what’s the bigger threat to birds – climate change or wind farms?

1. 
   

   Dave Burraston
   

   April 8, 2011

   Bird Group Says Cancellation of North Dakota Wind Farm Reflects Seriousness of Bird Issues

   http://www.abcbirds.org/newsandreports/releases/110404.html

   (Washington, D.C., April 4, 2011) American Bird Conservancy (ABC), the nation’s leading bird conservation organization, today said that the cancellation of the Xcel Energy Inc. 150-megawatt, $400 million wind farm in southeastern North Dakota reflects how serious bird mortality issues are in connection with the burgeoning wind farm industry.

   “We have been maintaining all along that if the wind industry doesn’t embrace bird-smart principles, the impacts to birds can be very serious. These principles aren’t complicated. The industry needs to site wind farms away from endangered birds and high concentrations of migrants, do the proper monitoring before and after construction, and compensate and mitigate impacts,” said Mike Parr, Vice President of ABC.

   “The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says that about 440,000 birds are killed at wind farms every year right now. We can only imagine how much those numbers will increase when the industry installs 12 times more wind power as part of its target build-out by 2030. We certainly are looking at bird mortality in the millions,” Parr said.

   “The fact that this project needed to be cancelled is evidence of the seriousness of the risk to birds from wind development. We are delighted that Xcel has opted not to proceed at this location, and hope that the project can be moved to another site that has fewer bird impacts. However, without national standards that protect birds, there is nothing to stop other wind operators from irresponsible wind project siting elsewhere,” Parr said.

   “The wind industry receives huge taxpayer subsidies, yet continues to harm birds in violation of two major environmental laws – the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act,” he said.

   The issues with wind go far beyond bird mortality caused by the turbine blades. They include potential population-level impacts due to collisions with the power lines that bring wind-generated electricity to the grid – a particular threat for species such as the endangered Whooping Crane and other large birds – and habitat loss from the footprint of the wind farms and associated roads and structures. . About 20,000 square miles of habitat will be likely lost in the 2030 build-out – larger than the combined areas of New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, and Rhode Island – threatening birds such as the Greater Sage-Grouse and other species in the West.

   “ABC supports the concept of bird-smart wind energy. With just a few reasonable accommodations, we could realize the enormous green potential that is waiting to be fully tapped, and we would be happy to work with industry toward that end,” Parr said.

   Reply
2. 
   

   Dave Burraston
   

   April 8, 2011

   Bird Deaths Prompt Wind Rules
   By NANCY MADSEN
   SUNDAY, APRIL 3, 2011

   http://www.ogd.com/article/20110403/ADV01/304039882/0/ogd01

   After some wind power projects have had dramatically higher bird deaths than predicted, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a set of voluntary guidelines to reduce bird deaths.

   Those guidelines, if adopted by the government and developers, could force significant changes to projects, including those along the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario.

   Bird conservation groups want the guidelines to be mandatory rules. Wind power proponents say the guidelines are too strict as they stand.

   William R. Evans, director of the nonprofit Old Bird Inc., Ithaca, said the placement of wind projects is a complicated balance between the need and political momentum for renewable wind energy and the desire to protect wildlife.

   “With a few projects, there’s probably not too much damage, but a major build-out would cause damage. Where do you draw the line?” he said. “We have to face the consequences.”

   The guidelines call for:

   * Three years of pre-construction bird population studies.

   * At least two and up to five years of post-construction bird fatality studies.

   * Site development decisions made as a coordinated effort among the developer, the Wildlife Service and state and tribal agencies.

   * If the parties can’t agree on the adverse effects on wildlife, the service may document concerns, but the decision to proceed lies with the developer.

   * Use of operational modifications – raising the speed at which turbines start turning or not operating during key migratory times or using radar to turn off turbines when flocks pass – was suggested.

   * Further testing on other measures, such as multicolored turbines, and effects, such as turbine noise on birds, were suggested.

   ———–

   This is a much longer article, so I just included the first bit.

   Reply
3. 
   

   Cam Walker
   

   April 8, 2011

   hi Dave

   full marks for conveniently overlooking the positions of many national groups like Birds Australia (the original post at the start of this section), which puts bird kill rates into context, or the US based Bird Conservation Alliance, which is also taking a sensible and proactive approach to bird conservation through their ‘Making Wind Power Bird-Smart’ program.

   Certainly, as all the bird groups acknowledge, that while there are bird deaths associated with turbines, there are many far greater causes of bird mortality… eg windows, sky scrapers and predators, etc.

   Some of the ‘landscape guardians’ and other anti-wind folks get heated up about brolgas, but are strangely quiet on the main threats to brolga here in Vic: namely loss of wetland habitat and feral animals like foxes and cats.

   In contrast, we say that possible impacts on bird populations must be taken into account in planning process for wind projects. Its not ‘either / or’ – its about ensuring we get clean energy while also looking after bird populations – and, even more importantly, their habitat – as we go. My experience is that ‘antis’ tend to focus on individual species rather than taking an ecological or landscape perspective. Possibly this is why they are silent on the broader threat issues to birds.

   An interesting quote about death rates of birds from the USA:

   “Nationally, cats kill about 500 million birds per year, according to the American Bird Conservancy. By comparison, the US Fish and Wildlife Service states that wind turbines kill 440,000 birds per year–that’s less than 1% of the number killed by cats.”

   I would ask again, where are the Guardians when it comes to calling for feral eradication programs? Or protection of wetlands? Absolutely no where to be seen.

   To continue with the post:

   “As wind farms sprout up across the US, expects turbines to kill over 1 million birds per year by 2030. Even so, that’s a paltry sum compared to cats. So why all the hubbub about wind farms?

   “One reason may be that wind turbines are unnatural–people are fine with predators doing their thing, even if that thing is killing birds in the wild. By comparison, when human-made turbines kill birds, it makes us uncomfortable because it makes us responsible. But housecats and their feral cousins are certainly a human-related killer, too. They’re not even native to North America.”

   “Another potential reason is the NIMBY factor. NIMBY stands for “not in my back yard.” It refers to situations where people reject a project, even if it’s beneficial, because they don’t want the negative consequences near their homes”.

   The link for those quotes is here:
   http://www.sciencebuzz.org/blog/wind-turbines-vs-cats-redux-where-have-all-birdies-gone

   OK, i will let you get back to your main pass time, which seems to be endlessly googling for horror stories about wind farms.

   Please try and keep an open mind to things rather than just looking for the negative. I don’t pretend that wind energy, or any company behind wind power, is perfect. But this is an imperfect world, where we need to meet our needs, including our energy needs, without burning ourselves off the planet. Sensibly sited wind farms are part of the solution we must embrace if we are to have a hope of avoiding dangerous climate change. Feel free to be an anchor slowing the majority of people down from taking action by being an Anti, but you would be far more useful if you started to help instead of endlessly sniping from the side lines.

   Reply
4. 
   

   Dave Burraston
   

   April 9, 2011

   The statement : “full marks for conveniently overlooking the positions of many national groups like Birds Australia (the original post at the start of this section), which puts bird kill rates into context, or the US based Bird Conservation Alliance, which is also taking a sensible and proactive approach to bird conservation through their ‘Making Wind Power Bird-Smart’ program.”

   Take another look at the end of the first article I posted, this is clearly in agreement with the bird-smart policy :

   “ABC supports the concept of bird-smart wind energy. With just a few reasonable accommodations, we could realize the enormous green potential that is waiting to be fully tapped, and we would be happy to work with industry toward that end,” Parr said.

   —–

   If you look at the article itself there is a link to American Bird Conservancy’s Policy Statement on Wind Energy and Bird-Smart Wind Guidelines :

   http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/collisions/wind_policy.html

   Also, I have not criticized the BA policy, which was written in 2007, and published in 2008. I was merely posting 2 very recent articles from April 3 and 4 of 2011 for the information of the readers. But I will state the following in response.

   The statement : “Certainly, as all the bird groups acknowledge, that while there are bird deaths associated with turbines, there are many far greater causes of bird mortality… eg windows, sky scrapers and predators, etc.”

   There is no mention which species of birds are flying into windows, skyscrapers etc. or are killed by cats. Are these the same species that are affected by “wind farms” and are these species affected by habitat fragmentation caused by wind energy? What about the extensive additional build out / upgrade of powerlines required for wind energy?

   The real problem here is that wind developers don’t seem to be adhering to the standards held dear by renewables supporters. Supporters think developers are building “wind farms” to save the planet, they aren’t, they are building them to make money. Nothing wrong with that, providing they are good neighbours and take these issues on board and adequately and honestly address them, but they aren’t building “wind farms” out of some sort of altruistic “save the planet” mentality. Just look at who’s building most of them, the gas companies (AGL, Origin et al).

   For those feeling pro-active about wind energy and the bird smart program, I suggest looking at some of the EA’s and project applications and where they are proposed, e.g. in NSW :

   http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/page/project-sectors/transport–communications–energy—water/generation-of-electricity-or-heat-or-co-generation/

   I am sure people are familiar with the California Wind Rush debacle for example, looking at what’s proposed and approved for NSW on the Great Dividing Range one wonders when someone in a position of authority will say “enough is enough” and put a moratorium in place (as is now happening in the USA). Wind doesn’t have a very good track record in this area.

   The suggestion in defence of wind and its effect on birds (or bats, or the other ecological / environmental issues that arise through wind development) is that climate change will be solved (or at least significantly addressed) by wind energy, which is clearly not the case. Where is the independent, objective scientific research to support this?

   ***More seriously though, if the bird (& bat) issue is not such a problem, why is there peer-reviewed scientific research (rather than bird-groups) saying that it is?

   National Academies (Science, Engineering and Medicine) in the USA published a recent study relating to the mid-Atlantic region in 2007 “Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects” available at : http://books.nap.edu/catalog/11935.html
   On page 8 of the executive summary is a section regarding ecological impacts they state :

   “The construction and maintenance of wind-energy facilities also alter ecosystem structure through vegetation clearing, soil disruption and potential for erosion, and noise. Alteration of vegetation, including forest clearing, represents perhaps the most significant potential change through fragmentation and loss of habitat for some species.”

   Moving on to page 50 of the National Academies report :

   “A primary question that arises from considerations of current and projected cumulative bird deaths from wind turbines is whether and to what degree they are ecologically significant. A related (but nonetheless different) question is how the number of turbine-caused bird deaths compares with the number of all anthropogenically caused bird deaths in the United States. The committee approaches the answer to the latter question with great hesitation, for four reasons. First, the accuracy and precision of data available to answer the question are poor. Although it is clear that more birds are killed by other human activities than by wind turbines, both natural mortality rates for many species and fatalities resulting from many types of human activities are poorly documented. In addition, different sources of human-caused fatalities do not affect all bird species to the same degree. Second, the demographic consequences of various mortality rates are poorly understood for most bird species, as are factors such as the timing of fatalities and sex or age bias in fatalities resulting from different anthropogenic causes, which could have a variety of demographic impacts. Moreover, the demographic and ecological importance of any given mortality rate being considered is relative to population size, which is poorly known for most species. Third, grouping all species together in any estimate provides information that is not ecologically relevant. For example, the ecological consequences and conservation implications of the deaths of 10,000 starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) are far different from those of the deaths of 10,000 bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). Finally, consideration of aggregate bird fatalities across the United States from any cause—including those caused by wind-energy installations—is not the appropriate spatial scale to address the question of interest. Region-specific information about the demographic effects of any cause of mortality on species of interest would be much more informative. Thus, for example, it is more important to know how many raptors of a particular species are killed by turbines and other human mortality sources in a particular region than it is to know how many raptors are killed nationwide.”

   Carrete, M et al (2009) “Large Scale Risk-Assessment of Wind-Farms on Population Viability of a Globally Endangered Long-Lived Raptor”, Biological Conservation
   doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2009.07.027

   Recent research paper looking at effects of wind turbines on endangered long-lived raptors. Calls for more research on long term effects of wind farms on wildlife
   populations. Research in this particular study shows that wind farms decrease survival rates and hence significantly increases extinction probability. This research also suggests that short term monitoring of wildlife impacts is not adequate to assess actual impacts of wind farms on wildlife. The negative effects of wind farms could result in major impacts in a few decades and jeopordize wildlife conservation worldwide. Requests that turbines in risk zones should be located further than 15km away from nests.

   Kuvlesky, W et. al. (2007) “Wind Energy Development and Wildlife Conservation:
   Challenges and Opportunities”, Journal of Wildlife Management 71(8) pages 2487-2498

   Covers many aspects of wildlife issues including; collision mortality, habitat loss, habitat alteration, and some of the future research needs.

   Fry, D, / American Bird Conservancy (2007) Testimony of Donald Michael Fry, PHD. The House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans Oversight Hearing on: “Gone with the Wind: Impacts of Wind Turbines on Birds and Bats.”

   Extensive testimony from the Director, Pesticides and Birds Program of the American Bird Conservancy. States the failure of collaborative efforts to address impacts of wind projects on birds and wildlife. Draws attention to the virtually nonexistent federal and state monitoring of wind energy projects. States that bird populations are at great risk, especially birds of prey and grassland songbirds. Calls for greater research and the need to answer many unanswered questions. Calls attention to the fact that many of the birds affected are already declining species, so mortality at wind farms is significant.

   A useful whitepaper from USA’s National Aviary in 2008 :

   http://www.aviary.org/cons/pdf/WindEnergyRaptorsWhitePaper.pdf

   Overview
   “Wind is the USA’s most rapidly growing renewable energy source, and is an important component of strategies to reduce dependence on fossil fuels (USGAO, 2005). In the central Appalachians, higher elevation plateaus and ridge-tops are being targeted for development of wind energy. It has been estimated that Pennsylvania alone has 5400 MW of developable wind power capacity, which corresponds to several thousand turbines (PEDA, 2006). Some of these areas, and in particular the ridges of Pennsylvania, are well-known for their concentrations of migrating raptors, including several species of special concern.
   There is little current available information as to how wind energy projects in the central Appalachians area will affect bird populations (NRC, 2007). However, it is known that diurnal raptors are generally at higher risk for collision with turbines than are many other avian species (NWCC, 2004). Furthermore, potential cumulative effects on birds are broader than just those from direct collisions. In particular, increased energetic costs or migration, avoidance of preferred migration pathways, and change or loss of migration habitat are of special concern. In spite of the variety of potentially significant environmental impacts on birds and other wildlife, the impact of large numbers of turbines along Appalachian ridge-tops is not well studied. These environmental impacts need to be investigated and quantified at both the site and regional scales so that well-informed decisions can be made about where bird-friendly wind energy facilities can be constructed.”

   Then the usual pointer to a “NIMBY” comment, as I have seen elsewhere on this site. Which is the customary approach pushed by the wind developers and adopted by many supporters of renewables to name call and belittle. However, social science research does not support this stance, and it does nothing to engender intelligent debate or support:

   http://geography.exeter.ac.uk/beyond_nimbyism/index.shtml

   “The significance of issues of public acceptability are increasingly recognised by policy makers, the research community and other stakeholders as a necessary condition of reaching this goal. However, when we began our research in late 2005, our level of understanding of public views and how they might be relevant to the way in which RETs are evolving (including understandings of the public based upon the NIMBY ‘Not In My Back Yard’ concept), was both limited and restricted, excepting a few case-studies of onshore wind energy development.”

   Also, see 30 : Additional information received from Dr Richard Hindmarsh, Snr Associate Professor: “Wind Farms and Community Engagement in Australia: A Cricital Analysis for Policy Learning”

   Available as a PDF download at the current Senate Inquiry :

   http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/impact_rural_wind_farms/submissions.htm

   “The conclusion is that current policy responses with regard to community engagement, which encourage a largely inform-consult participatory engagement approach, are inadequate. A more promising approach is the collaborative approach, which can also facilitate social mapping of local community qualifications and boundaries about wind farm location alongside technical mapping of wind resources. This is needed to identify the most socially, economically and technically viable locations to locate wind farms to ensure effective renewable energy transitions.”

   —-

   The statement : “OK, i will let you get back to your main pass time, which seems to be endlessly googling for horror stories about wind farms.”

   So, in addition to name calling, a judgemental declaration about what I do with my time and the research methodologies I employ. And then pointing me to a kiddie page on a website at a museum, hardly sound scientific research publications. The museum website even have a caveat : “Statements and opinions presented in this website do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or the Archibald Bush Foundation.”

   I choose to research and inform myself on issues relating to wind energy, I do not blindly accept a “green is good” mentality.

   I am not on the sidelines as suggested, I have submitted to the current Senate Inquiry, and the 2009 NSW State Inquiry, and make submissions to the NSW Dept of Planning on poorly sited, inappropriate wind energy developments (unfortunately, this seems to be pretty much all of them in NSW). I choose to do that rather than asking the wind developers if they would mind not building inappropriately, as that is clearly, completely ineffective from my experience.

   Reply
5. 
   

   Dave Burraston
   

   April 9, 2011

   ps : the statement : “Some of the ‘landscape guardians’ and other anti-wind folks get heated up about brolgas, but are strangely quiet on the main threats to brolga here in Vic: namely loss of wetland habitat and feral animals like foxes and cats.”

   For the record : Birds Australia objected to the Oaklands Hill Wind Farm for exactly this reason.

   http://www.birdsaustralia.com.au/images/stories/media/submissions/Ba_submission_OaklandsHillwindfarm.pdf

   Some excerpts from Birds Australia’s objection :

   —-

   “Birds Australia would like to lodge an objection to this wind farm. In our opinion the proposed wind farm poses a potential threat to Brolga (Grus rubicunda). ”

   “In light of this we believe that the risk of collision with the proposed wind farm is sufficient grounds on which to reject this proposal.”

   “We believe the currently proposed wind farm holds potential as a collision risk and as such should be rejected.”

   “Further to this we believe that the conclusion on the Brolga assessment is misleading in one regard – ‘…it is considered unlikely that large numbers of individuals would frequently fly through the wind farm site due to the lack of suitable habitat’. An area does not need to contain suitable habitat for a bird to fly over it, and any suggestion of this is ill-considered. Finally, we would draw attention to clause 15.09-2 of the State Planning Policy Framework which describes a number of implementation measures for meeting the objective of protection and conservation of biodiversity, including that:

   Decision making by planning and responsible authorities should:
   * Assist the conservation of the habitats of threatened and endangered species and communities as identified under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988…
   * Address potentially threatening processes identified under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988.

   Based on these facts it is our view that the proposed wind farm and associated infrastructure at the site poses an unacceptable threat to Brolga in the area, and that this proposal should be rejected. ”

   —–

   I hope that clears up Birds Australia’s position on Brolga and the Oaklands Hill Wind Farm, which as readers of this site should be aware WAS approved despite Birds Australia’s objection, and is currently being built by the Gas company AGL, expected to be completed late 2011.

   Reply
6. 
   

   Cam Walker
   

   April 9, 2011

   thanks Dave, but i was in no doubt about whether BA cares about Brolgas – obviously they do.

   But where the Guardians on all the non-turbine related impacts on birds?

   No where to be found.

   Reply
7. 
   

   Cam Walker
   

   April 9, 2011

   Hi Dave

   Sorry if I was a little cavalier in my response to your earlier post. I do believe that endless negativity is fairly boring (and its hard to suggest that your posts have been anything other than negative and pretty much relentlessly so). So I drew the perhaps unfair conclusion that you were a one-eyed ideologue opposed to wind energy. If this is not the case then many apologies – I am very glad to hear that I got it wrong.

   Its also great that you’re posting under your name – most of the regular ‘antis’ who post here are anonymous, and I find it very hard to respect people who can’t even tell me who they are and where they are from before they launch into ‘wind turbines will kill us all’ land. I’m far more likely to respond seriously to a ‘real’ person.

   So I might quickly respond to a few of the points you’ve raised.

   –> “The construction and maintenance of wind-energy facilities also alter ecosystem structure through vegetation clearing, soil disruption and potential for erosion, and noise. Alteration of vegetation, including forest clearing, represents perhaps the most significant potential change through fragmentation and loss of habitat for some species.”

   This is an interesting one. All the wind farms I know of in VIC are primarily located in heavily cleared and sometimes quite trashed land. A few of them have actually resulted in good enviro outcomes (eg money for re-veg and reconnection of remnant veg). yes, fragmentation of forest is a real problem for ecosystems – but here in Vic at least, that’s not happening when it comes to wind farms. So my experience is that your statement above is not correct. Certainly erosion can be an issue, but this can be managed and minimised. None of this is anything compared to the impacts of a coal mine open cut, which is the alternative we have at present if you don’t like wind farms.

   –> “California Wind Rush debacle”

   I would have thought this was all ancient history – and has been widely studied and critiqued. Economic imperatives and massive incentives lead to all sorts of fast tracking and its hard to draw any meaningful comparison with the current situation in NSW where planning processes are relatively very long and detailed.

   –> “fatalities resulting from many types of human activities are poorly documented.”

   Yes, absolutely. But bird strike from wind farms is one of the few places where we do actually have the ability to get meaningful data (as opposed to the impact of, say, foxes in an area, which would be FAR more labor intensive to get). Granted, accessing the data may be another issue. Hard to make a generalised statement on this one, different companies seem to approach it differently. We are waiting to get some bird kill data from one particular company at present …

   –> “the central Appalachians, higher elevation plateaus and ridge-tops are being targeted for development of wind energy”.

   They are also being targeted for mountain removal through massive open cut coal operations to feed energy into the east coast grid. To quote Wikipedia:
   Mtn Top Removal (MTR) in the United States is most often associated with the extraction of coal in the Appalachian Mountains, where the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that 2,200 square miles (5,700 km2) of Appalachian forests will be cleared for MTR sites by the year 2012.

   What would you rather have in your neighbourhood? At least turbines don’t obliterate entire landscapes. The hard job will be to make sure a series of ridge top turbines are well planned and all the base line data is done. But its on a completely different scale of impact to open cuts (let alone the massive human health and dislocation costs being caused by coal in the Appalachians)

   –> “The real problem here is that wind developers don’t seem to be adhering to the standards held dear by renewables supporters. Supporters think developers are building “wind farms” to save the planet, they aren’t, they are building them to make money”.

   Is this the ‘real problem’? (as opposed to your problems with wind energy itself?). If you believe this, then we have some serious common ground. Maybe you could elaborate on this?

   We don’t think wind developers are angels. Of course they have profit imperatives. But we can be far more useful and contribute to something better by working with them, challenging them, opposing specific proposals if need be, rather than just adopting a BANANA approach and outright opposing every attempt to get a wind project going.

   You say you’re engaged in the debate. That’s great. But how?, it seems its just to oppose wind (unless I have missed something). Whats your plan for meeting our energy needs if we are going to try and do it without wind farms in this century of climate change? I like the BZE model that says wind will contribute about 40% of our energy needs. The bulk of the heavy lifting when it comes to actual electricity supply will come from solar thermal. But wind has to be a substantial part of the mix. I think here in VIC all the renewable sources are currently just under 4% of electricity supply at present. We have a long way to go. We will see a lot more wind farms. Lets make them good, appropriately sited, and ideally locally owned and controlled. Don’t just be a blocker. Whats your plan?

   Regards, cam (Castlemaine, Central Vic)

   Reply
8. 
   

   Dave Burraston
   

   April 11, 2011

   The statement : “This is an interesting one. All the wind farms I know of in VIC are primarily located in heavily cleared and sometimes quite trashed land.”

   The “degraded land” statement is something regularly said by the developers. Many farmers / landholders would not agree with this however. In addition, these statements are made after many years of drought, and the validity of such statements is questionable. Also, as has been seen in the Oaklands Hill case, its clearly not a good outcome for the local Brolga, whether the land is “trashed” or not. The following is an excerpt from our Senate Submission :

   In NSW, many of these areas subject to approved windfarms and/or pending planning applications are located in Box Gum Grassy Woodlands (BGGW). This habitat has been identified as endangered and vulnerable on NSW state and national registers. Both of NSW and state and federal governments have committed millions of dollars towards conservation and preservation strategies for BGGW habitats, such as the ‘Caring for Country’ and stewardship incentives.

   With many overseas research studies documenting the negative impacts wind turbines have on fauna and natural habitats it is clear that the establishment of wind farms in and around BGGW areas will further fragment this habitat, hinder biodiversity and have a detrimental impact on many of its endangered species, many of which are migratory.

   Sustainable landscape management is presented in the CSIRO publication McIntyre, McIvor and Heard (2002), and this text also has a specific focus on endangered grassy woodland ecoregions.The most recent research on an 800,000-ha section of an internationally recognised NSW endangered ecoregion is presented in (Fischer et al 2009). This reference provides key information on biodiversity and endangered species with calls for new policy supporting sustainable farming practices to turn the region from “ecological decline to ecological recovery”.

   The Fenner School of Environment and Society at ANU has, among many other
   research areas, an excellent online resource Sustainable Farms: Pathways for Rural
   Landscapes at (http://fennerschool-research.anu.edu.au/sustfarms/).

   * Fischer, J., Stott, J., Zerger, A., Warren, G., Sherren, K., Forrester, R. (2009)
   “Reversing a tree regeneration crisis in an endangered ecoregion”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 105, 10386-10391. Available on line at :

   http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0900110106

   This paper covers the current crisis in NSW and examines an 800,000-ha internationally recognised endangered ecoregion of NSW. Presents sustainable farming practices and calls for new policy supporting sustainable practice.

   * McIntyre, S., McIvor, J. and Heard, K (Eds), (2002) “Managing and Conserving Grassy Woodlands”, CSIRO Publishing

   Extensive CSIRO text on endangered grassy eucalypt woodland of Australia. Covers key areas such as biodiversity, sustainable practice, application principles and ecological concepts. Key text for regional planning, landcare, land management, research and on-ground application. A key section of note in this book is on p178 “Adoption of new practices – some issues” which explains conflicts between new practices and sustainable management. Web page relating to the book :

   http://www.csiro.au/resources/ps1fs.html

   —-

   Regarding Victoria and renewables you may be interested in the Victorian Auditor-Generals Report “Facilitating Renewable Energy Development” on renewable energy policy development in Victoria under Mr Brumby and his colleagues, very interesting stuff indeed and pretty damning. Bad policy, no planning, no business cases, poor design.

   http://download.audit.vic.gov.au/files/20110406-FRED.pdf

   Quick quotes:

   “The basis for the overall renewable energy and wind energy targets remains unclear. Before they were established, no assessments were undertaken to determine whether the 2002 targets and time frames were achievable. In addition, no plan was subsequently developed to set out how the targets would be achieved. In the absence of these key planning inputs, there was no evidence to show that planning was effective or the targets soundly based.”

   “There was no documented assessment that considered the need for the project, or demonstrated its alignment with government policy. Nor was a business case completed before the government approved its contingent investment of $100 million.”

   “Using targets to facilitate the development of renewable energy has not been effective.”

   “Setting the targets and planning for how they would be achieved lacked rigour.”

   One wonders what will be the outcome of NSW policy and planning, at the moment the picture looks very un-rosey.

   The statement : “None of this is anything compared to the impacts of a coal mine open cut, which is the alternative we have at present if you don’t like wind farms.”

   This statement is a common misconception and tacitly assumes that wind will replace coal. Where is your independent, objective scientific evidence to support this hypothesis? Can you provide independent, objective scientific evidence that coal power stations have been shut down due to wind energy being added to the grid and an itemized list of each one? (Note : this does not include any power station that was independently scheduled for decommissioning)

   The statement about the California Wind Rush debacle : “I would have thought this was all ancient history – and has been widely studied and critiqued. Economic imperatives and massive incentives lead to all sorts of fast tracking and its hard to draw any meaningful comparison with the current situation in NSW where planning processes are relatively very long and detailed.”

   The California debacle is far from ancient history, it is ongoing and current. Those abandoned 14,500 industrial are still in place, causing documented ecological problems by scientists, and current operating turbines are tethered for 4 months of the year to protect migratory birds. Clearly, wind is not supplying any electricity for those 4 months.

   The NSW planning process has caused a wind rush here due to waiving of application fee’s, “fast track” planning procedures and a complete lack of due process in NSW Part 3A planning. Environmental assessments are undemocratic and demonstrably seriously flawed. This was pointed out by many, including myself, in the 2009 NSW inquiry and was identified as such in the report as major issue. The NSW Dept of Planning and state government then completely ignored this. What will be the end result of these demonstrably poor planning decisions and policy? It is really worrying that people who have environmental concerns can advocate such poor planning process and policies.

   The statement : “But bird strike from wind farms is one of the few places where we do actually have the ability to get meaningful data…”

   This data has not been collected much at all, as noted in the research I quoted and does not support your statement. Yes, I agree some data has been collected, but more data is required. Also, bird strike alone does not provide the complete picture, as is noted in the research I quoted above.

   Regarding the Appalachians : I would direct you to a web site by Rick Webb, one of the authors of the National Academy of Sciences study I referenced above. From his bio :

   “Rick Webb is a Senior Scientist with the Department of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, where his primary research focus is on the effects of air pollution on streams associated with forested mountain watersheds in the central Appalachian Mountain region. Previously, he worked with conservation organizations concerned with the direct environmental effects of coal extraction. He recently co-authored a Landscape Classification System for Wind Project Siting in Virginia, and he presently co-maintains the Virginia Wind website (www.VaWind.org), which addresses the need for environmental assessment prior to wind energy development. He recently served on a National Research Council committee investigating “Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy.”

   In particular I would direct you to this statement he has made regarding the NAS study and wind energy in the Appalachian’s :

   http://www.vawind.org/Assets/Docs/Perspective/Key_Points_About_Wind_Development.pdf

   Rick clearly has a good understanding of the issues of both coal and wind. Drop him an email and discuss your concerns. I did exactly that while I was preparing our 2009 Parliamentary Inquiry submission.

   The statement : “Is this the ‘real problem’? (as opposed to your problems with wind energy itself?). If you believe this, then we have some serious common ground. Maybe you could elaborate on this?”

   From reading submissions and witness statements, I have yet to observe or meet a developer or wind turbine host who is doing it for any other reason than money. And I will repeat, I don’t have a problem with money making, but when its put forward as green and ethical when it isn’t, and in addition is also causing more problems than solutions, I do have a problem with it and clearly there is something seriously flawed (particularly in planning processes). I have a number of solar panels here that I use to charge batteries for remote powering electronics, I am not anti-renewables.

   As I’ve stated elsewhere I support sound scientific solutions to significantly reducing GHG emissions. I have yet to see any convincing evidence that large scale wind works at significantly reducing GHG emissions, or can be a viable energy source in its own right, or be environmentally and socially responsible. Put simply, I’m not against the science of global warming / climate change, renewable energy or economic incentives, I am against proposed solutions that don’t make good scientific sense.

   The statement “ “You say you’re engaged in the debate. That’s great. But how?, it seems its just to oppose wind (unless I have missed something). Whats your plan for meeting our energy needs if we are going to try and do it without wind farms in this century of climate change? I like the BZE model that says wind will contribute about 40% of our energy needs….. “

   I clearly stated above that I have made Parliamentary and Dept of Planning submissions, and letters to MP’s, that is an active role. What I submit are not pro-forma’s. I don’t wish to see Australia make the same mistakes that have been made abroad by a carbon-copy approach (no pun intended) with flawed policy and planning processes. If you look at my Senate submission I enclosed an attachment, number 3, which is one of two short papers I wrote for University of Adelaide’s Prof Barry Brook (Brave New Climate – BNC) on flaws in the build rates for the BZE plan, one relating to wind and one relating to concentrating solar thermal, as well as contributing a fair amount to the background research for a critique of the BZE report. That plan is seriously flawed. Any sensible, rational debate is based on facts. ad hominems, name calling (particularly the NIMBY accusation) etc. hinder the capacity for rational debate. I would urge you take the time to read the BNC community analysis, as well as the final reports. BZE have not yet bothered to even defend their report or reply to the critique, which if they are not prepared to do, they lose all credibility.

   http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/08/12/zca2020-critique/

   http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/07/14/zca2020/

   Prof Ted Trainer (University of NSW) also published an excellent critique here :

   http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/09/09/trainer-zca-2020-critique/

   When I was at the Yass Valley Wind Farm Forum, hosted by the NSW DECCW, the Suzlon project manager for the Rugby Wind Farm proposal said he was involved with the creation of the BZE report. When I said to him it was a dreamland document, he said it was meant to be and the costings were incorrect. It is outrageous that such a misleading, ill-informed document is being used to attempt to influence Australian energy policy and the general public.

   The statement : “Don’t just be a blocker. Whats your plan?”

   This is a flawed argument. If something is not working, is demonstrably flawed, undemocratic or problematic it should be critically, and honestly, examined, irrespective of whether I have a plan or not. The common statement “Whats your plan?” is not rational, this kind of thinking effectively says that a bad plan is fine. When we can see and accept the faults in current renewable energy policy, only then can these mistakes be taken onboard and learnt from.

   When I was reading and critiquing the BZE report I was actually quite saddened at what I found out when researching Concentrating Solar Thermal. Solar holds much promise I think, but it has to be viable. You’d be surprised how many people seem to think that “baseload” solar thermal is a here and now reality because of that report. Unfortunately it is a lot further off than most people realize. Reports such as BZE are quite dangerous because they fuel people with false hopes and encourage bad policy, and in that regard the report is clearly misleading. We should all expect better from a report endorsed by the University of Melbourne. Its unbelievable they put their name to it. Sure we all need dreams, but they should be clearly labeled as such. Only then can the dreams inspire us to create a workable reality.

   Reply
9. 
   

   Neil Rankine
   

   May 4, 2011

   Hey guys,
   What’s the issue for this blog?
   Why are we criticising the BZE plan for not having this number or that exactly correct. It’s not designed to say exactly what we should be doing, but rather it’s an aspirational thing, to demonstrate that there is a possibility to avoid catastrophic climate change. If the costings are $8 per week or $16, what’s the difference, either is acceptible given the costs of the alternative future. The ctitique that it doesn’t cover transport is spurious as it wasn’t supposed to, other than indicating that the future of transport is likely to be electrification. Hence the need for solar, wind, etc, all of which can be decentralised and even small scale if we wish. All avoiding the immediate need to build new coal power stations as we transition to a clean and ultimately cheap energy future. Have some vision please!
   Can we go back to the impacts on birds for this blog please!

   Reply
10. 
    

    Damian Jones
    

    December 13, 2012

    You need to work with engineers, they are experts on energy creation, who know what will power us into the future, wind farms are bad and will not save the planet, and yes how may birds are they killing? how much carbon is released over their entire life including construct/deconstruct/materials(carbon released through manufacturing), maintenance and bushfires ignited by the grid they are hooked into?

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.