Welcome to my home state of Victoria, Australia's hub of art and culture, lane-way cafes and wonderful coffee, Aussie Rules football, the miraculous leadbeater's possum, and magnificent forests.
And also, after law changes in 2011, one of the most difficult places in the world to build a wind farm.
Back in 2011, the then-premier of Victoria, Ted Baillieu, enacted laws that, according to The Conversation website, effectively imposes a blanket ban on wind farms in many parts of the state:
They effectively give the owners of any dwelling within 2km of a proposed wind farm the power to decide whether or not the development should proceed.
The laws were part of the conservative Liberal-National coalition's 2010 election platform to "restore fairness and certainty to the planning process for wind farms". The laws have definitely provided certainty.
A recent report commissioned by the opposition planning spokesperson Brian Tee, demonstrates the kind of certainty that banning wind farms can bring:
While the Baillieu Government's reforms were targeted at new wind farms, they have had a major impact on those who already had permission to develop wind farms, prohibiting the extension of permits and making it harder for developers to make small changes to their planning approvals to incorporate state of the art technology and improve efficiency.
If a wind farm company wants to amend their permit or get an extension, they have to apply under the new constraints. The impact of the laws has been to not only stop the development of new wind farms but to also hinder the development of farms already approved.
Andrew Bray, state coordinator of non-profit pro-wind farm community group VicWind noted that many developments that were approved under the earlier laws now would have no chance under the new regime. "Technology has moved on substantially since granting of permits 3-5 years ago", said Bray, "so developers want to alter key aspects such as number of turbines, often using higher capacity turbines to decrease the total number of turbines, turbine placement, or blade tip height to improve viability of the project."
The chilling effect of these planning laws is plain. Only one application to build a new wind farm has been made since the new laws came into effect.
Tee's report argues that not only has Victoria's production of clean energy suffered, but the state (which slipped into a recession under the economic watch of the conservative government) has also lost thousands of clean energy jobs as well.
Australia as a nation is one of the world's largest per capita carbon emitters. Before 2011, Victoria was on track to be a leader in renewable energy development and in carbon reductions. It had legislated for a 20% reduction in carbon emissions and had targets for clean energy projects.
A week ago, after getting featured in the local country newspaper in premier Napthine's electorate, Bray received a call from the man himself. Bray and VicWind have been promoting the fact that many landholders in regional Victoria want wind developments on their property. "In many cases these farmers are third and fourth generation farmers in the district and they're proud of the benefits they're bringing to their communities," said Bray.
Despite being a fan of wind farms himself ("I actually love them", he said in an Agereport), Napthine has yet to commit to reforming the anti-wind farm laws. "The government recognises the need for wind energy facilities to be developed in appropriate locations, he said, "to minimise impacts on our natural environment and local communities while providing certainty to wind farm developers."
Read the full story at scfwindturbine web.
2013年5月29日 星期三
2013年5月27日 星期一
Private school raising sustainable classroom
A private school for students with special needs is developing what it hopes will be one of the greenest buildings in the world.
On its 11-acre campus in Spring Branch, the Monarch School has started construction on a 1,120-square-foot stand-alone classroom designed to get its power from the sun and wind; its heat and cool air from the earth; and water to nourish its vegetable garden from harvested rain.
The small building, which is expected to cost more than $400,000, will serve as an environmental laboratory, with students controlling its daily energy use. For example, they will determine when the sun's rays are strong enough to light the building, or when the wind turbine is needed to supplement power.
Other natural elements can be found throughout the campus, which houses about 127 students with autism, attention deficit disorder and other neurological differences.
There's a working beehive, vegetable and flower gardens, and an outdoor plaza where butterflies congregate.
"The students have a lot to learn about their neurology, and we wanted to provide them an environmentally safe atmosphere to do that learning," said Debrah Hall, head of the K-12 school near Kempwood and Gessner.
The school received numerous donations for the classroom building and has been raising additional cash to pay for the systems that will make the structure self-sufficient when it comes to water and energy use.
It is nearing the end of a $100,000 campaign through Kickstarter, a fundraising website. The campaign ends Saturday.
The classroom is being built to achieve certification through the Living Building Challenge, a program that requires structures to meet seven ambitious performance areas, including water and energy usage.
That program is administered by the International Living Future Institute, a nongovernmental organization that promotes environmentally friendly architecture. Less than a handful of buildings have been certified since 2010.
Living Buildings have stringent material requirements, eliminating anything toxic. Wood must be sustainably and regionally forested.
The Monarch project will include siding made of beams salvaged from an old building.
Used materials, said Shannon Bryant, co-owner of general contractor Tend Building, is one of the best ways to be green. They also come with a story. "It's way more fun than drywall," she said.
The construction budget for the base building is estimated at $315,000 with another $35,000 in architectural, engineering and related fees, according to architect Shelly Pottorf, who is leading the project. GreenNexus Consulting is also involved.
That $281 per square foot cost doesn't include the solar panels and some other features required for Living Building certification. While the total cost will be relatively expensive, it will be less than the $500 per square foot cost of some other Living Building projects.
Pottorf, principal of Architend, said the goal was to find ways to more affordably meet the standards so people "don't dismiss the Living Building Challenge as being financially unattainable."
"While we haven't achieved that goal yet," she said, "through this effort we are making significant progress."
On its 11-acre campus in Spring Branch, the Monarch School has started construction on a 1,120-square-foot stand-alone classroom designed to get its power from the sun and wind; its heat and cool air from the earth; and water to nourish its vegetable garden from harvested rain.
The small building, which is expected to cost more than $400,000, will serve as an environmental laboratory, with students controlling its daily energy use. For example, they will determine when the sun's rays are strong enough to light the building, or when the wind turbine is needed to supplement power.
Other natural elements can be found throughout the campus, which houses about 127 students with autism, attention deficit disorder and other neurological differences.
There's a working beehive, vegetable and flower gardens, and an outdoor plaza where butterflies congregate.
"The students have a lot to learn about their neurology, and we wanted to provide them an environmentally safe atmosphere to do that learning," said Debrah Hall, head of the K-12 school near Kempwood and Gessner.
The school received numerous donations for the classroom building and has been raising additional cash to pay for the systems that will make the structure self-sufficient when it comes to water and energy use.
It is nearing the end of a $100,000 campaign through Kickstarter, a fundraising website. The campaign ends Saturday.
The classroom is being built to achieve certification through the Living Building Challenge, a program that requires structures to meet seven ambitious performance areas, including water and energy usage.
That program is administered by the International Living Future Institute, a nongovernmental organization that promotes environmentally friendly architecture. Less than a handful of buildings have been certified since 2010.
Living Buildings have stringent material requirements, eliminating anything toxic. Wood must be sustainably and regionally forested.
The Monarch project will include siding made of beams salvaged from an old building.
Used materials, said Shannon Bryant, co-owner of general contractor Tend Building, is one of the best ways to be green. They also come with a story. "It's way more fun than drywall," she said.
The construction budget for the base building is estimated at $315,000 with another $35,000 in architectural, engineering and related fees, according to architect Shelly Pottorf, who is leading the project. GreenNexus Consulting is also involved.
That $281 per square foot cost doesn't include the solar panels and some other features required for Living Building certification. While the total cost will be relatively expensive, it will be less than the $500 per square foot cost of some other Living Building projects.
Pottorf, principal of Architend, said the goal was to find ways to more affordably meet the standards so people "don't dismiss the Living Building Challenge as being financially unattainable."
"While we haven't achieved that goal yet," she said, "through this effort we are making significant progress."
Solar panel glut likely to persist
Evidence from the larger listed manufacturers suggests that leading companies at present are split on strategy, with some continuing to ramp up loss-making capacity, while others have shelved expansion plans, but only a small minority have mothballed or closed factories.
That may not bode well for the wider, global industry, where leaner capacity will be the main route to a return to profitability, and suggests more value destruction to come as companies continue to take provisions on inventory, close factories or file for bankruptcy.
The stratospheric growth of the solar industry is illustrated by the recent expansion of seven of the top 10 producers by shipments which publish relevant data.
The seven had combined module production capacity of 13,650 megawatts as of December, their financial reports show, compared with actual global demand (as recorded in installed capacity) last year of 31,095 MW, according to the European Photovoltaic Industry Association.
Regarding their manufacturing strategy, two of the seven cut capacity in 2012, one left capacity unchanged, and the remaining four expanded.
Three companies provided forecasts for manufacturing capacity expectations in 2013, two expecting this to remain unchanged (Jinko and JA Solar) and one possibly to expand slightly (by 4.2%, Trina Solar).
The leading companies are not a representative sample: they are the firms with the most resources and clout to ride out the solar shakeout, and so may be expected to contract less.
There have been plenty of bankruptcies among weaker players and no doubt capacity destruction is proceeding.
Two opposing strategies now for surviving the shakeout and becoming a leader in a subsequent, consolidated industry might be: first, to build a leaner, more sustainable business, or, second, to continue ramp up in the hope of a revival in prices soon after more companies have gone to the wall.
An example of the latter, “keep expanding” approach might be Yingli, as suggested by the trajectory of its continued rapid growth in factory capacity and supported by statements in its 2012 annual report.
“The size of manufacturing capacity has a significant bearing on the profitability and competitive position of PV product manufacturers. Achieving economies of scale from expanded manufacturing capacity is critical to maintaining our competitive position,” it said.
Danish wind turbine maker Vestas might be an exponent of the more cautious, “focus on profit” approach in its latest annual report.
The wind industry has dealt with similar problems to solar, including coping with falling power demand and subsidy cuts in key markets plus global over-capacity.
“We should not aim for higher revenue at any cost. Vestas will only embark on projects that are profitable to our customers and our business,” it said in a report which announced cost cuts following a drop in new orders.
One alternative to expensive capacity expansions is to outsource more of the supply chain, an approach adopted by Vestas.
Leading module maker Canadian Solar appears to be an example in the solar industry, recently announcing that it would achieve a ten-fold increase in its production capacity of wafers (an intermediary product in module manufacture) over the next two years partly through external relationships.
Of the near-2,000 MW expected expansion, 300 MW would be made internally, 600 MW through a joint venture with GCL Poly Energy Holdings, and a further 1,000 MW through long-term supply contracts, it said in its March 2013 presentation.
That could be a safe, half-way house, retaining the flexibility to ramp up when prices settle and in the meantime focusing on profitability.
That may not bode well for the wider, global industry, where leaner capacity will be the main route to a return to profitability, and suggests more value destruction to come as companies continue to take provisions on inventory, close factories or file for bankruptcy.
The stratospheric growth of the solar industry is illustrated by the recent expansion of seven of the top 10 producers by shipments which publish relevant data.
The seven had combined module production capacity of 13,650 megawatts as of December, their financial reports show, compared with actual global demand (as recorded in installed capacity) last year of 31,095 MW, according to the European Photovoltaic Industry Association.
Regarding their manufacturing strategy, two of the seven cut capacity in 2012, one left capacity unchanged, and the remaining four expanded.
Three companies provided forecasts for manufacturing capacity expectations in 2013, two expecting this to remain unchanged (Jinko and JA Solar) and one possibly to expand slightly (by 4.2%, Trina Solar).
The leading companies are not a representative sample: they are the firms with the most resources and clout to ride out the solar shakeout, and so may be expected to contract less.
There have been plenty of bankruptcies among weaker players and no doubt capacity destruction is proceeding.
Two opposing strategies now for surviving the shakeout and becoming a leader in a subsequent, consolidated industry might be: first, to build a leaner, more sustainable business, or, second, to continue ramp up in the hope of a revival in prices soon after more companies have gone to the wall.
An example of the latter, “keep expanding” approach might be Yingli, as suggested by the trajectory of its continued rapid growth in factory capacity and supported by statements in its 2012 annual report.
“The size of manufacturing capacity has a significant bearing on the profitability and competitive position of PV product manufacturers. Achieving economies of scale from expanded manufacturing capacity is critical to maintaining our competitive position,” it said.
Danish wind turbine maker Vestas might be an exponent of the more cautious, “focus on profit” approach in its latest annual report.
The wind industry has dealt with similar problems to solar, including coping with falling power demand and subsidy cuts in key markets plus global over-capacity.
“We should not aim for higher revenue at any cost. Vestas will only embark on projects that are profitable to our customers and our business,” it said in a report which announced cost cuts following a drop in new orders.
One alternative to expensive capacity expansions is to outsource more of the supply chain, an approach adopted by Vestas.
Leading module maker Canadian Solar appears to be an example in the solar industry, recently announcing that it would achieve a ten-fold increase in its production capacity of wafers (an intermediary product in module manufacture) over the next two years partly through external relationships.
Of the near-2,000 MW expected expansion, 300 MW would be made internally, 600 MW through a joint venture with GCL Poly Energy Holdings, and a further 1,000 MW through long-term supply contracts, it said in its March 2013 presentation.
That could be a safe, half-way house, retaining the flexibility to ramp up when prices settle and in the meantime focusing on profitability.
2013年5月21日 星期二
Planning ahead with location intelligence
Given the many factors involved in planning a wind generator, developers and installers could be forgiven for thinking good quality mapping is not that important.
Yet when it comes to submitting a planning application, national planning policy dictates a set of requirements on formats and scales with the full expectation that the maps involved are both up to date and legally licensed.
Norwich-headquartered Windcrop, which has installed more than 450 small-scale wind turbines, recognises the benefits of a managed approach to maps.
“We submit approximately 50 planning applications a month on average," said Senior Planning Simon Henry. To have these validated under national planning guidance, we are required to submit maps and plans at pre-defined scales and in prescribed formats. Such is the volume of work, we needed a solution to make the production of these maps as quick and cost effective as possible.”
Crucially for Windcrop, they need to be able to generate Ordnance Survey map data at all the scales required by local authority planning departments across the country. These include 1:200, 1:500, 1:1 000 and 1:1 250 scale.
Simon explained: “Different local authorities have different requirements and because we work in so many areas we needed a flexible solution. If we couldn’t supply to the required scales and formats we simply wouldn’t be able to have our applications validated.”
Now equipped with the online Plans Ahead platform, Windcrop can generate three different kinds of mapping. The first is a large-scale block plan at 1: 500. This is ideal for showing the distances between the proposed turbine and existing buildings and natural features on site.
The second is a site location plan at 1: 2 500 scale showing the extent of the client’s land ownership and its relationship with neighbouring properties.
Simon added: “We can annotate any of these data outputs very easily and quickly. For example on the block plan, some authorities require us to show a proposed turbine as a circle while others need a triangle. We simply add the relevant details on top of the map. In the same way, we can show detail such as the width of an access route and how a cable will run from the turbine to the grid connection.”
Plans Ahead offers an easy to use online interface that requires no specialist GIS knowledge. As it is hosted, there are also no data storage worries and users can make changes to their plans online at no additional cost. This provides visibility of the planning process and an excellent means of managing and tracking the development lifecycle of a project.
In addition, the operating rules simplify licensing and guarantee copyright of map data for use in the relevant planning application.
Summarising the benefits, Simon concluded: “Plans Ahead has helped us reduce the time it takes to put applications together, in some cases by as much as half.”
Yet when it comes to submitting a planning application, national planning policy dictates a set of requirements on formats and scales with the full expectation that the maps involved are both up to date and legally licensed.
Norwich-headquartered Windcrop, which has installed more than 450 small-scale wind turbines, recognises the benefits of a managed approach to maps.
“We submit approximately 50 planning applications a month on average," said Senior Planning Simon Henry. To have these validated under national planning guidance, we are required to submit maps and plans at pre-defined scales and in prescribed formats. Such is the volume of work, we needed a solution to make the production of these maps as quick and cost effective as possible.”
Crucially for Windcrop, they need to be able to generate Ordnance Survey map data at all the scales required by local authority planning departments across the country. These include 1:200, 1:500, 1:1 000 and 1:1 250 scale.
Simon explained: “Different local authorities have different requirements and because we work in so many areas we needed a flexible solution. If we couldn’t supply to the required scales and formats we simply wouldn’t be able to have our applications validated.”
Now equipped with the online Plans Ahead platform, Windcrop can generate three different kinds of mapping. The first is a large-scale block plan at 1: 500. This is ideal for showing the distances between the proposed turbine and existing buildings and natural features on site.
The second is a site location plan at 1: 2 500 scale showing the extent of the client’s land ownership and its relationship with neighbouring properties.
Simon added: “We can annotate any of these data outputs very easily and quickly. For example on the block plan, some authorities require us to show a proposed turbine as a circle while others need a triangle. We simply add the relevant details on top of the map. In the same way, we can show detail such as the width of an access route and how a cable will run from the turbine to the grid connection.”
Plans Ahead offers an easy to use online interface that requires no specialist GIS knowledge. As it is hosted, there are also no data storage worries and users can make changes to their plans online at no additional cost. This provides visibility of the planning process and an excellent means of managing and tracking the development lifecycle of a project.
In addition, the operating rules simplify licensing and guarantee copyright of map data for use in the relevant planning application.
Summarising the benefits, Simon concluded: “Plans Ahead has helped us reduce the time it takes to put applications together, in some cases by as much as half.”
Traip students bring lessons to life
A Traip Academy team of budding engineers learned some lessons in physics and teamwork, and along the way, garnered honors at a recent statewide wind turbine competition.
Two teams from Traip participated in the University of Maine annual Windstorm and Wind Blade Challenge, and one of the teams walked away with second place overall for its floating turbine platform design.
The competition was sponsored by the Advanced Structures and Composites Center (ASCC) at UMaine, with more than 40 middle schools and high schools participating.
According to Traip Academy physics teacher Ed Disy, the goal was very precise: Build a wind turbine platform with a blade connection no more than four inches off the water, using no more than $100 for materials. Submitted with each design was a business plan detailing how they spent their funds.
Disy said the competition has practical applications. The ASCC this month completed the country's first floating wind turbine, which is expected to be placed in the water by 2016. The competition is intended to spur interest in the turbine program. Disy said they were told the winning prototypes may be used as a model for future turbines.
Teams could choose to either build a prototype turbine or a prototype floating platform for the turbine. Both Traip teams chose to build a platform.
The teams began meeting in December, first creating plans on paper and then transforming those plans into the actual model.
"I do a lot with the sciences, and I do pretty well," said senior Josh Wiswell, who will attend University of Southern Maine this fall as an electrical engineering student. "But I haven't done the engineering part."
Creating a model from plans was key to his interest, he said, "although we learned the real world is not as perfect as the calculations."
Disy agreed it was the learning experience that mattered most. "What we talked about is learning by failing," he said. "It doesn't always have to come out right."
For instance, one team created a platform out of plastic plumbing tubing, only to realize after it was built that it sat too high in the water. The solution was to use bricks to add weight.
The other team created a platform using a weighted-down gallon milk jug and a plastic pail. To get the correct buoyancy, they drilled holes in the pail so it would fill with water. When it was 4 inches off the water, they used duct tape to plug the remaining holes.
That model was the one that won second overall, likely in part because the team only spent $8 to build it.
"The best thing is applying it to real life," said team member Teancum Keele. "In math and science, you learn equations, but how does it apply to actual situations?"
Keele's team included Taidgh Robinson and Nathanial Thomas. Wiswell's team included Enya Childs and Talia Dennis.
Two teams from Traip participated in the University of Maine annual Windstorm and Wind Blade Challenge, and one of the teams walked away with second place overall for its floating turbine platform design.
The competition was sponsored by the Advanced Structures and Composites Center (ASCC) at UMaine, with more than 40 middle schools and high schools participating.
According to Traip Academy physics teacher Ed Disy, the goal was very precise: Build a wind turbine platform with a blade connection no more than four inches off the water, using no more than $100 for materials. Submitted with each design was a business plan detailing how they spent their funds.
Disy said the competition has practical applications. The ASCC this month completed the country's first floating wind turbine, which is expected to be placed in the water by 2016. The competition is intended to spur interest in the turbine program. Disy said they were told the winning prototypes may be used as a model for future turbines.
Teams could choose to either build a prototype turbine or a prototype floating platform for the turbine. Both Traip teams chose to build a platform.
The teams began meeting in December, first creating plans on paper and then transforming those plans into the actual model.
"I do a lot with the sciences, and I do pretty well," said senior Josh Wiswell, who will attend University of Southern Maine this fall as an electrical engineering student. "But I haven't done the engineering part."
Creating a model from plans was key to his interest, he said, "although we learned the real world is not as perfect as the calculations."
Disy agreed it was the learning experience that mattered most. "What we talked about is learning by failing," he said. "It doesn't always have to come out right."
For instance, one team created a platform out of plastic plumbing tubing, only to realize after it was built that it sat too high in the water. The solution was to use bricks to add weight.
The other team created a platform using a weighted-down gallon milk jug and a plastic pail. To get the correct buoyancy, they drilled holes in the pail so it would fill with water. When it was 4 inches off the water, they used duct tape to plug the remaining holes.
That model was the one that won second overall, likely in part because the team only spent $8 to build it.
"The best thing is applying it to real life," said team member Teancum Keele. "In math and science, you learn equations, but how does it apply to actual situations?"
Keele's team included Taidgh Robinson and Nathanial Thomas. Wiswell's team included Enya Childs and Talia Dennis.
2013年5月16日 星期四
The Latest Wind-Energy Outrage
The wording of the Eagle Protection Act could not be any clearer. It
“prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the
Interior,” from “taking” bald or golden eagles. The law defines “take”
as “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap,
collect, molest or disturb.”
Despite that language, the Obama administration continues to cast a blind eye to the largest eagle-killing industry in America: the wind-energy sector. Not only is the Department of Justice refusing to prosecute the wind industry despite clear and repeated violations of two of America’s oldest wildlife laws — the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Eagle Protection Act — but the administration is also helping the wind industry cover up the number of birds it is killing.
We know this thanks to some excellent reporting this week by Dina Cappiello of the Associated Press. The wind industry, says Cappiello, reports bird kills only on a voluntary basis, and “the Obama administration in many cases refuses to make the information public, saying it belongs to the energy companies or that revealing it would expose trade secrets or implicate ongoing enforcement investigations.”
Cappiello’s work also shows that the extent of eagle kills by wind turbines is more widespread that was previously known. She found that wind projects in Wyoming have killed four dozen golden eagles since 2009. One site, Duke Energy’s Top of the World wind project, has killed ten golden eagles in its first two years of operation.
The AP report on eagle deaths was published just one day after the Fish and Wildlife Service revealed that it will not prosecute the operator of a proposed wind project, to be located in Kern County, Calif., if that project kills a California condor. The California condor is among the world’s most endangered animals, with a total population of fewer than 250 birds in the wild. The proposed wind project will be built on public land.
The more studies that are done on wind turbines and bird kills, the more definitive proof we have that the machines are killing lots of birds. In March, a peer-reviewed study published in the Wildlife Society Bulletin estimated that 573,000 birds per year are killed in the U.S. by wind turbines, including some 83,000 birds of prey. The latest study’s numbers are significantly higher than an official estimate published in 2008 by the Fish and Wildlife Service that put bird kills by wind turbines at 440,000 per year.
The large number of eagle kills in Wyoming matters because that state could soon be home to one of the world’s largest wind projects. A subsidiary of Anschutz Corporation, the privately held company owned by Denver billionaire Philip Anschutz, is planning to build a $5 billion, 1,000-turbine facility known as the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project. Last year, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar praised the project, much of which may be built on federal land. Salazar did so even though the Bureau of Land Management has estimated that the massive wind project will kill 46 to 64 golden eagles every year.
On its website, the Fish and Wildlife Service says that any violation of the Eagle Protection Act can result in a fine of $100,000, or $200,000 for organizations. It further states that penalties increase for “additional offenses, and a second violation of this Act is a felony.” Those facts are important because nine golden eagles have been killed since 2009 by wind turbines at the Pine Tree Wind Project in Kern County, California, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service agent in charge of the facility. Felony charges ought to be leveled against the owners of the Pine Tree project, but that might prove a tad embarrassing. Pine Tree is owned by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, which eagerly promotes the claim that the wind project’s carbon dioxide savings are “roughly the same as removing 35,000 cars from the road.”
Despite that language, the Obama administration continues to cast a blind eye to the largest eagle-killing industry in America: the wind-energy sector. Not only is the Department of Justice refusing to prosecute the wind industry despite clear and repeated violations of two of America’s oldest wildlife laws — the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Eagle Protection Act — but the administration is also helping the wind industry cover up the number of birds it is killing.
We know this thanks to some excellent reporting this week by Dina Cappiello of the Associated Press. The wind industry, says Cappiello, reports bird kills only on a voluntary basis, and “the Obama administration in many cases refuses to make the information public, saying it belongs to the energy companies or that revealing it would expose trade secrets or implicate ongoing enforcement investigations.”
Cappiello’s work also shows that the extent of eagle kills by wind turbines is more widespread that was previously known. She found that wind projects in Wyoming have killed four dozen golden eagles since 2009. One site, Duke Energy’s Top of the World wind project, has killed ten golden eagles in its first two years of operation.
The AP report on eagle deaths was published just one day after the Fish and Wildlife Service revealed that it will not prosecute the operator of a proposed wind project, to be located in Kern County, Calif., if that project kills a California condor. The California condor is among the world’s most endangered animals, with a total population of fewer than 250 birds in the wild. The proposed wind project will be built on public land.
The more studies that are done on wind turbines and bird kills, the more definitive proof we have that the machines are killing lots of birds. In March, a peer-reviewed study published in the Wildlife Society Bulletin estimated that 573,000 birds per year are killed in the U.S. by wind turbines, including some 83,000 birds of prey. The latest study’s numbers are significantly higher than an official estimate published in 2008 by the Fish and Wildlife Service that put bird kills by wind turbines at 440,000 per year.
The large number of eagle kills in Wyoming matters because that state could soon be home to one of the world’s largest wind projects. A subsidiary of Anschutz Corporation, the privately held company owned by Denver billionaire Philip Anschutz, is planning to build a $5 billion, 1,000-turbine facility known as the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project. Last year, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar praised the project, much of which may be built on federal land. Salazar did so even though the Bureau of Land Management has estimated that the massive wind project will kill 46 to 64 golden eagles every year.
On its website, the Fish and Wildlife Service says that any violation of the Eagle Protection Act can result in a fine of $100,000, or $200,000 for organizations. It further states that penalties increase for “additional offenses, and a second violation of this Act is a felony.” Those facts are important because nine golden eagles have been killed since 2009 by wind turbines at the Pine Tree Wind Project in Kern County, California, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service agent in charge of the facility. Felony charges ought to be leveled against the owners of the Pine Tree project, but that might prove a tad embarrassing. Pine Tree is owned by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, which eagerly promotes the claim that the wind project’s carbon dioxide savings are “roughly the same as removing 35,000 cars from the road.”
2013年5月15日 星期三
Clarington an unwilling host to wind power
Last-minute presentations by a wind farm developer and a doctor convinced there are no ill health effects from properly-sited turbines were not enough to tip the scales against a council chamber packed with residents opposed to the farms.
Clarington is officially an unwilling host to wind energy, after council passed the declaration at its Monday, May 13 meeting.
In her first throne speech, Premier Kathleen Wynne said Ontario could benefit from industrial wind farms only if there were willing hosts for the turbines. Shortly after, several communities passed resolutions to declare themselves "unwilling hosts" of wind farms.
Heather Rutherford, from Clarington Wind Concerns, asked Clarington council to do the same.
"We are hoping that the Premier of the province will take our concerns, and the concerns of other communities, into serious consideration when they make their decision," said Ms. Rutherford. "We're hoping that by passing this resolution tonight, it will send a clear message to Premier Wynne that Clarington does have some serious concerns about this project."
Concerned residents have been vocally opposed to the two industrial wind farms planned for east Clarington.
Representatives from Sprott Power Corp., co-developing with Zero Emissions People, said the 20-megawatt, 10-turbine farm would have no "widespread" impact on property values. They said in the earlier stages of a wind farm, there has been some evidence of a drop in home values, but values do tend to rebound.
"They're not saying there is no specific impacts on any house," said David Eva. "But when the issue is studied broadly, the impact of wind farms on a community, these studies are not finding statistically significant impacts."
Dr. Loren Knopper, a senior scientist with Intrinsik Environmental Sciences, told council that at the setbacks and noise restrictions proposed for the wind turbines in Clarington, people will not get sick. He said the change in environment and annoyance factors are a big part of why some residents report a range of symptoms -- from sleep disturbances to ringing in the ears.
From reviewing studies done on the issue, Dr. Knopper said at the regulated noise limit, 40 decibels, the noise from the wind turbines has not been shown to cause health effects. He added many of the symptoms of "wind turbine syndrome" are common health complaints among many Canadians.
"I don't discount it at all ... I think stress, the subjective worry of it, can definitely lead to problems," said Mr. Knopper.
Council members argued that if a resident was made sick, it hardly mattered whether it was noise or stress from wind turbines having an impact.
Last week Council did raise concerns that there may be places in Clarington -- for example the Clarington Energy Park -- where future wind energy could be welcomed. A staff report and letter from the Clarington Board of Trade said an all encompassing unwilling host resolution could hinder economic development.
The fact that the wind farms are moving ahead quickly, and the energy park is still under development, motivated council to declare Clarington an unwilling host of wind energy.
"I believe that despite your efforts, very few people here tonight would agree that you've addressed their concerns," Mayor Adrian Foster told the wind energy company.
Clarington is officially an unwilling host to wind energy, after council passed the declaration at its Monday, May 13 meeting.
In her first throne speech, Premier Kathleen Wynne said Ontario could benefit from industrial wind farms only if there were willing hosts for the turbines. Shortly after, several communities passed resolutions to declare themselves "unwilling hosts" of wind farms.
Heather Rutherford, from Clarington Wind Concerns, asked Clarington council to do the same.
"We are hoping that the Premier of the province will take our concerns, and the concerns of other communities, into serious consideration when they make their decision," said Ms. Rutherford. "We're hoping that by passing this resolution tonight, it will send a clear message to Premier Wynne that Clarington does have some serious concerns about this project."
Concerned residents have been vocally opposed to the two industrial wind farms planned for east Clarington.
Representatives from Sprott Power Corp., co-developing with Zero Emissions People, said the 20-megawatt, 10-turbine farm would have no "widespread" impact on property values. They said in the earlier stages of a wind farm, there has been some evidence of a drop in home values, but values do tend to rebound.
"They're not saying there is no specific impacts on any house," said David Eva. "But when the issue is studied broadly, the impact of wind farms on a community, these studies are not finding statistically significant impacts."
Dr. Loren Knopper, a senior scientist with Intrinsik Environmental Sciences, told council that at the setbacks and noise restrictions proposed for the wind turbines in Clarington, people will not get sick. He said the change in environment and annoyance factors are a big part of why some residents report a range of symptoms -- from sleep disturbances to ringing in the ears.
From reviewing studies done on the issue, Dr. Knopper said at the regulated noise limit, 40 decibels, the noise from the wind turbines has not been shown to cause health effects. He added many of the symptoms of "wind turbine syndrome" are common health complaints among many Canadians.
"I don't discount it at all ... I think stress, the subjective worry of it, can definitely lead to problems," said Mr. Knopper.
Council members argued that if a resident was made sick, it hardly mattered whether it was noise or stress from wind turbines having an impact.
Last week Council did raise concerns that there may be places in Clarington -- for example the Clarington Energy Park -- where future wind energy could be welcomed. A staff report and letter from the Clarington Board of Trade said an all encompassing unwilling host resolution could hinder economic development.
The fact that the wind farms are moving ahead quickly, and the energy park is still under development, motivated council to declare Clarington an unwilling host of wind energy.
"I believe that despite your efforts, very few people here tonight would agree that you've addressed their concerns," Mayor Adrian Foster told the wind energy company.
訂閱：
意見 (Atom)