In 2004 the Center for Biological Diversity filed suit against the wind producers operating in the Altamont Pass in California. During the ensuing time period, a study was completed showing that 45 of the 7,000 turbines were responsible for the vast majority of the deaths and a compromised was reached with the producers that during the migration time 50% of the turbines would sit inactive. Last October, a judge tossed the lawsuit saying the Center for Biological Diversity had no legal standing in the case.

This is a classic case of cross purposes. I don’t think anyone wants to see raptors (Golden Eagles, Hawks, etc.) killed unnecessarily, that’s just silly. The producers took many steps to study and attempt to remedy the problem. But the problem was also blown out of proportion as mobile phone towers and buildings kill more raptors each year by far than these turbines, yet we see no action against mobile phone providers. Regardless, the hypothesis is that the lattice towers were good perches for the birds and that’s what contributed to the higher mortality rate than experienced at other wind farms.

The solution seems pretty straight forward to me, shut down and demolish the 45 problematic turbines and allow the producers to “repower” using larger turbines with tubular towers which would serve to reduce the number of turbines, likely increase the output of the farm, and lower the avian mortality rate. What’s lost in a suit like this is that for each MWh of coal generation displaced by technologies like wind, around 1,000kg of carbon and around 13kg of NOX and SO2 is kept from entering the atmosphere. After all, climate change is likely to kill far more species than all the wind farms on the globe combined.

Given the outcome of the court case, I’d expect the producers to be back in business and hopefully taking steps to further reduce the avian mortality rate at the site.


If you liked this entry, Digg It!
Technorati Tags: Wind Power | Avian Death | Case Dismissed

The Energy Information Administration (part of DoE) has launched a new website that provides a comprehensive overview of energy consumption, production, and distribution across the US, with deep dives into each state. It’s pretty cool (though there is room for improvement as the Imperial Valley in California is missing as a geothermal producer for example.) It seems to use much of the same data from the Electric Power Monthly report and much more aggregating it into a more consumable format. It’s certainly a great start.

When clicking around a bit, one of the things that struck me was that California, with 12% of the US population is responsible for only 2.2% of carbon dioxide and nitrogen dioxide emissions and 0.2% of sulphur dioxide emissions in the US. While the share was wildly disproporitionate, the absolute tonnage of emission is still enormous. The image below shows a summary of California, click the picture to get the detail that goes along with the image.




Technorati Tags: Energy | Reports | DOE

The Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Managment (346 million acres) and the Department of Agriculture, US Forestry Service (192 million acres.) I haven’t been able to find an overall reference to the US Department of Defense, but one installation, White Sands in New Mexico is approximately 2.5 million acres. No kidding, that’s alot of land. Some 45% of known geothermal resource areas are located on BLM managed tracts.


Technorati Tags: Land | US Government | Energy

For whatever other shortcomings the government in China may have, I have to give credit where credit is due. Provided the investments are actually made and sustained, this signals an intent to stand in a leadership position with respect to renewable energy policy. I wonder if our political leadership is watching this? Renewable energy is one of those areas that could provide a win for both sides of the aisle. Hope you folks in Washington D.C. are paying attention.


Technorati Tags: Energy | Renewable | China

That’s a question I’ve gotten routinely. Here’s the “official” definition from the US Government used to purchase renewable energy:

Executive Order 13323: Renewable energy is energy produced from biomass, geothermal, solar, and wind sources.

Practically speaking, renewable energy is energy whose source is not destroyed when harnessed. The principal renewable energy sources in use today are:

• Hydro: Harnesses water action (gravity, tides, etc.)
• Solar Thermal: Harnesses the Sun’s heat
• Solar Photovoltaic: Harnesses the Sun’s photons
• Wind: Harnesses wind currents
• Geothermal: Harnesses the heat of the Earth
• Biomass: Harnesses photosynthesis process

Each of these sources has a number of different technologies associated with their capture and translation to energy in our society. For instance, in the wind case, wind energy is translated to mechanical energy by physically turning a shaft. That shaft in turn is connected to a generator which translates the mechanical energy into electrical energy. Wind energy has one huge advantage over say, natural gas fired electricity generation: Wind is free. That economic benefit can’t help but assert itself as fossil fuels become more scarce and more expensive.

Besides not destroying the source of the energy, renewable energy sources often have other benefits like low levels pollutants emitted into the atmosphere. Renewable energy is also termed sustainable because of its unique properties. The renewable energy sources exist, the technologies to harness these sources exist, therefore there is little reason not to pursue renewable energy both for electricity generation and for transportation.


Technorati Tags: Renewable | Energy | Sources