What do Cape Wind and Nuclear Power Have in Common?

[russ_watters]

What do Cape Wind and nuclear power have in common? Opponents come out of the woodwork to oppose both and there is no regulatory framework in place to limit the challenges for either. As a result, opponents can litigate the projects into oblivion. Case in point, Cape Wind. It is currently nine years into a regulatory approval process. This is in the news right now because the Secretary of the Interior has approved the project: Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced his decision after a nine-year federal review of the project that pitted environmentalists against one another and drew opposition from across party lines. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/environment/2010-04-28-wind-farm_N.htm

What business this has running across the Secretary of the Interior's desk is beyond me, but in any case, the opponents say the fight isn't over. The article isn't saying what the next step is, so we'll just have to wait and see where it goes from here.

This is a problem that will become increasingly common for wind power if nothing is done about it, as offshore is one of the best categories of locations for a wind farm. Offshore farms have existed for decades in other countries, but don't in the US despite dozens of proposals because of the ability to litigate them to death.

And this shared trait with nuclear illustrates how two of the major criticisms of nuclear power (cost and time to build) have related components with wind power that are not a function of the type of power, but rather a function of the regulatory environment. Bottom line: a regulatory framework needs to be put in place to limit the time required to gain approval of the location for both nuclear plants and wind turbines. Allowing the free-for-all status quo to continue hurts the country a lot.

As an aside, this wind farm is in a unique position in that it directly offsets oil-based power production in the area. Clearly, a positive thing.

I'm also looking for information about the cost of all of this delay. Currently, estimates are that the project will cost from $1.6 to $2 billion, versus an initial estimate of $700 million (for 468 megawatts). I would presume (but would like confirmation) that a significant fraction of this $1 billion overrun is due to the 9 years of litigation. http://www.wickedlocal.com/barnstable/news/opinions/x1870701325

[mgb_phys]

As an aside, this wind farm is in a unique position in that it directly offsets oil-based power production in the area. Clearly, a positive thing.
Unless you're in the oil business

[Argentum Vulpes]

...
I'm also looking for information about the cost of all of this delay. Currently, estimates are that the project will cost from $1.6 to $2 billion, versus an initial estimate of $700 million (for 468 megawatts). I would presume (but would like confirmation) that a significant fraction of this $1 billion overrun is due to the 9 years of litigation. http://www.wickedlocal.com/barnstable/news/opinions/x1870701325

I don't have a source on this but I'm willing to bet a lot of cost over runs on this project is the same reason for nuclear power cost over runs. That is that the developers of the project take out loans to get the project built and the loan repayments start right away not when the project is done and pushing electrons down the line, and making money.

[mgb_phys]

What do Cape Wind and nuclear power have in common? Opponents come out of the woodwork to oppose both
Ironically in the UK the biggest opponents of wind power is the nuclear industry.
Especially when British Nuclear Fuels LTD was caught secretly funding a grass roots countryside group that was opposing wind turbines

[aquitaine]

This is the problem with development in the US, there's so much NIMBYism that nothing gets developed. Electricity doesn't grow on trees people.


EDIT: Didn't see this when I posted:

Ironically in the UK the biggest opponents of wind power is the nuclear industry.
Especially when British Nuclear Fuels LTD was caught secretly funding a grass roots countryside group that was opposing wind turbines


While I dont think that's good and while wind does have its place, I really dont think we should make our electricity so heavily dependent on such fundementally inefficient and unreliable sources as wind and solar.

[russ_watters]

Unless you're in the oil business The Phillies just signed Ryan Howard to a 5+ year contract extension, and that's not a good thing if you're in the New York Mets business.

So what?

[Ivan Seeking]

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced his decision after a nine-year federal review of the project that pitted environmentalists against one another and drew opposition from across party lines

Don't worry, Russ, Obama is on the job now.

[russ_watters]

Don't worry, Russ, Obama is on the job now. Indeed, Ivan, that has me more worried. He's a double-talker of a caliber that would make Clinton proud. He's giving token financial support to nuclear so he can say he is - while cancelling the Yucca project and stifling discussion by promising a report on nuclear waste he has no intention of having done at least until after his next election. A stall is just as useful as acting against nuclear and carries with it less political fallout. He's executing the plan to perfection.

And this action on Cape Wind itself certainly does not indicate a change in policy, he's just following the process that was already in place.

He is certainly not going to do anything to change the situation for the better - but this isn't an Obama vs Bush issue anyway: the problem (for both wind and nuclear) has existed for decades.

[mheslep]

...

This is a problem that will become increasingly common for wind power if nothing is done about it, as offshore is one of the best categories of locations for a wind farm. Offshore farms have existed for decades in other countries, but don't in the US despite dozens of proposals because of the ability to litigate them to death.
Onshore in the US midwest corridor is much more economically attractive proposition than offshore, as 1) the US midwest has the best large area wind resource in the world, and 2) offshore wind costs 2-3x more upfront, which can take a long time for the better more consistent offshore winds to pay back. Finally in the case of the US Atlantic coast, offshore wind has hurricanes do deal with. I don't know that anyone has solved that engineering problem economically for a tower and blades in that kind of sea and wind state.

[mgb_phys]

The problem with offshore in the US is that it's a continent, except for the grand banks the water gets very deep very quickly.

[mheslep]

The problem with offshore in the US is that it's a continent, except for the grand banks the water gets very deep very quickly.Ehh, stay's less than 500' for awhile.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/2minsurface/1350/45N090W.jpg

[Shalashaska]

Fear. They have fear of losing life, or a view, or a lifestyle. Unreasonable fear, but fear nonetheless. That's what they have in common. That said, I would think the coal industry would be disturbed, and not the Oil industry.

[aquitaine]

Indeed, Ivan, that has me more worried. He's a double-talker of a caliber that would make Clinton proud. He's giving token financial support to nuclear so he can say he is - while cancelling the Yucca project and stifling discussion by promising a report on nuclear waste he has no intention of having done at least until after his next election. A stall is just as useful as acting against nuclear and carries with it less political fallout. He's executing the plan to perfection.

And this action on Cape Wind itself certainly does not indicate a change in policy, he's just following the process that was already in place.

He is certainly not going to do anything to change the situation for the better - but this isn't an Obama vs Bush issue anyway: the problem (for both wind and nuclear) has existed for decades.


To be fair Bush hasn't done much to help the nuclear industry either, and he lied about almost everything.

[mgb_phys]

Ehh, stay's less than 500' for awhile.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/2minsurface/1350/45N090W.jpg
Ok, more familiar with the west coast.

But in the US there is no need to go offshore, there are large bits of the middle that are flat and windy with not much else there.

[Shalashaska]

Ok, more familiar with the west coast.

But in the US there is no need to go offshore, there are large bits of the middle that are flat and windy with not much else there.

So true, and "bits" is kind understatement. The issue then is storage and transmission, which is doable, but the political will is absent. As usual :grumpy:

Lets stick our nuclear reactors, wind and solar farms there; we'd have a better and more practical energy yield than wasting corn.

[russ_watters]

To be fair Bush hasn't done much to help the nuclear industry either... Yes, that's absolutely true. I don't want this thread to be a Bush vs Obama thread because the reality is, neither party is handling this correctly.

[russ_watters]

But in the US there is no need to go offshore, there are large bits of the middle that are flat and windy with not much else there. I think a lot of the problem of using the midwest is the transmission lines. It doesn't matter if installing the turbines is cheaper if you have to run a couple of hundred miles of transmission lines to get to the nearest population center to send the power to. Besides, the power company that would build in the midwest is probably not the same company that wants to build off the eastern seaboard.

Anyway, an argument about which is better really is off topic because the reality is that power companies believe offshore wind power should be viable as evidenced by the fact that they've made proposals for it. Now Cape Wind's viability is an interesting case beccause according to the last link in the OP, they believe they can market the power to people willing to pay more to say they are getting their power from wind, thereby avoiding the problem of the power actually being double or triple what power from other sources cost. That's great if they can do it, but that kind of economics isn't going to last very long for wind power. That market will saturate rather quickly I would think.

[Shalashaska]

I think a lot of the problem of using the midwest is the transmission lines. It doesn't matter if installing the turbines is cheaper if you have to run a couple of hundred miles of transmission lines to get to the nearest population center to send the power to. Besides, the power company that would build in the midwest is probably not the same company that wants to build off the eastern seaboard.

Anyway, an argument about which is better really is off topic because the reality is that power companies believe offshore wind power should be viable as evidenced by the fact that they've made proposals for it. Now Cape Wind's viability is an interesting case beccause according to the last link in the OP, they believe they can market the power to people willing to pay more to say they are getting their power from wind, thereby avoiding the problem of the power actually being double or triple what power from other sources cost. That's great if they can do it, but that kind of economics isn't going to last very long for wind power. That market will saturate rather quickly I would think.

It's the opposite of the lure of fuel from cooking oil: it's doable only on a tiny scale, and only for a while. We need long term storage in our grid, and more efficient transmission more than anything else. With that, the rest can follow with lower degrees of investment.

[aquitaine]

The real problem with wind is that it is a really bad idea in general. I ran accross a rather interesting post on a different forum about this topic that I'd like to repost.

The wind power industry is the biggest scam to come out of the "greening" movement yet. "Oh, wind power is the future!" - bull****, wind power is a convenient distraction that is going to make a few people very rich before the powers-that-be realize they've been completely had.

Wind power has one essential flaw that makes it useless as a primary power generation tool - it has no capacity for storage and can supply only peak-demand alternatives. Even in places where the wind blows continuously and rotors continually turn, the system does not always function at peak capacity, which makes it totally unreliable. The only way wind energy is useful is to take the load off other power generation systems by throttling back the primary systems and allowing the power generated from wind turbines to absorb the slack when it is available. When the wind systems drop in production capacity, primary systems again must take up the slack. It is useful as an alternative to reduce demand on larger, reliable facilities, but that's it.

Now, take a long hard look at the ecological impact of wind power generation. Oh sure, there are no CO2 emissions from wind power, but what about other factors? Must like the idiotic move towards biofuels, which decimate arable land that could be used more productively to generate food, wind power generation leaves a massive and permanent ecological footprint. Wind farms, in addition to taking up valuable land space that could be used for all kinds of things (including preservation and conservation) has a large impact on local bird populations. Some preliminary studies have found significant impacts on bird populations, particularly in migratory routes, as a result of bird strikes at wind generation farms.

It's an inefficient red herring designed to do nothing but make money on the grants given to construct it, and then vanish into the night.

There are two forms of efficient, economically practical, and ecologically sustainable power generation known to man at present: hydroelectric, and nuclear. The sooner the do-gooders at Greenpeace, Sierra Club, etc get that through their thick skulls, the better off we'll all be. Solar is efficient only for small-scale projects, and the production cost is so significant that it isn't a feasible solution - though it will be when someone finally sorts out biological solar power generation on a commercial scale.

Most "environmentalists" and proponents of "green technology" have their hearts in the right place, but they don't have a ****ing clue when it comes to the technical aspects of these projects and it is absolutely infuriating. The idea that wind generation can replace current coal-fired facilities and therefore affect climate change is completely and utterly laughable.

Disclaimer: I currently work in environmental law enforcement.

source (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=69339.msg1369298#msg1369298)


That does a way better job of summing up everything that's wrong with it than anything I could say.

[Shalashaska]

The real problem with wind is that it is a really bad idea in general. I ran accross a rather interesting post on a different forum about this topic that I'd like to repost.



source (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=69339.msg1369298#msg1369298)


That does a way better job of summing up everything that's wrong with it than anything I could say.

Hearts in the right place, but heads up their ****es... yep, that seems about right. :cries:

[aquitaine]

Explain.

[Shalashaska]

Explain.

Eh? I was agreeing with you.

[Argentum Vulpes]

Hearts in the right place, but heads up their ****es... yep, that seems about right. :cries:

But you mean we can't power this country on sun shine and farts?!? Man I guess we just need to go back to splitting those atoms.

[OmCheeto]

What business this has running across the Secretary of the Interior's desk is beyond me,

Politicians and their plebes, as much as we might dislike them, can sometimes get things done:

12/10/2009 (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/environment/2009-12-10-ge-wind-farm-turbines_N.htm?csp=obinsite)
The largest wind farm proposed in the U.S. will be built in Oregon and provide enough power for 235,000 homes and use $1.4 billion in turbines and services from GE (GE), the companies said Thursday.

When completed in 2012, the $2 billion Shepherds Flat wind farm will be larger than any wind farm in operation worldwide, GE says.
Yay!

April 16, 2010, 5:24PM (http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/04/pentagon_calls_for_more_study.html)
The Department of Defense said today it has asked radar experts at the MIT's Lincoln Lab to evaluate whether the huge Shepherds Flat wind farm in north-central Oregon would interfere with signals from a radar station in Fossil if built.

The study will take up to 60 days and extend past the long-planned May 1 groundbreaking date
....
On Friday, Wyden and Merkley placed holds on three Obama Administration defense nominees to protest the military's position and try to speed resolution of the dispute.
Booo.......

May 1, 2010 (http://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2010/05/mammoth-oregon-wind-farm-project-can.html)
Some encouraging news for renewable energy in our region: In a joint release yesterday, Oregon's two Democratic senators and lone Republican representative disclosed that the Department of Defense has relented and dropped its opposition to the construction of a mammoth wind farm in Gilliam and Morrow counties.
Yay!

Don't know if this would work against litigation from private citizens and spotted owl groups.

But the fighting and delays strike me as the equivalent of standing around arguing who's going to put out the fire, as you watch your house burn down.

[mheslep]

To be fair Bush hasn't done much to help the nuclear industry either...

Yes, that's absolutely true. ....
The momentum of the US nuclear power industry, such as it is now with at least many license applications if no new plants yet, can be largely accredited to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005). Scroll through the wiki page for the nuclear parts of that law.

[mheslep]

... Now Cape Wind's viability is an interesting case beccause according to the last link in the OP, they believe they can market the power to people willing to pay more to say they are getting their power from wind, thereby avoiding the problem of the power actually being double or triple what power from other sources cost. That's great if they can do it, but that kind of economics isn't going to last very long for wind power. That market will saturate rather quickly I would think.That's the early adopter business model. True it's expensive up front, but as the technical problems are worked out and as the economies of scale kick in the costs fall and the tech becomes main stream.

[mheslep]

source (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=69339.msg1369298#msg1369298)


That does a way better job of summing up everything that's wrong with it than anything I could say.That 'hard-light' poster is confused and/or wrong about wind power in just about every paragraph. Here's a good background report.
http://www.20percentwind.org/20p.aspx?page=Report

[mheslep]

What do Cape Wind and nuclear power have in common? Opponents come out of the woodwork to oppose both and there is no regulatory framework in place to limit the challenges for either. [...]So to get back on the topic of a framework to stop endless challenges to these projects: I believe the Cape Wind case is a fairly isolated example. There were the Cape Cod Kennedys and beach side mansion-ites protesters. The turbines are cited close in to take advantage of shallow bank not found on the mid-Atlantic - Fla coasts. I don't see those kind of events coming together often. I expect the reasons for not seeing more offshore wind on the east coast so far are the reasons I gave above: offshore is expensive and Atlantic hurricanes present technical challenges like no other.

So I concur that the particular case of Cape Wind has parallels in nuclear power stalls, but not offshore wind in general.

[Shalashaska]

So to get back on the topic of a framework to stop endless challenges to these projects: I believe the Cape Wind case is a fairly isolated example. There were the Cape Cod Kennedys and beach side mansion-ites protesters. The turbines are cited close in to take advantage of shallow bank not found on the mid-Atlantic - Fla coasts. I don't see those kind of events coming together often. I expect the reasons for not seeing more offshore wind on the east coast so far are the reasons I gave above: offshore is expensive and Atlantic hurricanes present technical challenges like no other.

So I concur that the particular case of Cape Wind has parallels in nuclear power stalls, but not offshore wind in general.

Cape Wind is a pretty narrow example of genuinely USEFUL wind farming. The idea that it can replace coal fired plants without storage capacity in the grid, and without prohibitive investment in transmission, is fantastic however. Nuclear energy and Cape Wind share the fear of having one's back yard altered or contaminated. Both are unreasonable fears, and both are rooted in the notion that what is out of sight can be out of mind (see the gulf of mexico).

How many people die as a result of Coal mining, and emissions from coal fired plants? That number DWARFS the number of people killed by nuclear energy, including bombs. Why are not upgrading our grid, and centralizing waste storage (in a sane location, not Yucca Mountain) and production in those chunks of the midwest we'd stick wind-farms in?

[OmCheeto]

And the beat goes on..... and the beat goes on........

Lawsuits Take Aim at America's First Offshore Wind Farm (http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2010/2010-05-02-091.html)
HYANNIS, Massachusetts, May 2, 2010 (ENS) - A stack of lawsuits is piling up against the federal government in response to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar's April 28 decision to approve the Cape Wind project, America's first offshore wind farm.

......

"This fight is not over," said Audra Parker, president and CEO of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, a member of the coalition.

"Litigation remains the option of last resort. However, when the federal government is intent on trampling the rights of Native Americans and the people of Cape Cod, we must act. We will not stand by and allow our treasured public lands to be marred forever by a corporate giveaway to private industrial energy developers," said Parker.

I was just looking over the DOI blurb (http://www.doi.gov/news/doinews/Secretary-Salazar-Announces-Approval-of-Cape-Wind-Energy-Project-on-Outer-Continental-Shelf-off-Massachusetts.cfm) on the matter and laughed out loud at several spots:

Regarding possible seabed cultural and historic resources, a Chance Finds Clause in the lease requires the developer to halt operations and notify Interior of any unanticipated archaeological find.

Now these turbines are at least 5 miles off shore. Did the native tribes invent scuba gear and have underwater cities out there? Did they bury their dead there, like sailors do? Did someone flood the Atlantic ocean within the last 30,000 years, covering an old settlement? :rolleyes: Please. Will someone please point out what I am missing here?

FAA nighttime lighting requirements have been reduced, lessening potential nighttime visual impacts.

Oh my god. Instead of looking at a black horizon, people are going to have to look at red lights, 5 miles in the distance. I can already hear the headlines; "One of the Kennedy's, in their private single engined plane, collided with one of the Cape Cod wind towers. The family sites this tragic loss as a prime reason the farm should have been never build. "It kills people!""

Ah ha! The worst view in the world:

http://www.capewind.org/images//cotuit.jpg
View from Cotuit - 5.6 Miles

What pathetic arguments....

[Shalashaska]

And the beat goes on..... and the beat goes on........


I was just looking over the DOI blurb (http://www.doi.gov/news/doinews/Secretary-Salazar-Announces-Approval-of-Cape-Wind-Energy-Project-on-Outer-Continental-Shelf-off-Massachusetts.cfm) on the matter and laughed out loud at several spots:



Now these turbines are at least 5 miles off shore. Did the native tribes invent scuba gear and have underwater cities out there? Did they bury their dead there, like sailors do? Did someone flood the Atlantic ocean within the last 30,000 years, covering an old settlement? :rolleyes: Please. Will someone please point out what I am missing here?


Oh my god. Instead of looking at a black horizon, people are going to have to look at red lights, 5 miles in the distance. I can already hear the headlines; "One of the Kennedy's, in their private single engined plane, collided with one of the Cape Cod wind towers. The family sites this tragic loss as a prime reason the farm should have been never build. "It kills people!""

Ah ha! The worst view in the world:

http://www.capewind.org/images//cotuit.jpg
View from Cotuit - 5.6 Miles

What pathetic arguments....

Regarding what's bolded... I did that. Sorry!! :biggrin:

[mheslep]

Cape Wind is a pretty narrow example of genuinely USEFUL wind farming. The idea that it can replace coal fired plants without storage capacity in the grid, and without prohibitive investment in transmission, is fantastic however. None of the serious ideas about wind energy include 'replacing' fossil fuels by itself. The idea is to run wind up to 10-15% of the grid (relatively easy), and maybe 20-30% with more serious investment. Right now US wind capacity is about 1% of the grid (3% peak). (http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_installed_capacity.asp) Note that coal is down to ~46-47% of the US electrical supply now and falling, both as a percentage of the whole and by absolute output.

[Shalashaska]

None of the serious ideas about wind energy include 'replacing' fossil fuels by itself. The idea is to run wind up to 10-15% of the grid (relatively easy), and maybe 20-30% with more serious investment. Right now US wind capacity is about 1% of the grid (3% peak). (http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_installed_capacity.asp) Note that coal is down to ~46-47% of the US electrical supply now and falling, both as a percentage of the whole and for absolute output.

That's a laudable goal, which should be achieved sometime after lawsuits go out of style. In the meantime, nuclear plants can handily replace far more coal fired plants. The lack of political will in both cases is fairly similar. Someone eventually has to stand up and defend these projects in their own districts, but for now that's political suicide.

[aquitaine]

That 'hard-light' poster is confused and/or wrong about wind power in just about every paragraph. Here's a good background report.
http://www.20percentwind.org/20p.aspx?page=Report



So you think we should wastefully gobble up massive amounts of land for massively inefficient bird killing windfarms in the middle of no where having to run out massive amounts of electrical lines?

The biggest problem with wind is that is fundementally inefficient and is heavily subsidized (http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/07/spin-this-booming-wind-industry-still-seeks-subsidies/tab/article/). Instead of investing tens of billions of dollars into tearing up our country, why not invest it in proven technology that can keep the lights on when the wind isn't blowing?

I also see that "report" was put together by a DC lobbyist group so I question its figures.

EDIT:
Eh? I was agreeing with you.

Sorry I musunderstood.

[OmCheeto]

So you think we should wastefully gobble up massive amounts of landI do! for massively inefficient bird killing windfarmsYes. There are much more efficient ways of killing birds:
Glass Windows (http://www.currykerlinger.com/birds.htm)

Bird Deaths a year: 100 to 900+ million
Dr. Daniel Klem of Muhlenberg College has done studies over a period of 20 years, looking at bird collisions with windows. His conclusion: glass kills more birds than any other human related factor.


Let's shutter up all the windows and live in the dark. Mole people, mole people......
in the middle of no where having to run out massive amounts of electrical lines?

Yeeeees! Cha-Ching! :devil:

hmmm.....

I wonder if Gore is also invested in Alcoa?

[mheslep]

So you think we should wastefully gobble up massive amounts of land for massively inefficient bird killing windfarms in the middle of no where having to run out massive amounts of electrical lines? I reject that characterization.

The biggest problem with wind is that is fundementally inefficient and is heavily subsidized (http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/07/spin-this-booming-wind-industry-still-seeks-subsidies/tab/article/). Instead of investing tens of billions of dollars into tearing up our country, why not invest it in proven technology that can keep the lights on when the wind isn't blowing?

I also see that "report" was put together by a DC lobbyist group so I question its figures.
The "report" was prepared primarily by the US Department of Energy as clearly shown in the report (http://www.20percentwind.org/report/Appendix%20D_Lead_Authors_Reviewers_and_Other_Cont ributors.pdf). Many things kill birds, of the man made type buildings are by far the main culprit. I don't favor subsidies, but then many fossil fuel industries receive subsidies, and wind turbines should at least get the same breaks. As for the rest - "wastefully", "gobble", "massive", "massively", "fundamentally" - those terms prohibit further discussion unless put in context and compared to something. Otherwise it is just hyperbole.

[CRGreathouse]

Another point on this "bird-killing" aside:

Is it clear that more birds die from wind farms than from an equivalent megawattage of coal plants? Presumably birds' respiratory systems are affected in ways similar to humans, etc.

[mgb_phys]

Wind turbines seem to kill very few birds

http://www.sibleyguides.com/wp-content/uploads/Bird_mortality_chart.jpg

http://www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mortality/

[mheslep]

Wind turbines seem to kill very few birds

http://www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mortality/
Nice link. Thanks.

[Argentum Vulpes]

Wind turbines seem to kill very few birds

http://www.sibleyguides.com/wp-content/uploads/Bird_mortality_chart.jpg

http://www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mortality/

Is there any chance that there is a more up to date chart? The one that was sourced was from 2003. That year the total power production for wind was 5,995 MW. That would be 4,611 towers (Siemens 1.3 MW tower) to 1,665 towers (Siemens 3.6 MW tower). In 2008 there was 24,651 MW produced. Since wind farms realistically get a boost from new turbines, 4 times more capacity means 14,350 new units (Siemens 1.3 MW tower) to 5,182 new units (Siemens 3.6 MW tower). So more towers would mean more bird kills.

MW numbers came from the EIA (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p1a.html).

[Jack21222]

Is there any chance that there is a more up to date chart? The one that was sourced was from 2003. That year the total power production for wind was 5,995 MW. That would be 4,611 towers (Siemens 1.3 MW tower) to 1,665 towers (Siemens 3.6 MW tower). In 2008 there was 24,651 MW produced. Since wind farms realistically get a boost from new turbines, 4 times more capacity means 14,350 new units (Siemens 1.3 MW tower) to 5,182 new units (Siemens 3.6 MW tower). So more towers would mean more bird kills.

MW numbers came from the EIA (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p1a.html).

Make that bar 5 times longer, and it's still almost invisible.

[Argentum Vulpes]

Make that bar 5 times longer, and it's still almost invisible.

But the problem is that most of the birds killed by wind turbines are ones that are large and scarce. Oh the environmentalist quandary, a green source killing off a member of an endangered species.

[russ_watters]

But the problem is that most of the birds killed by wind turbines are ones that are large and scarce. Is that really true or is that just what the hype implies? Ie, if 1000 times more birds are killed by windows, even if "large and scarce" birds are 100x more represented by windmills, 10x more would be killed by windows.

[mheslep]

Is there any chance that there is a more up to date chart? The one that was sourced was from 2003. That year the total power production for wind was 5,995 MW. That would be 4,611 towers (Siemens 1.3 MW tower) to 1,665 towers (Siemens 3.6 MW tower). In 2008 there was 24,651 MW produced. Since wind farms realistically get a boost from new turbines, 4 times more capacity means 14,350 new units (Siemens 1.3 MW tower) to 5,182 new units (Siemens 3.6 MW tower). So more towers would mean more bird kills.

MW numbers came from the EIA (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p1a.html).I can't tell if the bird kills chart is global or US only; it doesn't specify. The above wind numbers are of course US only and the global total about five times the US total (~120GW)

[mgb_phys]

Powerlines are the big killer of raptors and other large wingspan soaring birds, mainly because they hunt over larger areas and in valleys with power lines strung across.
They are also a bit big to be victims of cats!

Windows seem to take out migrating birds that stop off in cities for food.

For some reason telecoms towers seem to get a lot of birds, perhaps because they are lit and attract insects which then attract birds. Or because guy wires and open frame structures are difficult for birds to detect.

[Jack21222]

But the problem is that most of the birds killed by wind turbines are ones that are large and scarce.

Do you have a source for that?

[Argentum Vulpes]

Do you have a source for that?

Yes go read mgb_phys link. It is in there.

[aquitaine]

I don't favor subsidies, but then many fossil fuel industries receive subsidies, and wind turbines should at least get the same breaks.

Ok, how much in the way of direct subsidies do the fossil fuel industries get?


As for the rest - "wastefully", "gobble", "massive", "massively", "fundamentally" - those terms prohibit further discussion unless put in context and compared to something. Otherwise it is just hyperbole.

If it's fact then it isn't hyperbole. Let me ask you this, how much land would it take to get the theoretical equivlent of 1 GW?

[mheslep]

Ok, how much in the way of direct subsidies do the fossil fuel industries get?Google is your friend. In the interest of moving things along see, e.g. for oil:
http://www.ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/energy/eng-53.cfm?&CFID=1365209&CFTOKEN=66581266
The earlier report examined estimates of potential external costs in economic, military, and environmental categories. It suggested a range of $10-20 billion of plausible annual external costs from oil [per year]

and
the accelerated depletion allowance provided to small oil producers (about another $7.6 billion over ten years), preferential expensing for equipment used to refine liquid fuels ($830 million over five years), accelerated depreciation for natural-gas distribution pipelines ($560 million over five years), accelerated depreciation for expenditures on dry holes (with unclear budgetary implications), and the exemption from passive loss limitation for owners of working interests in oil and gas properties ($200 million over five years).
http://article.nationalreview.com/303352/oil-subsidies-in-the-dock/jerry-taylor-and-peter-van-doren


If it's fact then it isn't hyperbole. Let me ask you this, how much land would it take to get the theoretical equivlent of 1 GW?Well are you asking a serious question for which you don't know the answer? If so I'll do my best to give you an answer, but the question implies an admission that you don't know what might be a 'massive' 'waste'.

In hopes that you can get more out future discussion, let me recommend this PF Mentor's response in another thread.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2705329&postcount=18

[aquitaine]

Well are you asking a serious question for which you don't know the answer? If so I'll do my best to give you an answer, but the question implies an admission that you don't know what might be a 'massive' 'waste'.

I know that it will take "a lot" but for future reference I'd like to know exactly how much that is. I fail to see the relevance of your link.

Google is your friend. In the interest of moving things along see, e.g. for oil:

You made the claim.

[mheslep]

You made the claim.I said fossil fuel energy operators receive subsidies, but no specific claim. Did you really doubt that?

[mheslep]

Wind turbine farm land requirements. This source (http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_environment.html#How%20much%20land%20is%20need ed%20for%20a%20utility-scale%20wind%20plant) is comparable with others I have seen:

In open, flat terrain, a utility-scale wind plant will require about 60 acres per megawatt of installed capacity. However, only 5% (3 acres) or less of this area is actually occupied by turbines, access roads, and other equipment--95% remains free for other compatible uses such as farming or ranching. In California, Minnesota, Texas, and elsewhere, wind energy provides rural landowners and farmers with a supplementary source of income through leasing and royalty arrangements with wind power developers.

A wind plant located on a ridgeline in hilly terrain will require much less space, as little as two acres per megawatt.So a wind farm deployed on existing agricultural land such as the cotton fields of the Roscoe, Tx farm (http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2007/nov/texas/slideshow/index.html) use ~ 3 acres per turbine. A 1000MW wind farm would then displace 3000 acres of what-would-have-been-cotton, deployed over a total area of 60,000 acres. Such a farm could have been deployed over a larger 600,000 or 6 million acres, but still might have used only 3000 acres of arable cotton plantings.

By comparison, dual nuclear reactor 2000 MWe plants common in the US appear to be laid out on fenced in, keep-out plots of 2-4000 acres.

[aquitaine]

So it uses 30 to 60 times more land than a 2 GW nuke plant. But then again at some nuclear plants they have more than two reactors, so to make the equivlent amount of land used is even more than that. Remember when I said "land gobbling" and "massively inefficient"?

[Argentum Vulpes]

So it uses 30 to 60 times more land than a 2 GW nuke plant. But then again at some nuclear plants they have more than two reactors, so to make the equivlent amount of land used is even more than that. Remember when I said "land gobbling" and "massively inefficient"?

Just so no one gets confused about my post.

[/sarcasm on]

It is not winds fault that it can't provide base load power. You just have to learn to live intermediately. Just like the people in Seattle learn to drop everything when it is sunny outside to do all of their yard work. The new world order of the green movement demand that you change your life. If not The Green Police (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVhT7P0lDfI) will be after you.

[/sarcasm off]

[mheslep]

So it uses 30 to 60 times more land than a 2 GW nuke plant. But then again at some nuclear plants they have more than two reactors, so to make the equivlent amount of land used is even more than that. Remember when I said "land gobbling" and "massively inefficient"?

No, wind farms do not 'use' land in the way that nuclear plants do.
Take a look here (largest turbine farm) and show us where all the land is gobbled by turbines.
http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2007/nov/texas/slideshow/index.html

[Argentum Vulpes]

Wind turbine farm land requirements. This source (http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_environment.html#How%20much%20land%20is%20need ed%20for%20a%20utility-scale%20wind%20plant) is comparable with others I have seen:

So a wind farm deployed on existing agricultural land such as the cotton fields of the Roscoe, Tx farm (http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2007/nov/texas/slideshow/index.html) use ~ 3 acres per turbine. A 1000MW wind farm would then displace 3000 acres of what-would-have-been-cotton, deployed over a total area of 60,000 acres. Such a farm could have been deployed over a larger 600,000 or 6 million acres, but still might have used only 3000 acres of arable cotton plantings.

By comparison, dual nuclear reactor 2000 MWe plants common in the US appear to be laid out on fenced in, keep-out plots of 2-4000 acres.

To be fair the 4000 acre plant that you are referring to is the Palo Verde complex. Which supplies 3,942 MWe on the grid. It requires much less land (a full third less) then the approximately 12,000 acres comparable wind would need. This complex also has some engineering challenges, because of location, that requires more land then other facilities. It is in the high desert of the USA. Because of the lack of near by cooling water it uses treated waste water for cooling needs. The on site storage pond takes up 80 acres of land.

As another point most of these keep-out plots become mini natural preserves. How can any environmentalist be against that?

[mheslep]

To be fair the 4000 acre plant that you are referring to is the Palo Verde complex. Which supplies 3,942 MWe on the grid. It requires much less land (a full third less) then the approximately 12,000 acres comparable wind would need. This complex also has some engineering challenges, because of location, that requires more land then other facilities. It is in the high desert of the USA. Because of the lack of near by cooling water it uses treated waste water for cooling needs. The on site storage pond takes up 80 acres of land.

As another point most of these keep-out plots become mini natural preserves. How can any environmentalist be against that?I am aware of Palo Verde, but was not referring to it in particular. I agree PV with its four reactors produces a lot of power for its 4000 acres, but then it's fairly exceptional (largest in the US, waste water). If one browses through the NRC plant list, you find most of them sized as I suggested.