The scam continues: Why wind turbines are being re-powered at 10-years

[LenZee]

Is that last figure an estimate or was there some scientific, biological data to support it? Were birds examined by an ornithological pathologist? I would like to examine any papers related to that topic, because I have seen the claim made on the internet but no real data.

Plus another thing to note is fish and marine wildlife kills not mentioned here by fossil fuels.

Search the doi #s in google to read reports.

https://grist.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/contextualizing-avian-mortality.pdf
Coal/Nat gas/oil power stations 14.5 millian birds killed in 2006

Chernick, M., Ware, M., Albright, E., Kwok, K. W. H., Dong, W., Zheng, N., & Hinton, D. E. (2016). Parental dietary seleno-L-methionine exposure and resultant offspring developmental toxicity. Aquatic Toxicology, 170, 187-198. doi:10.1016/j.aquatox.2015.11.004
"coal ash sites"

Erickson, W. P., Wolfe, M. M., Bay, K. J., Johnson, D. H., & Gehring, J. L. (2014). A comprehensive analysis of small-passerine fatalities from collision with turbines at wind energy facilities. Plos One, 9(9), e107491. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0107491

Johnston, N.N., Bradley, J., & Otter,K.A. (2014). Increased flight altitudes among

migrating golden eagles suggest turbine avoidance at a rocky mountain wind installation. Plos one , 9(3) doi : 10.1371/journal.pone.0093030

Khan, S. (2014). Warning sounds and color for reducing bird and bat mortality at wind turbines. 9th International Forum on Strategic Technology, IFOST 2014, October 21, 2014 – October 23, 322-325. doi:10.1109/IFOST.2014.6991131


Loss, S. R., Will, T., & Marra, P. P. (2015). Direct mortality of birds from anthropogenic causes. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 46(1), 99-120. Retrieved February 28, 2016.

 

[heavy260]

Minnesota’s worries will be over in 2040 when all power generation will be “green”. Just think of all the sweet sweet .gov money and Chinese energy generation equipment. This will really benefit the minnesotans. Oh who am I kidding, CCP gonna get rich and we the taxpayers will gladly do it.

Let’s not forget where all the blades and solar panels end up due to end of service or breakage. They get buried in the ground because recycling the panels are too expensive and the blades can’t be recycled.

 

[LenZee]

Minnesota’s worries will be over in 2040 when all power generation will be “green”. Just think of all the sweet sweet .gov money and Chinese energy generation equipment. This will really benefit the minnesotans. Oh who am I kidding, CCP gonna get rich and we the taxpayers will gladly do it.

Let’s not forget where all the blades and solar panels end up due to end of service or breakage. They get buried in the ground because recycling the panels are too expensive and the blades can’t be recycled.

Blade recycling is already starting. https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/ar...blade-recycling-and-upcycling-reality-support

Solar panel reuse and recycling is also just starting. https://e360.yale.edu/features/solar-energy-panels-recycling

Think of all the oil and coal waste already buried in the ground polluting water/land/air and killing wildlife and humans.

 

[MolaKule]

Your first reference seems to be the most relevant to my question.

"...Second, while the avian deaths attributed to fossil-fuel, wind, and nuclear power plants do vary, they also imply that there is no form of electricity supply completely benign to birds. The best strategy for preserving avian wildlife, therefore, would be to encourage the more efficient use of energy before any type of new power plant or wind farm is constructed..."

The last sentence ignores increased power demand due to rising populations in spite of electrical devices becoming more efficient. You don't just stop building power sources because electrical devices are more efficient today; to do so ignores the big picture.

"...Wind turbines seem to present a significant threat to birds because all of their negative externalities are concentrated in one place, while those from conventional and nuclear fuel cycles are spread across space and time. Avian mortality and wind energy has consequently received far more attention and research than the avian deaths associated with coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power systems, even though this study suggests that wind energy may be the least harmful to birds. The first-order estimates of avian mortality per GWh offered here imply that fossil fuels may be more dangerous to avian wildlife (and nuclear power plants slightly more dangerous) than wind farms, and they remind us that what can sometimes be considered the most obvious consequence of a particular energy system may not always be the most meaningful or important..."

Not correct. The literature has about 40% of the studies regarding avian fossil fuel deaths and 60% attributed to avian wind turbine deaths. The literature attributes many more avian deaths to wind turbines than fossil fuels so the conclusion is biased and flawed. Notice the phrase, "first-order estimates."

Thirdly, the paper makes an assumption on a topic that we cannot discuss; please see the terms of BITOG membership.

"...The shortcomings of this preliminary study are as obvious as they are numerous: a focus on bird deaths but not bird births8 ; a small sample size for wind, coal, and nuclear facilities that may not be representative; a focus on individual species such as the wood thrush or waterfowl to produce overall estimates of avian mortality that are definitely not representative (and undoubtedly conservative); a presumption that coal was only mined using mountaintop removal (thereby excluding the impacts from other types of coal mining); fatalities that happened on particular days and weeks that were then presumed to be the only ones throughout the year (also resulting in conservative estimates); an assumption that only carbon dioxide emissions from power plants contribute to climate change (again conservative for excluding other greenhouse gases); highly uncertain deaths attributed to climate change that may be ARTICLE IN PRESS Table 4 Assessment of avian mortality for nuclear power plants. Component of fuel cycle Explanation Avian mortality (fatalities per GWh) Uranium mining and milling Bird fatalities from toxic waste ponds and mill and mine sites 0.228 Plant operation Bird collisions with nuclear cooling towers and equipment 0.188 Total 0.416 Table 3 Assessment of avian mortality for fossil fuel power plants. Component of fuel cycle Explanation Avian mortality (fatalities per GWh) Coal mining Bird fatalities from mountaintop removal and destruction of forests from coal mining 0.02 Plant operation Bird collisions with coal power plant smokestacks, buildings, and cooling towers 0.07 Acid rain Bird fatalities from acidification of soil and destruction of forests 0.05 Mercury Bird fatalities from ingesting toxic mercury 0.06...Total 5.18 8 Wind, fossil-fuel, and nuclear energy systems can also affect bird births. Wind farms can have beneficial effects on bird habitat when planned properly and coal and uranium mining can destroy and damage potential breeding sites. 2..."

"...Wind farms can have beneficial effects on bird habitat when planned properly..." This begs the question: How do you plan wind farms to provide beneficial effects and not kill birds? If you are going to make an assertion like this, then provide the solution!

 

[MolaKule]

...Think of all the oil and coal waste already buried in the ground polluting water/land/air and killing wildlife and humans..."

Again, let's be careful about making sweeping generalizations and unsupported assertions.

 

[MolaKule]

"...Birds, in other words, are able to learn about new types of hazards, just as they learn that roads and other areas are dangerous..."

This must include most, if not all ,sources of obstructions.

"Dozens of studies have noted that millions of birds die annually when they strike tall stationary communications towers, get run over by automobiles, or fall victim to stalking cats. After surveying wind development in California, Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming (the 10 states with more than 90% of total installed wind power capacity), the US GAO (2005) calculated that building windows are by far the largest source of bird morality, accounting for 97–976 million deaths per year. Attacks from domestic and feral cats accounted for 110 million deaths; poisoning from pesticides 72 million; and collisions with communication towers 4–50 million (US GAO, 2005). The Canadian Wind Energy Association estimated that more than 10,000 migratory birds die each year in the city of Toronto between 11p.m. and 5a.m. from collisions with brightly lit office towers (Marsh, 2007). A 29-year study of a single television tower in Florida found that it killed more than 44,000 birds of 186 species, and another 38-year study at a communication tower in Wisconsin found even greater deaths amounting to 121,560 birds of 123 species (Winegrad, 2004). Yet another study projected that glass windows kill 100–900 million birds per year; transmission lines to conventional power plants, 175 million; hunting, more than 100 million; house cats, 100 million; cars and trucks, 50–100 million; agriculture, 67 million (Pasqueletti, 2004). The National Academy of Sciences (2007) reported that less than 0.003% of anthropogenic bird deaths every year were attributed to wind turbines in four eastern states in the United States, and confirmed that collisions with buildings and communication towers pose a much greater risk. However, since house cats and office windows do not yet produce electricity, the comparisons are less relevant than those that assess avian deaths from other sources of electricity generation..."

No, non-energy sources of avian deaths have to be included and are not irrelevant if you want an unbiased study of avian deaths by all causes.

 

[Ws6]

Hello [redacted],
Thank you for your question regarding our energy mix. In 2021, the percentage of sources were as follows: 61% coal, 19% wind, 10% natural gas, 7% hydro, and 3% purchased from elsewhere. We hope you find this information helpful!

This is what my coop told me when I asked where my power that I don't generate myself, comes from.

I pay about 12 cents per kwh delivered, taxed, and metered, when my solar array doesnt cover. We are net metering, also.

Wind isn't the problem. Your trash power company and or laws are.

This was our last rate increase, circa 2016. They have already met and said no increase 2023.

Cooperative members will see an increase of $0.006 per kilowatt-hour on residential bills and a $2.50 increase on their service availability fees.

...

This is the fourth rate increase for the cooperative in 24 years.

My solar array manages to contribute to my household nicely, as well.

 

[MNgopher]

First, The article cited by the OP is from the Center of the American Experimment. For those who are unaware, this is a think tank promoting conservative causes in Minnesota. As a resident of the state, and being familiar with their work on other topics, proceeding with caution on their cherry picked analysis is highly recommended.

2nd, if their analysis is accurate, surely they filed a comment to this affect with the PUC, who regulates such matters in the State. If they did, a response to their analysis would have to have been provided. That would be an interesting read, assuming of course the analysis provided is correct and the purpose was to protect Minnesota ratepayers and not to take shots at the current PUC, appointed by a governor of the other party. But I digress...

Again, proceed with caution as many other articles are not the whole picture from this organization.

 

[Nayov]

My original comment still stands. I’m just surprised nobody pro wind seems to care.

I wonder if you have noticed that anti-wind crowd all of a sudden seems to care about the environment now because it fits their (political) agenda. Everything method of electricity generation has its cost to the environment, which does include wind, and- dare I say it out loud? that includes nuclear.

 

[Blueshound]

Power sources I'd be willing to live within one mile (1.6km) of, in order of preference:
1. Solar
2. Hydro (downhill from me)
3. Natural gas
4. Wind (land based)
5. Oil
6. Coal
7. Wind (water based)
8. Hydro (uphill from me)
9. Nuclear
10. Biomass

Criteria, in order of importance (to me):
1. Risk of catastrophic failure at the source, resulting in bodily harm or property damage
2. Risk of catastrophic failure of fuel delivery (pipeline, rail, oil tanker collision)
3. Risk of health problems from emissions
4. Risk of long term climate change to my children and grandchildren
5. Risk to wildlife
6. Cost of power produced
7. Appearance and aesthetics

Feel free to disagree, but with exception of cost, this pretty much tracks the political viability of the various alternatives.

 

[heavy260]

Blade recycling is already starting. https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/ar...blade-recycling-and-upcycling-reality-support

Solar panel reuse and recycling is also just starting. https://e360.yale.edu/features/solar-energy-panels-recycling

Think of all the oil and coal waste already buried in the ground polluting water/land/air and killing wildlife and humans.

The blade recycling isn’t starting, the factory isn’t up and running. They have the process figured out, supposedly. Hopefully they do. It will take more gov money to get it going.

Panel recycling is not profitable. Throw more gov money and regulations at it and someday it might https://hbr.org/2021/06/the-dark-side-of-solar-power The last paragraph of this article makes people think there’s wasteland everywhere from oil and fossil fuel production which is not the case.

Those windmills still use gallons of oil in their gearboxes. Still can’t get away from fossil fuels.

 

[FishFry]

Bottom line: if this would be a free market without massiv taxpayer subsidies, no investor would put a cent in solar/wind, cause they would loose money - big time.

Recycling is possible on paper, but so expensive, that nobody will pay for it - except, you are a taxpayer and they force you via laws (made by the investor's NGOs).

 

[PimTac]

https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/how-harmful-is-renewable-energy-to-birds
"According to the data, while solar is estimated to cause 1,000 to 28,000 bird deaths annually, and wind 140,000 to 328,000, coal kills far more – about 7.9 million birds a year!"

Sounds like junk science. Did all these millions of birds get tested?

On the other hand the deaths due to wind turbines are easily identifiable.

 

[OVERKILL]

Is that last figure an estimate or was there some scientific, biological data to support it? Were birds examined by an ornithological pathologist? I would like to examine any papers related to that topic, because I have seen the claim made on the internet but no real data.

Plus, the issue with wind turbines isn't overall bird mortality but raptor mortality.

 

[4WD]

Plus, the issue with wind turbines isn't overall bird mortality but raptor mortality.

Exactly … maybe they - uh, like to fly with a good tail wind and that’s where the “farms” get built …

STP has duck ponds and deer like crazy …

They just drilled and completed a gas well behind me …
(bird netting on pits) … my Purple Martins celebrated their success

 

[OVERKILL]

First, The article cited by the OP is from the Center of the American Experimment.

The authors work there, the article is published in Grid Brief, hence the link to it at Grid Brief.

They publish all kinds of stuff from a variety of sources.

Why would the PUC care? This is a Federal subsidy program that's being taken advantage of:
https://www.epa.gov/lmop/renewable-electricity-production-tax-credit-information

The PTC provides a corporate tax credit of up to 1.3 cents/kWh for electricity generated from landfill gas (LFG), open-loop biomass, municipal solid waste resources, and small irrigation power facilities, or up to 2.6 cents/kWh for electricity generated from wind, closed-loop biomass and geothermal resources. The credit is good for 10 years after the equipment is placed in service.

There's nothing wrong with Xcel taking advantage of/exploiting the program, they are just trying to maximize their profits. The issue is the program and its terms that encourage this sort of behaviour, likely unintentionally.

 

[OVERKILL]

Blade recycling is already starting. https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/ar...blade-recycling-and-upcycling-reality-support

Solar panel reuse and recycling is also just starting. https://e360.yale.edu/features/solar-energy-panels-recycling

Think of all the oil and coal waste already buried in the ground polluting water/land/air and killing wildlife and humans.

Neither of these things are actually being done at this time, we've simply got some processes that are deemed valid for that purpose. Like most of our "recyclables" end up in the ocean rather than back in service, there needs to be an economic case or regulatory framework established that actually enforces recycling.

A not-so-novel idea would be to collect monies as part of the kWh rate paid to these facilities to cover both decommissioning and recycling as part of a fund. You know, like nuclear facilities have to do. Then you would likely see a recycling version of a company like Holtec appear to tap into those funds and figure out a way to maximize their profits from that process.

 

[4WD]

The blade recycling isn’t starting, the factory isn’t up and running. They have the process figured out, supposedly. Hopefully they do. It will take more gov money to get it going.

Panel recycling is not profitable. Throw more gov money and regulations at it and someday it might https://hbr.org/2021/06/the-dark-side-of-solar-power The last paragraph of this article makes people think there’s wasteland everywhere from oil and fossil fuel production which is not the case.

Those windmills still use gallons of oil in their gearboxes. Still can’t get away from fossil fuels.

Petrochemical co’s make materials for the blades …
They can later get recycled into cement … but need to get the cost down - logistics are tough on these abstract monsters …

 

[Nayov]

Cats kill about 2 billion, yes billions, birds a year. Numbers vary but it's easy to Google it.

 

[OVERKILL]

Sounds like junk science. Did all these millions of birds get tested?

On the other hand the deaths due to wind turbines are easily identifiable.

Meanwhile, raptor mortality has been extensively studied. One example:
https://bioone.org/journals/journal...Studies-From-Around/10.3356/JRR-16-100.1.full

And: