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

Greenpeace: Time to Build Cape Wind

"It's time to build Cape Wind" is the tagline of a new 30-second TV spot from the environmental group Greenpeace. The ad calls on U.S. Rep. William Delahunt (D) and Sen. Edward Kennedy (D), both opponents of the project, to support it.

Greenpeace has been a consistent Cape Wind supporter, as evidenced by this earlier video from the group.

Regards,
Tom

PennFuture Prize: Clean Wind Energy for Year

Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future (PennFuture), an environmental nonprofit, has launched a year-long contest for Pennsylvania residents in which it will give away six compact fluorescent bulbs each month to a monthly winner and a grand prize of one year's supply of clean wind energy. (Enter here.)

Perhaps more importantly, every entrant in the contest will receive a free copy of a PennFuture brochure, "Ten Quick Actions to Help Stop Global Warming."

Great idea, great to see.

Regards,
Tom

Burbank Mulls Wind Buy

The City of Burbank, Calif., is scheduled this evening to consider buying wind power from the Milford wind project in Utah. If the purchase goes through, it will move Burbank closer to an already-established goal of obtaining 33% of its energy from renewable energy sources by 2020.

Regards,
Tom

Kristof: Global Warming Outstrips Projections

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof looked at global warming science last week, and found it looking ominous:

“Over and over again, we’re finding that models correctly predict the patterns of change but understate their magnitude,” notes Jay Gulledge, a senior scientist at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

Kristof's column focused on four specific items leading to this conclusion:

Arctic sea ice thickness has reached a new low--and there is still more than a month of the normal melting season left to go. (More info on this available from the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Sea ice extent at the moment is a whopping 16% below its level on the same day in 2005, when the previous record low was set.)

Annual ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica now is 125 billion tons, and growing.

Actual sea level rise is following the upper limits of previous projections, and is now forecast to be 0.5 to 1.4 meters by 2100.

Glaciers are melting more quickly than anticipated.

In other words (my words, not Kristof's), the imperative for reducing global warming pollution and for carbon-free energy technologies like wind and solar power continues to grow.

Regards,
Tom

Duke Energy Sees Wind Potential

Seeking Alpha, a financial analysis Web site, provides a transcript of a presentation by Keith Trent, Group Executive and Chief Strategy, Policy and Regulatory Officer of Duke Energy, one of America's leading utilities, before the Wall Street Analyst Forum August 16. Here are Mr. Trent's remarks on wind--interesting reading.

Regards,
Tom

Let me talk specifically about wind now. Wind energy is very much part of our strategy. We believe that the growing U.S. wind market presents an attractive opportunity for us. That market is projected to grow from approximately 12 gigawatts to approximately 50 gigawatts by 2015, as it continues to receive significant support from Federal and State regulatory bodies.

Our wind strategy is straightforward. We plan to develop a standalone portfolio within one of our commercial businesses Duke Energy generation services acquiring a foothold in developing expertise there. As they execute our strategy, our focus will be on projects with favorable and steady cash flows.

We took a major step in this regard in executing this strategy in late May, when we acquired the wind development assets of Tierra Energy, which was a leading wind power development company located in Austin, Texas. Three of the development projects, which totaled approximately 240 megawatts are located in Texas and Wyoming and are anticipated to be on-line in late 2008 or early 2009.

We expect to spend approximately $400 million in CapEx through 2009 to complete these projects. The projects will be underpinned by long-term contracts and favorable tax benefits. As a result, we expect to begin seeing earnings from these wind assets in 2009.

Also included in the purchase is the option to develop approximately 1000 megawatts of additional wind projects that are in the various stages of development in the western and southwestern United States. We will continue to review additional late-stage projects as part of our strategy for this growing business.

Anti-Wind Site Uses Fuzzy Math

When will they get the basic math right?

From an anti-wind blog comes this excerpt:

Dominion and Shell WindEnergy Inc (owners of the company, NedPower Mount Storm LLC) have announced the first phase of their project - 82 turbines producing 164 megawatts, or enough electricity for 41,000 homes - is under construction at a site near Dominion's Mount Storm Power Station. It is scheduled to begin operation in the fourth quarter of 2007 (see - http://www.dom.com/news/elec2007/pr0731.jsp).

Notice this a [sic] "nameplate" capacity rating - and typically wind turbines produce only 25% of rating - so that means 10,000 homes in reality - at a cost of 82 turbines @ $2M each = $164M, which is $16,400 per home.

Well, oops, no, that's wrong. The company already allowed for the difference between nameplate rating and average production in calculating the number of homes.

The math goes like this: 164 MW = 164,000 kilowatts (kW). Reasonably expectable average production is actually more like 33%, not 25%. 164,000 kW x 8760 hours in a year X .33 = 474 million kWh (caveat: this is my estimate, not an official projection from Shell WindEnergy). The average household uses a little over 10,000 kWh annually, so a figure of 41,000 homes seems reasonable.

(I'm told that this sort of distortion has also been quite popular in the Palm Springs, Calif., area, where anti-wind groups insist that the statement by wind developers that one megawatt of wind generates electricity equivalent to that used by 250-300 homes should be further reduced by two-thirds. Wrong.)

Regards,
Tom

Wind Power Factory Watch: DMI Hires for Tulsa

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

DMI INDUSTRIES FINALIZES TULSA PLANT ACQUISITION
Wind Tower Manufacturer Begins Hiring, Plans to Take On Up To 450 People

West Fargo, N.D. (Aug. 16, 2007) – DMI Industries is looking for a few hundred good people.

The West Fargo, N.D.-based wind tower manufacturer is opening a plant at 15300 Tiger Switch Road in Tulsa, Okla. and expects to eventually employ up to 450 people there. The company needs at least 200 employees to get started, and is holding a job fair at the Renaissance Hotel on Tuesday, August 21 to begin filling positions.

“We’re extremely pleased to be in Tulsa, a community with a reputation for good, hard-working and dedicated people,” said DMI President Lars Møller. “We need a strong team to build state-of-the-art wind towers, to begin having a positive impact on the local and regional economies, and to continue improving service and lowering costs for our customers.”

DMI began modernizing its Tulsa facility immediately after acquisition, and it is expected to be operational in early 2008. In addition to the positive impacts of construction and trade jobs for the plant’s renovation, the plant will provide substantial ongoing direct and indirect economic impacts in the Tulsa region. When it is economically feasible, DMI also will engage local and regional suppliers to meet the plant’s day-to-day operational needs.

“DMI’s selection of Tulsa to expand its wind tower manufacturing is another great addition to our list of diverse industries,” said Tulsa Mayor Kathy Taylor. “DMI is well-positioned in its marketplace with a prominent customer base, especially as regions across the nation expand efforts to increase utilization of ‘green’ energy sources.”

DMI plans to hire the vast majority of employees locally, including welders, painters and steel plate rollers, as well as general management, supervisory, human resources and administrative personnel. Tulsa employees will be trained on site and in the company’s West Fargo and Fort Erie facilities.

In addition to the city, Møller credited the Tulsa Metro Chamber, the Rogers County Industrial Development Authority and the Oklahoma Department of Commerce with convincing DMI to locate in the Tulsa area.

“Today’s announcement takes another prime property off of the available list in Tulsa,” said Mike Neal, Chamber president and CEO. “It also is another example of the Chamber’s efforts to recruit progressive, high-quality jobs to the metro region. The economic impact of approximately 450 jobs with DMI will support an additional 540 indirect jobs in the metro region and generate a total economic impact of $157 million in goods and services.”

The Tulsa plant will feature half a million square feet of production space. With it and the company’s two existing plants, in West Fargo and Fort Erie, Ontario, DMI’s annual combined tower production will support more than 3,000 MW of installed wind project capacity, based on today’s tower and turbine technologies and designs.

The Oklahoma facility is the second new plant acquisition for DMI in two years. The company acquired its Fort Erie facility in 2005 and it became fully operational in May 2006. It currently employs 540 people in Fort Erie and West Fargo.

DMI, an operating company of Otter Tail Corporation, is a heavy steel wind tower manufacturer. The company also has capabilities to produce equipment for a wide variety of industries, including agricultural processing; ethanol production; oil and gas extraction, processing and refining; and water and waste water processing. For more information, visit www.windtowers.com or www.dmiindustries.com.

Otter Tail Corporation has interests in diversified operations that include an electric utility, plastics, manufacturing, health services, food ingredient processing, transportation and construction. Otter Tail Corporation stock trades on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol OTTR. The latest investor and corporate information is available at www.ottertail.com. Corporate offices are located in Fergus Falls, Minn., and Fargo, N.D.

Forward-looking Statements

Except for historical information, all other information provided in this presentation consists of “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These “forward-looking statements” are subject to risks and uncertainties which could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected, anticipated, or implied. The most significant of these risks and uncertainties are discussed or identified in Otter Tail Corporation’s public filings made with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Otter Tail Corporation undertakes no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements.

- 30 -

N.Y. Agency Backs Wind Power

The New York Public Service Commission Aug. 15 gave its approval to a proposed 127.5-megawatt wind project in Steuben County.

It was a big win--there's been a lot of local opposition to the project, which will generate as much electricity from clean, renewable energy as 40,000 homes use. Thanks and a tip of the hat to Yes! Wind Power for Cohocton, which has been supporting the proposal.

Regards,
Tom

First Wind Turbine at Ski Area Spins

The Berkshire Mountains ski resort of Jiminy Peak in Massachusetts yesterday became the first ski area in the U.S. with an operating utility-scale wind turbine on site. The link includes a TV news station video clip. Jiminy Peak also provides background information on the project on its Web site. The 1.5-megawatt turbine cost about $3.9 million to install and is expected to pay for itself in seven years in reduced electricity costs. It will generate 4.8 million kilowatt-hours annually, which Jiminy Peak says "will permanently eliminate the need for 383,000 gallons of diesel-fuel-generated power."

I mentioned recently that many U.S. ski areas are taking a leadership role in supporting clean energy and fighting global warming, which presents a clear threat to their future business (not to mention the planet). Jiminy Peak's new turbine is an elegant symbol of that leadership.

Regards,
Tom

Nice TV Report on Small Wind

From Fox News in Detroit. The American Wind Energy Association's Web site has extensive background on small wind turbines for residential and small business use.

Regards,
Tom

Wind Power Factory Watch

July 18, 2007: Danish wind turbine blade manufacturer LM Glasfiber announces that it will open a manufacturing plant in Little Rock, Ark. that will employ more than 1,000 people.

May 2, 2007: U.S. wind turbine tower maker DMI Industries announces that it will open a tower manufacturing plant near Tulsa, Okla., that will have half a million square feet of production space and ultimately employ up to 450.

April 25, 2007: Spanish wind turbine manufacturer Acciona says it will open a turbine plant in West Branch, Iowa. The $23-million, 18,000-square-meter facility is expected to employ 109.

March 20, 2007: Danish wind turbine manufacturer Vestas announces plans to locate a blade manufacturing plant in the northern Colorado community of Windsor. The plant is expected to begin production in early 2008, to be capable of producing 1,200 blades a year, and to employ 400 people.

Wind power is shaping up to be a major engine of economic development in the 21st century, as America turns to clean energy sources to meet the twin challenges of global warming and steadily increasing electricity demand.

Regards,
Tom

Senate Energy Bill Running on Empty

From Newsday, this accurate and insightful editorial on the energy bill passed last week by the U.S. Senate. Glaciers may be melting around the world, but not swiftly enough to affect the glacial pace of legislation dealing with our country's energy policies.

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

The Wind Power Storage Myth

It seems so intuitive, so right: everyone knows from direct experience that the wind is variable, and so it really can't be a serious energy source without some form of storage, can it?

Of all of the myths about wind power (of which anti-wind folks, with their covert allies and backers in competing energy industries, are inventing new, creative additions daily), this one is probably the oldest and most difficult to stamp out. Only today, many news sources carried a summary by Reuters energy reporter Timothy Gardner of a new book, Lights Out, by Jason Makansi. The summary includes the following quote:

Wind power won't take off unless there's more investment in how to store the energy, according to Makansi.

I suppose it all depends on what you mean by "take off." Wind power generates a bit less than 1% of U.S. electricity today (it should cross the 1% line by the end of this year), so for me, "taking off" would mean getting to 10% or 20%, in the general range that natural gas (17%) and nuclear power (20%) generate today. Maybe Makansi has something higher in mind--setting an unrealistic bar is one of the easiest ways to belittle a new technology. But anyway . . .

Storage is not, repeat not, required for a significant expansion of wind power from its current level to a level 10 or 20 times as great, at which point it will be a major contributor to U.S. electricity supply. Variability of wind is best addressed by utilities in the same way they address variability in current generation and load, which is to control certain resources to match aggregate load. All existing resources occasionally shut down with no notice, and these forced outages require backup and reserves. Wind is only different in that its output changes are more gradual and can be greater in magnitude, and that is not necessarily more difficult to manage. Storage might be cost-effective for power system operators some day in the future, but is generally not cost-effective today, and is not required, either for conventional resources or for wind. As the U.S. Department of Energy puts it in an excellent short publication, Wind Energy Myths:

The utility system is . . . designed to accommodate load fluctuations, which occur continuously. This feature also facilitates accommodation of wind plant output fluctuations. In Denmark, Northern Germany, and parts of Spain, wind supplies 20% to 40% of electric loads without sacrificing reliability. When wind is added to a utility system, no new backup is required to maintain system reliability.

Ironically, Makansi's main theme is to flog something that is perfectly true: the fact that America's electricity transmission system is aging and inadequate and in desperate need of an overhaul. This is ironic because more transmission is exactly what is needed for the power system to handle more wind--the wind is always blowing somewhere, so shipping the wind-generated electricity from where it is being produced to where it can be used is key to using it as cheaply and effectively as possible.

Those who wish to dig more deeply into this topic will find an excellent collection of resources at the Utility Wind Integration Group site.

This is not to say that more storage would be bad: one of the truly exciting possibilities on the horizon is plug-in hybrid autos, which would allow wind power not just to supply electricity, but to replace a sizable chunk of the oil our nation uses for transportation. But we don't need more storage to use much more wind for electricity generation. Period.

Regards,
Tom

Renewable Energy: The Regional Debate

The U.S. Senate is currently debating a National Renewable Energy Standard. Under an amendment sponsored by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, electric utilities would be required to obtain a growing percentage of their electricity from renewable energy sources (biomass, geothermal, new hydro, solar, wind), with the percentage reaching 15% by 2020.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Bingaman amendment would be Congress's first major action to address the growing issue of global warming, Senate Republicans are blocking it by threatening a filibuster (meaning that 60 votes would be needed to pass it rather than a majority.) During the debate, much was made of the argument that some states are not windy, and would therefore be disadvantaged by the Bingaman amendment, and that it would "shift wealth" from one region to another. For example, Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) said, "We cannot ignore the reality that some regions of the country cannot meet the [standard]. Since they cannot produce it, they’ll have to pay a fine, a pretty whopping penalty."

It's an interesting and compelling point, if true. Would a Renewable Energy Standard really introduce a sweeping change into the way that energy is currently produced and distributed in the U.S.? Consider:

Most if not all states import fuel--coal from other states; natural gas from other states, Canada and overseas; uranium, ditto; oil from overseas (yes, some imported oil is indeed used to generate electricity, mostly in New England and Hawaii).

"Importing" wind--a domestic "fuel"--from state to state (via transmission lines) will benefit the whole country (due to reduced imports of natural gas and oil from overseas), and is not a departure from current practice on behalf of other fuels.

A very preliminary (all we have had time for so far) look at state-by-state distribution of commercial energy production reveals the following:

32 states have commercial wind installations (and at least one more will soon)
32 states have natural gas production
28 states have petroleum production
25 states have coal
3 states have uranium

Thus, wind is actually one of the most widely distributed natural resources. Also, it appears that huge transfers of wealth are no problem for opponents of the Bingaman amendment, as long as they are already happening--only modest future transfers that might run in some different direction need to be stamped out.

We’ve made investments to move natural gas, coal and uranium across state lines and, in some cases (e.g., building transmission lines to so-called "mine-mouth" electric power plants that are built next to coal mines), to use the fuel on location. Likewise, wind is a resource we should encourage all states to use.

(In addition, all of the Southeastern states that have poor wind resources have excellent biomass energy potential, according to the U.S. Department of Energy--but that's another story.)

The Bingaman amendment may come up soon for a vote in the Senate. 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

Senate Republicans Block Renewable Energy

Senate Republicans have threatened to filibuster against the Bingaman Renewable Energy Standard amendment. With the polls showing very strong, indeed overwhelming, support for clean alternative energy sources and for action against global warming, it's hard to understand this position. Nearly half of all states (24) have similar renewable energy standards already, and some have even passed new laws increasing the percentages of renewable energy required.

The Bingaman Renewable Energy Standard would:

Reduce global warming pollution from electric power plants;

Create brand new manufacturing industries with thousands of new jobs;

Revitalize rural communities through the increased tax base and payments to landowners that wind and other renewable energy projects bring;

Help meet America's steadily growing electricity demand;

Save consumers more than $100 billion through 2026.

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

Costs of a Renewable Portfolio Standard?

Marlo Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute complains that the Energy Information Administration has found that the Bingaman Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) would cost consumers a net of $18 billion through the year 2030.

It should be noted that a similar analysis in March by Wood Mackenzie, a respected oil & gas research firm, found that the same RPS provision would save consumers more than $100 billion through 2026. From the Wood Mackenzie press release:

According to the report, the adoption of a 15% Federal RPS will require a flood of new wind and other renewable projects well beyond current proposed projects, leading to a 500-percent increase in renewable capacity from current levels by 2026. This increase translates into an incremental construction cost of $134 billion (2006 dollars) between 2006 and 2026. The report also shows the switch to renewable energy will drive down demand and price of natural gas. "The lower fuel costs and fossil fuel consumption will lead to lower electricity costs," continued Sannicandro. "Over the next 20 years, the Federal RPS case leads to a savings of $240 billion (2006 dollars) in wholesale power costs, outweighing the higher capital investment to build the additional capacity."

Regards,
Tom

Close Vote Likely on Bingaman Renewable Energy Standard

Inside word on the Bingaman Renewable Portfolio Standard is that the vote will be very tight. If you support this concept, the time to weigh in is right now. You can reach any Senator's office through the U.S. Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121. Further information here.

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