency rates.

Again typical: the firm conducting the study runs tests to determine how quickly birds and bats are removed from the site by predators and how good the individuals doing the ground searches are at finding dead animals.

The Maple Ridge project currently consists of 195 1.65-MW turbines, for a total of 322 MW of nameplate generating capacity. Each turbine is approximately 400 feet (122 meters) in height.

As with most turbine facilities across the United States, the numbers of fatalities of night migrants was fairly low at the Maple Ridge facility. Determining the exact number of night migrants is difficult, however, as the birds involved may be resident breeders. The numbers were especially small in comparison with fatality rates of these birds at tall, guyed communication towers in the Midwestern and eastern United States where fatalities sometimes involve hundreds or even thousands of birds in a single night or migration season.

Why are the numbers so low? We don't know for sure, but one major reason appears to be that turbines are lighted differently than communications towers: turbines have red flashing (strobe) lights, while communication towers also have steady-burning red lights. The steady-burning lights appear to attract migrating birds on foggy nights. Also, communications towers have miles of guy wire, a major hazard for disoriented birds circling a light, and are greater in height.

Those towers have two types of Federal Aviation Administration lighting (steady burning red L-810 and flashing red incandescent beacons – L-864), multiple sets of guy wires, and are almost always in excess of 500 feet (152 m). We conducted tests of night migrant incidents found at lit and unlit towers for both the 30 7-day search sites and the 10 1-day search sites . . . If the red flashing beacons attracted birds to turbines, a disproportionately greater number of these fatalities would have been found at turbines with lights and, or large-scale, multiple fatality events would have been observed. We did not see a clear relationship between the numbers of night migrant fatalities and the presence of L-864 red flashing beacons on turbines.

.

The Maple Ridge report also comments briefly on the question of whether bird collisions with wind turbines affect overall populations (total numbers) of bird species:

The eastern population of the Golden-crowned Kinglet, which was found most often during searches, is estimated to be decreasing across the US but stable or increasing in the Eastern US. (Table 21). Given the overall population level of this species (estimated 34 million birds), it is difficult to presume that collision mortality at the Maple Ridge [wind farm] has a significant adverse effect on population levels, even with respect to cumulative impacts of fatalities from many wind plants.

The population of the second most common find (Red-eyed vireo) is listed as increasing, with an estimated overall population level of 140 million. The only two species listed as significantly decreasing are the Red-winged Blackbird and the Common Grackle, both very common and wide ranging species.

Wind turbines remain the single most thoroughly studied of all sources of human-related bird mortality--see, for example, the WEST, Inc., wind/avian studies collection. Thousands of birds do die in collisions (with thousands of wind turbines) at wind farms across the U.S., but it is clear that wind farms remain an insignificant threat to birds, and that birds and wind power--even large amounts of wind power--can coexist. A recent National Academy of Sciences report found that in 2003, wind turbine kills amounted to less than .003% (three of every one hundred thousand) human-related bird deaths. At the same time:

A 2004 international scientific study concluded that one million species might be driven to extinction by global warming by the year 2050.

Wind energy is one of the technology "wedges" that other scientists have identified as being necessary to avoid this nightmare scenario.

Wind power also reduces air pollution, water pollution, mining and drilling--all of which have negative effects on wildlife.

Wind power challenges our ability to be numerate, to maintain perspective, to be rational and not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the very, very good. I believe how we deal with it will determine whether we are indeed up to the task of ending global warming.

Regards,
Tom

AWEA Executive Director Welcomes WINDPOWER 2007 Attendees

Welcome to Los Angeles and the WINDPOWER 2007 Conference & Exhibition!

On behalf of the AWEA Board of Directors and staff, I hope you find this week an invaluable ‘window’ on the state of the wind industry. We are excited about the industry’s future and believe that this week’s events can help build a foundation for sustained growth for decades to come.

We are gathered in Los Angeles around a theme of compelling interest to AWEA members – “Growing the Wind Business” – and many of the presentations will be focused on exploring that theme. What are the challenges we must confront if we are to sustain the industry’s record growth? What are the steps we must take today to ensure that the industry has steady growth for decades to come? What are the public benefits that would accrue from a wind industry that is 20 times larger than today’s industry?

Last year, President Bush recognized that this industry has the potential to provide as much as 20% of the nation’s electricity. We’ve taken the President’s statement as an invitation to look closely at just how much potential this industry has as well as the steps we would need to take to achieve that potential.

We are experiencing another record year in 2007, and the size of this event reflects the substantial growth of the industry. The U.S. was the largest single market for wind in the world in 2005 and 2006, and, with continued policy support, we expect strong demand in this country for years to come. Not surprisingly, given the industry growth, WINDPOWER 2007 will be our largest conference in history, with more than 6,500 attendees gathered at the Los Angeles Convention Center. The exhibition is especially impressive, with 419 exhibitors expected—a 40% increase in the size of the exhibition compared to last year’s record event! For those of you that are veterans of the industry, think back a decade or so to earlier AWEA trade shows and be amazed at how far the wind industry has come in such a short time. I want to thank our exhibitors for making such a significant investment of their time and resources, and pledge to you our commitment to work to ensure that this week is worth every minute of your time.

As the scope of this event has grown, it has become an increasingly complex management challenge. On the program side, we were faced with an enormous stack of thoughtfully constructed abstracts from many expert presenters, and the great majority of the abstracts would have been a positive contribution to the agenda. Unfortunately, there was no way to make room for them all, but the strong interest in participating is a major contribution to the quality of the event.

The Conference Program Committee was led by two very strong and capable Co-Chairs – Adam Umanoff of Chadbourne & Parke, LLP, on the business side, and Bob Zavadil of Enernex Corp., on the technical side. Adam and Bob assembled a well-qualified Program Committee representing a wide range of expertise and spent an entire day with the Committee reviewing abstracts and building the strongest possible program. As you will be able to tell, the process worked. Thanks to Adam and Bob for doing an amazing job as Program Chairs for this impressive event.

I would also like to single out AWEA’s Conference and Education Department—directed by Stephen Miner, and including Stefanie Brown, Sakura Emerine, Lori Rugh, Marissa Bundy, Monica Wolfe, and Michael Swinburne—for the countless hours they have invested in making this the best possible conference it can be. They have succeeded in staying on top of a growing number of details and have really taken this conference to the next level of professionalism. I want to express my appreciation to them and to every member of the AWEA staff for the huge effort that was required to bring this event together.

Finally, I would like to express my appreciation to our sponsors for this event, who are listed in this program. Special thanks go to our Giga-Watt level sponsors: NRG Systems, GE Energy, and Michael Best & Friedrich, LLP. The support from these companies and all of our other sponsors has allowed us to enhance the conference in a variety of ways for your benefit.

Thanks to all of you for joining us here in Los Angeles and welcome to WINDPOWER 2007!

Randall Swisher
Executive Director
American Wind Energy Association

Wind Turbines and Air Pollution

(Sorry for backing up here: this is something that deserves lengthy treatment, and the long holiday weekend in the U.S. finally provides the time I needed.)

Christopher Mitchell at the blog Energista does a good job of commenting on a Matt Wald story in the May 4 New York Times entitled "Wind Farms May Not Lower Air Pollution, Study Suggests." You can view the entire Wald story here.

Some additional comments:

Wind Farms May Not Lower Air Pollution, Study Suggests
By MATTHEW L. WALD

WASHINGTON, May 3 - Building thousands of wind turbines would probably not reduce the pollutants that cause smog and acid rain, but it would slow the growth in emissions of heat-trapping gases, according to a study released Thursday by the National Academy of Sciences.

This headline and lead are very strange, because neither of these findings appears to be news. The reason wind power, in theory, won't reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides is that nationwide emissions of these pollutants is limited by law--no matter how many wind turbines are installed, the limit doesn't change. As Christopher Mitchell points out, though, since wind generators emit no pollutants, more wind should mean that the cost of complying with the limits is reduced. The limits on sulfur dioxide were part of the Clean Air Act of 1990, so this is a 17-year-old story.

With respect to carbon dioxide, the primary "heat-trapping gas," there are no limits, and so more wind generation does indeed reduce CO2 emissions.

So why the peculiar lead and headline?

Even the scale of local damage from wind farms is unclear. Bats and raptors are thought to be the animals most threatened by wind turbines because they reproduce more slowly. But scientists base estimates on fairly primitive methods, like counting animal carcasses nearby and hoping that few have been carried off by animals, said Paul G. Risser, chairman of the academy's study.

I'm not sure I'd call this "primitive." It's the standard method that is used by wildlife biologists to study and report on bird (or bat) mortality caused by collisions with structures of all types, such as communications towers, buildings, and even automobiles. Typically, estimates of "predation" (carcasses being carried off by animals) are developed at each site by leaving carcasses on the ground and seeing how swiftly they are removed. These estimates (for example, 25% removed within a week) are then included when the scientists conducting the study extrapolate a range of total mortality from the dead bodies that are found.

"If 100 bats are killed, we don't know whether that's 100 out of 10 million or 100 out of 100 million," Dr. Risser said.

Excellent point. More federal research dollars invested in getting a handle on bird and bat (especially bat) populations would be a very good thing. At present, almost nothing is known about bat populations. Also, though, it is quite interesting that neither the New York Times nor the National Academy of Sciences study mentions a currently ongoing bat research program that is jointly funded by Bat Conservation International, several wind power companies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory. More info about this here.

At the moment, the research is focused on testing a sonic deterrent that would warn bats away from wind farms. Much more testing and engineering work needed before it can be declared a solution.

And researchers do not know whether newer windmills, which have huge blades that rotate slowly, are any safer for birds and bats than older models, which spin more like airplane propellers.

True:

1) Some studies of raptor vision suggest that slower-rotating blades should be easier to see. But it's almost impossible to test this in the field. The only way to do it would be to install one type of machine, then remove it and install the other, measuring mortality at each for the same period of time. You'd also have to hope that nothing else changed in the meantime.

2) The numbers of birds that are killed at most wind sites are so low that studies of this question are unlikely to be fruitful.

Wind power could also reduce coal-plant carbon dioxide, which is thought to cause climate change, but the impact may be small, the report said. By 2025, wind turbines could cut carbon dioxide output by 4.5 percent compared with what it would otherwise have been, but this "would only slow the increase," said Dr. Risser. "It wouldn't result in a decrease in the amount of CO2."

The study relied on an Energy Department projection that in the next 15 years, onshore wind capacity would range from 19 to 72 gigawatts, or 2 percent to 7 percent of the nation's generating capacity. The actual impact would be smaller, however, because wind machines run fewer hours than coal or nuclear plants.

As a matter of fact, they run about the same number of hours (65% to 80% of the time), but unlike coal or nuclear plants, wind turbines usually generate at well below their peak capacity. As I've indicated elsewhere in this blog, this is one way of looking through the telescope. Looking through the other end, we find that using essentially the same data and statistics, wind turbines would cut new CO2 emissions between now and 2020 by 30%.

Wind output quadrupled from 2000 to 2006, but wind turbines still produce less than 1 percent of the electricity used in the United States. And the amount of wind energy that can be integrated into the electricity grid is limited, the researchers said. The maximum that could be accommodated, Dr. Policansky said, is probably 20 percent of the nation's electricity use.

These last two sentences that I have bolded are probably the clearest example of minimizing wind's contribution, otherwise known as damning with faint praise. First, we know little about what the upper limit on wind is, and it will be many years before we have solid knowledge. But second and more important, 20% is huge. It's as much as nuclear power generates today, and more than any other source except coal. The fact that we could get that much electricity from a new clean alternative energy source is the real news contained in this story. It would be great to see a story in the Times someday with the headline, "Wind Farms Could Provide 20% of U.S. Electricity, Study Says."

Regards,
Tom

Cape Wind Book Termed 'Piling On'

Cape Wind, the new book by science writer Wendy Williams and Providence Journal editorial page editor Robert Whitcomb, is unfortunately the subject of a rather negative New York Times book review by William Grimes. Williams and Whitcomb, writes Grimes, "pile on" in their attacks on the Cape Wind project's wealthy opponents and "make no pretense of laying out the facts evenhandedly." If that is true (I admit to not having read the book yet myself), it's a shame. As Grimes also notes, "The facts are damning enough. The wind farm, consisting of 130 propellered turbines installed over an area of about 26 square miles, would generate up to 500 megawatts of clean energy. It would also reduce Cape Cod’s dependence on two fossil-fuel plants that help make its air among the most polluted in New England," and "Opposition boiled down to four words: not in my backyard."

Regards,
Tom

Green Power Credit Card Rewards

Wells Fargo & Co. said April 19 that it is rolling out a new green rewards program for users of its credit card. When users earn points for making purchases with the card, they can redeem them for renewable energy certificates. For example, the company said, "For 5,000 points, cardholders can support 6,000 kilowatt hours of green power . . . equivalent to the clean air benefits of three acres of pine forest storing carbon for one year." Wells Fargo is also the largest U.S. purchaser of green power, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's official listing.

Wind Energy Works! Alliance

The Wind Energy Works! alliance is continuing to add new members. Formed 1-1/2 years ago, it now includes 85 organizations that exemplify the benefits that more wind power can mean for America's economy and society:

Ports: The Duluth (Minn.) Seaway Port Authority. Because U.S. government policies to encourage wind power have been inconsistent, many wind turbine components are imported rather than being manufactured. On the bright side, this means big business for ports, from Duluth to Galveston, Tex.

Agriculture: American Agri-Women, the American Corn Growers Association, Women Involved in Farm Economics (WIFE), the Nebraska Farmers Union, the Texas Farm Bureau, the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union Cooperative and more. Wind farms revitalize the economy of rural communities by providing steady income to farmers and other landowners. Each wind turbine contributes $2,000 to $4,000 or more in farm income, while 95-98% of the farm’s land remains free for crops or grazing.

Economic Development: The Columbia Gorge (Ore.) Economic Development Association, the Amarillo (Tex.) Chamber of Commerce and more. In addition to payments to farmers, wind farms support the local tax base, helping to pay for schools, roads and hospitals.

Clean Air: HealthLink, the American Lung Association of the Central States and more. Wind power is 100% clean, releasing none of the sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulates or mercury created when electricity is generated from fossil fuels.

Environment: Natural Resources Defense Council, Greenpeace, the Union of Concerned Scientists and more: Wind power requires no mining or drilling for fuel, causes no air, water or global warming pollution, creates no hazardous waste, and requires no water to generate electricity. Its benefits to the environment, compared with other electricity sources, are overwhelming.

Faith: The Regeneration Project/Interfaith Power & Light, Texas Impact. As the religious community becomes more concerned about the need for environmental stewardship, clean energy is an obvious place to start.

These groups and many more have become part of the clean power movement through membership in Wind Energy Works!. If you know of a group that you feel should be affiliated with Wind Energy Works!, please let us know by posting a comment here or writing to windmail@awea.org.