Hundreds of migrating songbirds die at Laurel Mountain wind farm

By Rick Steelhammer, wvgazette.com
ELKINS, W.Va. — Lights left on at a power substation on a foggy night during the fall migration season are believed to be responsible for the deaths of nearly 500 songbirds earlier this month at the new AES Laurel Mountain wind farm near Elkins.  “From a bird conservation perspective, it was a very bad event,” said Kelly Fuller, wind campaign coordinator for the American Bird Conservancy, a national bird conservation group headquartered in The Plains, Va. Read article

124 thoughts on “Hundreds of migrating songbirds die at Laurel Mountain wind farm

  1. American Bird Conservancy (ABC) website
    http://www.abcbirds.org/newsandreports/releases/111028.html

    With the deaths of nearly 500 birds at the Laurel Mountain wind facility earlier this month, three of the four wind farms operating in West Virginia have now experienced large bird fatality events

    This incident stands in stark contrast to industry assertions that just two birds per year are killed on average by each turbine. Data from Altamont Pass, California wind farms – the most studied in the nation – suggest that over 2,000 Golden Eagles alone have been killed there.

    A fourth wind farm in West Virginia, the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project in Greenbrier County, has not experienced large mortality events, likely because it is currently prohibited by a court order from operating during nighttime between April 1 and November 15.

    Has there been even a single court order in Ontario to protect the environment?

  2. Maybe we should ask. Has there ever been a court order or government action of any type in Ontario concerning wind turbines?
    An industry that is not required to follow any laws?

  3. It seems that, in this particular case, the TURBINES are not to blame, as stated in the linked article.

    “At the Laurel Mountain facility in the Allegheny Mountains, almost 500 birds were reportedly killed after lights were left on at an electrical substation associated with the wind project. The deaths are said to have occurred not from collisions with the wind turbines themselves, but from a combination of collisions with the substation and apparent exhaustion as birds caught in the light’s glare circled in mass confusion.”

    Also, regarding the statement about Altamont and the endangered eagles – those were very bird-unfriendly turbines and the kills took place over the course of decades (although several thousand birds total used to be killed each year) as that farm, along with Techahapi and San Gorgonio use, in total, close to 15000 small, fast-spinning trellis-style towers that would never be deployed today and should have been replaced 10-15 years ago.

    It’s instructive that the other 2 farms have drastically lower kill-rates, despite being, especially in the early years, very similar to Altamont Pass – a lesson that proper siting is critical

      • If you look at the followup or extended video, the vulture is still alive, although very banged up. There are no doubt that turbines are a risk but this clip is showing natural selection in action – it’s not as if the bird was in pursuit of a meal ( if that were the case, it would be just be the hazard of nature ).
        This silly goose was out for a lazy flight around an object it could clearly see and misjudged. I’m a great lover of cats and have seen more than a few fall to their deaths because the misjudged a leap. Doesn’t mean we should tear down the highrises ( although those should turns their lights out to save millions of birds!)

      • A wing injury to any raptor is a death sentence- so it didn’t leave pieces to pick up- it was doomed to die a death from it’s injuries and starvation. Raptors have amazing sight- they are looking for prey on the ground and are not looking for man made objects while riding thermals. So blame the stupid bird? They are pathetic at lift off from the ground. Most raptors like any glider usually need to launch from an object of height to become airborne- while capable of flying off the ground it is clumsy and expands a tremendous amount of energy. Energy conservation means the difference between life and death for most species – humans included. Let’s be clear all wind turbines are bird and bat unfriendly- just the mechanism of death changes ie blunt force trauma vs wing tip vortex localized pressure injuries from the blades of the turbines. These machines impact species survial in so many ways. (thoughts to ponder from a former pooper scooper for the raptors at the African Lion Safari)

      • Natural selection? Stop comparing sparrows and pigeons flying into buildings with killing raptors and bats on an industrial scale out in the middle of their environment. You will never make it out of the mail room at windstream thinking like that or is that the type of thinking that allows you to sit at the exec table there and get money from the McGuinty government eh Mark.

        Remember Windfall on CBC
        Canadian TV Premiere
        Friday, Nov. 8pm ET/10 PT

      • Another item- I thought about after posting- vultures hunt their prey “carrion” by sight and by smell (they can detect their next meal several kms away riding the thermals until supper is found- so it was very likely this individual was taken out by a “hazard to nature” as it tried to feed itself)- Vultures are amazing creatures rare among birds in their ability to smell out a meal and very social. A neat survial trait they have is if threatened they vomit their meal allowing them to gross out humans and distract their foes with a meaty offering, and lighten their take off weight as they run into flight. The Canadian “turkey vultures” are often seen in “kettles” riding the thermals- I recently saw a group of about 15 or so- over a field that will have a turbine if the construction plans of the developers are allowed to proceed. So it is ok for these birds to die because…… of yeah we are
        “Saving the planet one rotation at a time”

  4. If the Laurel Mountains turbines hadn’t been there in the first palce, the birds would not have been killed. Just another attempt to defend collateral damage from IWTs. And if IWTs have to be shut down for any parts of the year then what is the point of installing them to begin with as they don’t produce electricity when shut down. A complete waste of money.

  5. There are enough issues with turbines without having to go tilting at windmills with stories like this.
    Comm towers and electrical pylons whether found near wind farms or not, kill hundreds of millions of bird per year, versus current rates of several tens of thousands for turbines and, as stated above, ONE single farm, at Altamont Pass accounts for nearly 10% of those.

    • Installing “horse & buggy” technology wind turbines that need to be shut down parts of the year is a waste of money. Any kind of electrical generators are not installed be shut down and unused. Wind turbines require hundreds if not thousands of transmission lines and towers to kill more birds. Generators need to be built near or in urban areas where the electricity is most needed and not many many kilometers away.

      • Then it looks like we’ll be living in the dark as the urbanites seem as reluctant to have generators near where they live as well.
        The irony about your “horse and buggy” is that we haven’t really progressed beyond those type of technologies, except for nuclear, which seems to be too expensive if the numbers the gov’t quoted can be trusted. And even that is just a glorified way of producing steam

      • But the standard technology is cheap and reliable. There will be no outages as long as wind turbines are not installed and there is no shortage of energy so urbanites can still get their lattes. Keep posting, that way you can prove to everyone how much of an imbecile your mentor is.

    • Urbanites are being kept in the dark and maybe even being confused about Ontario energy issues. There are already urban sites zoned industrail that can be used for energy generation. It’s not necessary to site generators in rural areas and then pay for all the extra needed transmission lines back to urban areas.

  6. The substations should have auto shut off mechanisms to prevent such a costly mistake.
    Derek, The comm towers and electric pylons companies have access to object detection radars (that keep the lights off until a plane is in the vicinity) but no one is using them.
    I’m afraid of what all those blinking lights will look like in my neigbourhood from the wind farm and two comm towers that are also going up. I can already see 15 red lights from my house as it is!

  7. The whole IWT issue is DEVOID OF LOGIC from begining to the end. All the IWT problems being encountered flow from this lack of logic. Seems we have elected representatives who don’t know what logic is.

  8. Can you point me to your ad-hominen playbook? It’s clear that most of you have studied it intensely. I’m sure you’d all be just as tolerant if I were to stoop to that level

    • Us proletariats, no playbook here. Just know when we are getting the shaft. Cant wait to see more funding cuts to your playbook environmental agencies. Only ones doing the stooping is the wind industry. It is amazing isnt it…. seeing a grass roots movement coming to fruition in Ontario without any trillium subsidies.

      This is a page out of your playbook

      http://yfrog.com/g010732938j

      • Is it really grassroots? I’ve seen so much astroturfing in the last few years, it’s hard to tell anymore

  9. Ontario is using poor planning when siting electrical generators. Industrial Wind Turbines are of little value compared to the harm they do to humans and wildlife. Smart cities are not powered by industrial wind.

  10. With respect to the AES Laurel Mountain bird kill, The birds killed have been described as circling the substation. The substation in question was constructed expressly for the wind farm operation and is located on the ridge line. Wind turbines are located to the north and south of the substation on that ridge. It would have been difficult for some of the 500 circling birds to have missed being struck by the wind turbine blades. The number of birds mentioned is only the number reported by a state agency in a state that supports wind power.

  11. @David Robinson I’m well aware of the speed at the TIP of the large turbine but the point is that the original ones used at Altamont Pass were much smaller, the RPMs were much, much higher and the spacing was MUCH, MUCH lower. And, unfortunately the trellis style towers are too appealing to nesting birds. As stated earlier those towers should have been replaced a long time ago

    • Derek- you are missing a simple truth wind turbines don’t work. Even a silly bird brain guano scrapper such as myself gets it. The physics of wind technology (power, force, lift and drag) demonstrate that energy is neither created nor destroyed- it is only transformed into a flight of fancy- .spin it all you want it just isn’t going anywhere

      • Derek:

        Most people here seem to be far better educated with the technical and engineering aspects of wind power than you seem to be …

        http://ontariowindperformance.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/chapter-3-1-powering-ontario/

        Catch the pdf at the end — a little more formal than that article..

        Wind power continues to drop out completely and near to it on many occasions…

        I think you should look up some of the data referenced in those articles — do the stats and spin your own articles — see if you can “prove” that wind turbines perform well.

        Until you show that you have a grasp of the numbers you really should quit wasting peoples time on silly propaganda and slogans. If you can support your statements — that’s another matter.

      • @David Robinson “Most people here seem to be far better educated with the technical and engineering aspects of wind power than you seem to be”
        I can recognize a strawman argument when I see one – Linda’s comment was about the physics of wind power; yours is about the economics.

      • The truth is that neither wind nor solar produce dispatchable power so they can’t be relied on to supply present day electric power needs. This alone makes both a waste of money. Another huge waste of money is all the transmission lines from rural areas to urban areas where power is needed.

        The use of both wind and solar power is not based on logic.

      • @David Robinson, Derek is actually Mark Bell from Windstream…I am convinced. Let him keep posting so we can brush up on our “play book”. His assignment is to concoct another layer of bull for the next gereration of wind propaganda SOP. He probably got a handsome grant from Trillium for this assignment.

    • Derek, you’re using a propaganda point from the wind industry claiming the “old” turbines are much deadler than the new. Actually, there is nothing that shows this. Nothing at all.

      • Here’s a study from 2002: http://www.bpa.gov/Power/pgc/wind/Avian_and_Bat_Study_12-2002.pdf
        Since turbine size and spacing have increased signfiicantly since this study was done, the bird deaths per turbine should be significantly lower, assuming careful siting.
        If done well, wind farms can be relatively safe for birds, although the potential for collisions will never be zero. The Black Law Wind Farm in Scotland, with 40 large turbines got high marks from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

    • Derek:

      A lot of people refuse to do their homework. You are one. The longer blade length brings up the velocity near the tip — not just at the tip. Do look at the tables I referred you to to… And those are the nominal tip velocities — not the maximum… Newer turbines designed for land use — where there is low velocity wind tend to have longer blades and cut in at lower wind speeds — and cut out at higher wind speeds. …but the tip velocity remains high…

      As MA said — you’re just wrong on many of your points.

      Now go back to the tables — look the mechanical characteristics and think about it..

      If you feel there is something different about the “new” turbines — feel free to find a spec sheet, get the blade length (radius or diameter), calculate the perimeter of the circle and see how many meters you cover in a minute (based on RPM) — then by the hour and get Km/h. Diameter is Pi X D in case you need to be reminded… It should be instructive.

      • Seeing is believing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtgBWNKwBkE
        You can add this to your research; take a good look at the RPMs and spacing of some of the older turbines and see how they match up to the ones in modern wind farms.

        Of course, there are still problems, since birds that cruise higher may be more greatly affected than before – again, siting comes into play. But, the larger turbines have a couple potential advantages – the blades are much larger, likely making them easier to see but take up a smaller proportion of the much-increased swept area.
        Some of the large of the older turbines at Altamont were 150kw units, with a swept area of barely 1/10th of an acre where newer turbines are typically rated for 10 times the output, sweep in excess of 1.5 acres – considerably more empty space between the blades and spaced a 1/2 kilometer apart.

      • Derek seems to imply that the odds of a bird being struck by a new turbine are less than the older styles due to lower RPMs despite the fact the newer style turbines sweep an area 15 times greater than the old styles, and have greatly increased tip velocities. Is this just a 2:47AM brainstorm or does he have data to back this up? Regardless, we all can agree that wind turbines DO kill alot of bird wildlife. The real question of debate is do we as a society think that there are any benefits to industrial wind energy that outweigh the environmental losses from loss of wildlife and habitat degradation. Given the fact that wind energy is expensive and far too often provides surplus energy when we don’t need it (that we have too pay neighbouring jursidictions to take) and next to no energy when we need it, the answer is an obvious and emphatic NO

  12. Linda,
    I think it’s bedtime, you’re not making any sense. Energy cannot be created or destroyed??? What kinid of pseudoscience are you pushing here? We’re trying to have an intelligent conversation:)

    • of course I have been studying the “science of wind” from the proponents- as it has been pointed out before- there is no logic-just tweet worthy hash tags- isn’t that the point?- sarcasim doesn’t translate well without smiley face icons-( I really am partial to the one with the dude with sunglasses winking)- going to bed now- promise LOL

  13. Industry is proving for us that everything we have been saying is true.
    Gas is advertising their product with a commercial on TV along side ITWs.

    • Ernest:

      I think we are pretty close to having a “gas powered wind turbine” appear in the field — after all you need to keep them turning somehow. 😉

      Maybe Solar cells on the blade…

  14. There is no way IWTs will continue destroying rural areas and making them an Industrial Wasteland.just to sell us power for profit.
    If they did use gas ..then what on earth is the point to them at all ?
    Just proves how disingenuous the entire direction truly is.
    The Liberals and the IWTs Industry is counting on the Canadian virtue of Apathy such as the lack of respect for those who gave their lives so we can live in a democracy.
    I am pointing to the Dicatorial green Energy Act.
    Just because a shot hasn’t been fired doesn’t mean democracy isn’t under attack.
    The war is just being fought with different weapons….Public Relations and Media Manipulation.
    http://grant.otf.ca/?lang=en
    Again , all should look at Trillium funding under Environment.
    After you calm down , use this info to educate others on the media PR scam
    For heavens sakes they are even grooming your kids directly.
    Honestly , all one has to do is stop and think.
    Electricity …………….that’s it ? Embrace being sold overpriced power and world saved ?
    Anyway you tax dollars wasted in this category onTrillium will make most people very angry.
    Considering the funding is going to groups to specifically brainwash .

  15. @barbara “The truth is that neither wind nor solar produce dispatchable power” – that’s a work in progress for both technologies but hard to say when it’ll economical. Two companies, one in France, the other in Ontario have very promising storage options based on hydrogen or fuel cells.
    But the devil is in the details and I’ve been hearing about fuel cells for a long time.
    I’m holding out some hope for V2G and EVs to absorb / backup intermittent sources but that’s likely a long way off over here – it’ll likely happen first in Denmark, Israel, maybe Germany.

    • Derek:

      Clearly you have insufficient technical education….

      From The Oil Drum on creating Battery storage for the USA…
      http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8237

      The National Battery

      Putting the pieces together, our national battery occupies a volume of 4.4 billion cubic meters, equivalent to a cube 1.6 km (one mile) on a side. The size in itself is not a problem: we’d naturally break up the battery and distribute it around the country. This battery would demand 5 trillion kg (5 billion tons) of lead.

      Yes — it’s often touted — but it remains a fantasy spouted by Greens with little or no science background and no grasp of engineering principles.

      I will leave it to you to determine if there is enough lead to power Ontario. Nothing is as efficient as a lead acid battery, and lead is one of the most common minerals, so save the flights of fancy into Star Trekkian fantasies…

      • David – So nothing’s worth doing unless you can scale it up nationally all at once? And any basket we make must be big enough to hold ALL our eggs or it’s worthless?

        And you clearly don’t know as much about lead-acid as you think, if you believe them to be the most efficient solution. Cheapest – yes, best-performing, no, safest – no, most long-lasting, no, most durable – not even close ( probably the Edison battery wins that battle). The quoted efficiency range for lead-acid batteries varies from about 40% to over 85% but you have to give up a lot to get that high number or it’s very,very brief. And the number of discharge cycles is fairly low, as is the depth of discharge. I’ve worked with many kinds and sizes of UPSes and lead-acid was barely good enough for what we needed. It’s really only worthwhile as a stopgap until the diesel generators can be fired up.
        As for EV storage, a mere 50000 with the battery capacity of a Nissan Leaf would be ~ 1 GWh and a pretty good buffer against excess power production and 1-2 days of nearly full power to the average home in an outage.
        And since they’ll be parked most of the time, the utilties could potentially tap them to handle peak loads.
        And while you may envision addled Greens behind every bush, these technologies are the work of scientists and engineers. Also, a number of utlities have gone on record that the anticipated ramp-up of BEVs can easily be managed and some are hopeful of the promise of V2G, provided the communications are robust – RIM-style outages won’t cut it in this game.
        There are other battery technologies in development beyond and beside lithium, that are from common and affordable materials. Sumitomo is gearing up production of a sodium-ion battery for trucks, buses and buildings – double the power density of curren lithium-ion, cheaper materials but higher operating temps.

      • Derek:

        The work of Scientists and engineers???? I’m impressed — whoooda thunk it.

        While you are busy being impressed — do analyze the current capacity of the transmission grid and let us know if it can handle the load of recharging all those cars.

        Nothing like green sunglasses — is there?

        Derek you are hopeless and a waste of time.

    • For storage to work you probably would have to carpet all of North America with batteries
      EVs likely to implode as ordinary people can’t afford throw away cars. There is no secondary market for EVs as financing is not available due to replacement battery costs.
      The sales figures will tell the story on EVs and maybe by the start of the new year in a couple of months.

    • hard to say when it will be economical….hello McFly. This is the state of the art energy storage system
      http://temporalpower.com/
      A flywheel system. The system you are refering when it exists would not be used for the current wind farm senario, we could run conventional souces full bore and store the energy for off peak. These windfarms dont belong insensetive rural areas. Also why Germany, there are places in Ontario working on energy storage solutions.
      http://www.hydrogenics.com/

      • Rob:

        Re Temporal:
        http://temporalpower.com/technology/

        Pick up the phone tomorrow and call them. I could use one of these for a mining exploration camp. See what model they have and could recommend for our office with say two laptops, a multi-function printer, a backup drive, sat comm system, some lighting, some charging units for GPS, a couple of mineral analyzers, a microscope and stuff like that — no big deal eh? Get a model number and a price. Then tell me if you really were surprised. If they really do have something you might get a commission — it’s be the only money you ever make off “green Energy”.

        In the meantime I remain skeptical…

      • Rob:

        Always include the hamster backup — it’s good engineering practice — I would expect no less of you! Especially if we want to be green and hamsters are green — no?

  16. my point exactly, dont let the greenies find out about the quantity of lead required for the mother of all batteries, they may ask trillium to finance a lunar expedition to look for more lead

  17. For the Derek M’s of the world…
    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11/1/scientific-heresy.html

    Scientific Heresy

    I’m grateful to Matt Ridley for allowing me to post the text of his Angus Millar lecture at the RSA in Edinburgh.

    It is a great honour to be asked to deliver the Angus Millar lecture.

    I have no idea whether Angus Millar ever saw himself as a heretic, but I have a soft spot for heresy. One of my ancestral relations, Nicholas Ridley* the Oxford martyr, was burned at the stake for heresy.

    My topic today is scientific heresy. When are scientific heretics right and when are they mad? How do you tell the difference between science and pseudoscience?

    Follow the link — worth the read — so that you know what you face…

    • Thanks for recommending this, David. I particularly liked the analogy “we may be putting a tourniquet round our necks to stop a nosebleed.”

  18. @David

    “While you are busy being impressed — do analyze the current capacity of the transmission grid and let us know if it can handle the load of recharging all those cars.”

    I did look at that quite a while back and it seems that, for North America, the total capacity is there.
    The power delivery would have to be managed.
    But consider this – an EV is roughly the power draw of 4-10 big screen / plasma TVs. Let’s take the high number. How many millions of these TVs have been sold in NA in the last few years?
    Have the utilities been clamoring for rationing TV sales to protect the grid?

    “Derek you are hopeless and a waste of time.”

    And yet you persist in lowering yourself to replying to my posts and insulting me?
    Just how much of a hopeless case are you, David?

    • I think David has responded with integrity. While the quality of your answer is improving clearly you have confered with others to provide these distorted facts….check out lithium stock prices lately…..there is the truth about your panacea of battery technology. Right in the dumpster with wind and solar companies, far more than average market drop.

      All those cars….right. Show me the electric cars. Dont worry the McGuinty smart meter and high electrical prices will prevent daytime charging maybe any type of charging. People will be staying home. Natural gas vehicals have a better chance of becoming main stream.

      Lastly Dont you guys sleep

      • Pshaw! Who can sleep with all this thrilling debate!!
        Besides, I’m sure barbara and David will go without sleep until the last greenie is dead and buried, under a smoking hulk of a burned-out turbine.
        And sorry to disappoint you again, since you have so many well-founded theories about who I am and what my motives are but there is no secret army of propagandists behind me.
        Just me, myself and I.

      • Dereck, if you live in an urban area then put IWTs near you and learn from experience what the drawbacks are from these useless machines. Rural people have already learned what the drawbacks are!

      • Derek:

        SO far no solid numbers from you. You have written no studies. I have written several on Green Technology and run research projects attempting to find a way to make all these miracles work in the advertised manner — so far my results match those of other people. There are no credible green technologies.

        Show YOUR research — stop talking about what other people say in politically driven agendas.

        I assure you that everyone here is open minded and willing to look at hard numbers that show value for money. If you can’t show that, you’re right — it’s just airy-fairy theory and not worth the time of day.

        We do not CONTROL the wind — we only analyze IESO numbers.

        In Ontario Solar output numbers of all major installations are not provided.Why?

        Now until you can show some solid research — there is no value in listening.

    • Derek:

      Rob has the right of it… I had hoped that of you were tweaked you might see the issue. Wind and Solar must be backed up Watt for Watt — 100%.

      The amount of lead required is four times know stocks (reserves plus inferred) — just for USA. That does not count the rest of the world. SO OK — use other batteries — calculate the amount of materials in a similar fashion — now figure out a battery for USA — heck even just Ontario. Look at the entire world.. How much raw material would be required for the various technologies…

      The Greenies hate mining. How do I know? I have worked on environmental permitting for exploration and mining. The laws are a labyrinth. It takes 5 to 20 years to get the permitting done, the facilities built and enough production to make a difference — yet we are told that we have to do something now or the world will collapse it is too late…

      So if we cannot mine — how do you get the batteries? Remember mining is dirty and must be stopped… Oh the conflicts in being Green!!! So we can’t mine — it takes huge amounts of energy — let alone building the required batteries. Do you not see the issues?

      It’s almost impossible to run smelters large enough for this task on intermittent power.

      I gave you all the information required to set off the chain of reasoning and you ignored it!

      The “Green Power” installation has been halted in Ontario not by a lack of political will — it’s a simple problem — lack of transmission capacity. Check it out. Toronto for example does not have sufficient incoming lines to change to electric vehicles — and people don’t want local gas generation. The current street level power grid (in most of the GTA) can only handle marginal additional load — if at all and even off-peak. Again, all these discussions have been held here and you did not read old threads nor did you do your research… The spare transmission capacity is in Eastern Ontario — where residents don’t want useless Green Power either?

      Did you read my paper as well as my article? Enough said? And no engineers and scientists no longer impress me as a class — think about why that might be. (I do not lots of good ones.)

      • At low percentage of wind penetration, there is absolutely no need for 100% backup. A person of your purported knowledge about the subject must know that. Several studies including a comprehensive one done in Finland point to no more than 60% backup below a 30% penetration rate, if there’s a good mix of generating sources, which Ontario has.

        http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/tiedotteet/2009/T2493.pdf
        (older report at http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/workingpapers/2007/W82.pdf)

        And the presentation by Debra Law at Stanford last November, states that storage, while desirable, isn’t really needed, for the purpose of price arbitrage, below 30% penetration of wind, along with 5% solar thermal

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL84kpUuIHw

        I would strongly recommend that you contact her to set her straight. I’m just a guy posting on someone else’s blog while she is poisoning the minds of future leaders and hastening the destruction of civilization.

        In the interest of being helpful, here’s your introductory statement, no charge and I’m only to glad to assign copyright to you:

        “Dear Debra,
        I’m extremely knowledgeable in all aspects of electrical power generation, far more than you and my extensive research shows that your presentation is full of inaccurate stupidities, that you’re aligned with the agenda of idiot greenies who wouldn’t know a good idea if it beat them senseless and, if you disagree, you’re nothing more than a hopeless waste of skin”

      • Derek:

        IESO numbers show 100% dropout of wind on occasion. At other times it as close to Zero as makes no never mind.

        Since I do not control wind dropout I suggest that you contact your deity for appropriate prayers. I just run the numbers. I do not control the wind.

        If you have an argument about the numbers, the argument is with IESO — not me.

      • IESO numbers show 100% dropout of wind on occasion. At other times it as close to Zero as makes no never mind.

        How much of that dropout was unforecasted?

      • Derek:

        Why do you continue to ask questions which you could answer as well as anyone. In the future please follow that philosophy — wherein if work needs to be done — you do your work for yourself.

        Contact IESO — get the answer — they do not generally release that info except in Generator Availability reports — in which they assume that wind will never be available. That is one of the reasons that the citizens have been asked to provide a wind forecasting network on behalf of the Wind Generation companies — again a topic that have been documented here. So perhaps someday…

        So again — you were not willing to do research before you publis unhelpful questions and information.

      • Is that so? I posted a link to the Finnish study and to the Stanford video, which shows the URL for the published material, but you discounted those, presumably without reading or watching as “politically motivated”
        Here are the NREL supporting docs, if you give a damn.:
        I could also link to the Smallwood papers on the impact of different-sized turbines at Altamont but you’ll probably discount those out-of-hand as well, since they don’t conform to your presuppositions and are not original research by me – which you’ll never get as I am not a researcher.

      • Derek:

        None of us have time to read all the papers you cite. The correct way to do it is to provide the proper quote that makes the point. As in the author says: “quote here” refer to table 1 and figure 2. Which show that : “make your point here”.

        In this group a lot of people have authored papers and newspaper and magazine articles on this subject. They are not simply quoting a lot of material which is likely irrelevant to the point at hand. They have studied the raw data, analyzed it and formed conclusions.

        You are arguing (badly) from authority… As in “watch this one lecture — they disagree with your see!?” maybe they do — maybe they don’t. Maybe they are discussing models — whereas in Ontario at least for turbines — we have real, comprehensive data to work with –like this see here…

        http://ontariowindperformance.wordpress.com/2010/09/26/chapter-4-4-7-wolf-island/

        Go to the last four figures — note that the most common output at Wolfe Island (for example is Zero!

        Note the median value. Half the time the turbine output falls below that value. That’s pretty poor performance.

        If you go to the menu and look at the other sites your will see that they are only marginally better than Wolfe Island — arguably the worst performing site.

        We don’t even need to look at foreign data. We have our own — for the whole province. The data sources are listed. Fire up a spreadsheet — prove the analysis wrong.

        Now that should take you less than five minutes — about three maybe if you read quickly and understand the statistical analysis.

  19. Derek is an example of someone coming on this site debating alternate energy benefits .
    Most pro wind people for example take this stance because of what they have been taught or told.
    Not because of facts
    Seems to me we could use a lot more friends and allies than one more enemy
    It is to all our benefit for Derek to keep coming back and learning because doing so will certainly change his view over time.
    So why push people away
    Based on what information Derek has , he has valid points
    It doesn’t however mean his information is accurate
    Seems to me encouraging people to take part and let them learn themselves can only be to our benefit

    • Good luck with that. I suspect Derek works for Windstream and is and is none other than Mark Ding Dong Bell. Come on admit it. Retire that name and pick another . Only a wind collaborator with a vested interest to screw his fellow citizen would defend green as he.

      • He may not be suggesting it, but I will state it. I let the first few jabs and insults slide but you persisted. Well, consider me “tweaked”, as you put it.
        Hope you like the outcome.

  20. “the vulture is still alive, although very banged up.” from DerekM
    Kind of says it all. Blame the victim sort of person.

  21. David and Rob are correct. We should stopping devoting time to new technologies that could be an alternative to carbon based fuels because… this Russian scientist wrote a book that says that oil and gas are renewable underground.
    Don’t look into new types of batteries or hydrogen technology. It’s a waste of time. Just keep hoping that oil doesn’t run out and lets keep the party going!!

  22. I have no problem with new technologies.
    Even if they may not be as efficient as ones we now have and use.
    I have no problem ( despite my friends on here not quite agreeing with me ) with solar power either.
    But here is where the room gets quiet.
    The only way for us to embrace some form of alternate energy is by being willing to overpay for say solar by as much as 15 times conventional rates?
    Wind at 3 times conventional rates ?
    Ontario should have signed deals with Hydro Quebec for long term low cost power.
    Not burning fossil fuels with that.
    So why didn’t the McGuinty government not do that ? Maybe they still can ?
    It would assure cleaner air..(.McGuinty Spin , not mine ) It would move Ontario away from fossil fuels.
    Even now 500 million people are dying every day in Ontario according to some Dr. lobby groups and the McGuinty government due to coal power generation . ( Look ,if others can make things up and exagerate , lets make it an even playing field okay? )
    So if McGuinty was so concerned about the health of all these people , he could have saved them right away buying Hydro power from Hydro Quebec..he has to rebuild the entire grid anyway right?
    Afterall it is all hanging together with Duct Tape .
    It would assure low long term affordbeautiable prices for electricity in Ontario where industry at least had cheap power to be globally competitive.
    Lord knows Ontario needs all the help it can get competing with emerging nations.
    Instead Mcguinty does something really “odd”?
    He signs deals with corporations to sell us power and agrees to pay enormous rates .
    Gives these corporations the right , in his mind anyway , to spread like the plague across Ontario with no say for the poor suckers that happen to live there.
    Now why wouldn’t one buy hydro power from Quebec?
    So what does this truly have to do with using less fossil fuels , peoples health or renewable energy Chris ?
    Why aren’t there grants available to the saps in Ontario so they can afford to adopt alternate energy?
    Now that would spur an economy that all could Benefit from.
    Bt it certainly wouldn’t provide a small select group enormous profits on the backs of struggling Ontarians. What a shame. Fewer people on wind power boards , less money to PR firms , not as many opportunities to rise up from nowhere and head International power companies.
    The sad thing is , the idea of alternate energy isn’t all that bad of an idea.when it comes to certaing alternate energy.
    But laying waste to rural Ontario is hardly on the list so a select few can make a pot of money while driving Ontario Industry and the consumer into the ground. being forced to overpay for power.

    • I don’t get why the moratorium on offshore wind; I’d much prefer to see that go forward and the moratorium shifted to rural Ontario. The Great Lakes are a great resource and large enough that we can have turbines well away from shore but still much, much closer to the point of use than building them in the hinterlands.

      • Derek:

        The moratorium was put in place to appease people who live near and own shoreline properties — and have big money. Do the analysis. The one project that was “way” off shore was caught in the net — the Premier could not single out one to leave alive as the motives would be crystal clear. There has to be “some doubt”.

        Now this is speculation but it fits: A lot of very well to do people live near or have cottages on shoreline. That land is expensive — a lot of them can phone the Premier personally and the call will be taken. Let’s say the message was crystal clear. “Don’t spoil my (NIMBY) view.

        I think that the shores of lake Ontario — say 100 meters off the beaches of Toronto — are a great set of development sites… just sayin’

        Heck I wrote a publicized letter of support to (Then) Mayor Miller supporting installation of the largest available IWT’s available in High Park, Rosedale, and in the Power Corridors and along the Don Valley Parkway. I still support these sites… just sayin’ 😉

      • The Great Lakes are long and narrow. As one Great Lakes ship captain put it if there are severe storms on the lakes a ship could end up someone’s corn field. No navigational hazzards are needed in the Great Lakes.
        The present government has deemed IWTs to be safe and they should be placed in urban areas near where the power need is. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

      • Even the present day Great Lakes ships can’t evade the severe storms that occur on/over the Great Lakes. No IWT hazzards needed in the lakes!

  23. You guys are way out there aren’t you? I may be against turbines (like you) but I’m not a moron.
    Peak oil does exist and I do know a thing or two about how carbon fuels were created and it’s not
    by god or some underground magic show.
    Peak oil exists just like peak coal exists. You don’t see coal regenerating itself do you?
    Being human, we have a very unique quality. That is that we can prepare for pending disasters and someday we will have one. It would be pretty stupid if we just went on like this and hoped for the best.
    Personally I would like to have a choice whether to fill up with petrol or electricity or any other propellant for my car. It would be good for competition and reducing CO2 emissions.

    • The fact is oil and gas reserves are larger than large and you wont have to worry about it in your lifetime. The technology will evolve as it progresses, not dumping billions in subsidy and brain washing people into thinking it is great and will work. Is oil so scarce that it warrants a 10 fold price increase in as many years. Dont you get it, this sky is falling attitude is causing the “crisis” ….now its a IWT crisis we need NOW to save the world from iminent peril. Who is way out there? Who said anything about being a moron….you

    • Yes you can use any fuel you like but don’t ask your neighbours to pay for your fuel. EVs will be produced by means of massive taxpayer subsidiesThis is a transfer of money from the poor to the rich.Then add charging station payed for with tax dollars. If EVs were non-subsidised then you would have to pay the full cost of these cars and that’s ok if you want to buy one. By the way CO2 will not be reduced by using EVs. The CO2 will be produced at the point where the power is produced if fossil fuel is used and not when they are driven.

      • Doesn’t Ontario have a handshake agreement with Better Place? I don’t think they ask for public money – Shai Agassi has done an unbelievable job of attracting venture cap cash.
        But while I think his swap stations are a great idea and electrification of the Quebec city – Windsor corridor should be done as quickly as resources and funds permit, I don’t see this going anywhere until suitable EVs are available.
        Unfortunately, since Renault seems to be the only current automaker that’s making quickdrop EVs, and they don’t have much presence in Ontario, regular or quick-charging is the only likely option in the near future.

      • You are much too kind Dan. I am sure he has been called worse. Great ideas on everybody elses dime and hardache. Subsidy over how many years and still justifying the value. Wind in Scotland and Spain in big trouble and the Scotish Minister’s lies stating England will be in the dark without his wind generated electricity Solar North America in flames and “DerekM” in denial. The electric car technology as is will be the crown jewel in green facism failure but at least the consumer will have a choice in that case. Not like the victims close to wind farms.

  24. No facists here. Get a good nights sleep judging by the times of some of these posts. You will wake up realizing she is right, stick to the IWT issue in a proffesional manner and filter all the other noise. Maybe a newbie page should be set up with these kindof related question and answers.

  25. The only major GAP is in the knowledge of Liberal Cabinet Ministers of Energy and Environment. The Premier does not appear even to have the bookends to create the gap…

  26. @barbara

    Dereck, if you live in an urban area then put IWTs near you and learn from experience what the drawbacks are from these useless machines. Rural people have already learned what the drawbacks are!

    As I’ve said elsewhere on this page, I support a moratorium on rural wind if offshore wind development can proceed.

    • So it’s ok to spoil the Great Lakes but not the land? The Great Lakes just happen to supply the drinking water for millions of people in North America. Do this for little or no benefit? Offshore wind power is just as non dispatchable as land produced IWT power is.

      • If you want to talk about spoiling the Great Lakes, please mention the millions of tons and liters of pollutants, heavy metals, and raw sewage that’s been dumped ( no pun intended ) into them.
        And let’s not forget the invasive species – they weren’t blown in on the wind.

      • Derek:

        Are you suggesting there is a current problem? Is this just another distraction because you have no answers?

        What does your research show. Is it an issue now?

      • Here are some links from Water Quality in the Great Lakes Region

        Water Quality
        in the Great Lakes Region
        What’s New | General Resources | Education | Monitoring | Related Resources

        What’s New
        Bluff collapse at power plant sends dirt, coal ash into lake
        Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (10/31)
        A large section of bluff collapsed Monday next to the We Energies Oak Creek Power Plant in Wisconsin, sending dirt, coal ash, and mud cascading into the shoreline next to Lake Michigan.

        Rushing mine permits puts water at risk
        Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (10/31)
        A recent surge of mining activity and several proposals to streamline Wisconsin’s mining code could pose threats to the state’s water resources.

        EPA must limit mercury emissions at coal-fired power plants
        The Buffalo News (10/30)
        The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency is slated to finalize a long-overdue Utility Air Toxics Rule in November that for the first time will require controls on mercury emissions from major U.S. coal-fired power plants.

        Five states urge Supreme Court to demand quicker action to save Great Lakes from invasive species
        Green Bay Press-Gazette (10/30)
        Five states asked the U.S. Supreme Court last week to hear their plea for quicker federal action to prevent Asian carp and other invasive species from moving between the Great Lakes and Mississippi river watersheds.

        Botulism confirmed
        Simcoe (10/27)
        The Ministry of Natural Resources says a test conducted at the University of Guelph has confirmed that botulism is to blame for the dead birds and fish washing up on shore at Wasaga Beach Provincial Park.

        Scientists head to D.C. with mercury findings
        Great Lakes Echo (10/25)
        Scientists are in Washington D.C. today to present to federal lawmakers with research suggesting the Great Lakes region has more problems with mercury than previously thought.

      • Just because mistakes have been made in the past regarding Great Lakes issues dosen’t mean that we should make another huge mistake of instaling off-shore IWTs in the lakes.

      • Derek:

        What exactly does your post on those particular water issues have to do with anything or the issues at hand? How will installing IWT’s or Solar panels in ONTARIO, CANADA alleviate those issues in the USofA? Bluffs fall down all the time for example… It was a problem with a family property on lake Ontario 40 years ago — still a problem today. Other areas are silting up… mostly we have little control of this. Botulism? Ok why not — I guess.

        You missed out on relevance. Did your high school teachers not warn you about connecting your thoughts to your conjecture to the hypothesis to the proposed proofs and solutions? I would have enjoyed marking your university papers — once maybe twice, but that sort of scattershot reasoning wears thin pretty quickly.

        If you think about it it’s just like high school science experiments.

        Sincerely,
        DR,
        Yours, in complete bafflement.

      • That’s because you’re clearly old-school, which has both benefits and drawbacks; we’re following multiple threads here – try to keep up, O Baffled One.

    • If they do not reduce gas emmisions, not economical nor efficient and contribute to the vampire economy as explained elsewhere. What is to support. Why mechanize the water also.

      • Quit the kung fu redirect tactic Derek……waiting for the defence or IWT’s with respect to above posts.

    • What does mercury from coal fire plants have to do with offshore IWT. Coal is being replaced by nat gas. Is this the same mercury in the compact flourecent?

      • Most of that mercury contamination is from our southern neighbours; we should wish them well in the fight to either move off coal or scrub or otherwise contain the emissions. This Transboundary Pollution report from 2005 assigns blame for about 1/2 of Ontario’s air pollution to sources in the US.and puts us on the pointy end of the Grasshopper Effect where volatile pollutants, incl mercury can evaporate from warmer areas and be transported and condensed out into colder regions.

      • You are being evasive Derek, what does that issue have to do with massive windfarms on the water. They are a massive waste of money. Look a the Netherlands experience they acknowlege they do not reduce emmision and are ineffective as well as unsustainable.

      • Derek:

        So take your complaints to blogs in the USofA. Why are you wasting our time?

        Write the President directly. Greens do have an in with him you know…

      • Oh c’mon, now who’s not doing their “research”. If you think Obama can do anything against the fossil fuel and other powerful corporate interests, you must have been living under a turbine for the last few years.
        He probably won’t even be able to stop the dismantling of the EPA, which should make your friends in the mining business very happy.

      • Just as a matter of interest… Dr. Robert Bloxam lent his name to this document…

        http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@ene/@resources/documents/resource/std01_079371.pdf

        If coal stations are a problem… Why are incinerators not a problem?…

        One of the lead statements…

        No significant human health effects (those being cancer, lung disease, nerve damage or reproductive effects) are likely in a typical suburban community located near an incinerator or a landfill. Under certain conditions, nuisance problems linked to malodorous compounds may affect air quality close to a landfill.

        He is, of course, one of the authors of the report cited by Derek. That report seems to conclude that Ontario’s air quality is controlled by the USofA and there is little we can do to improve it… So how do these reports support installing IWT’s? I dunno it’s beyond me…

        As the first study (quoted by Derek says:

        A significant portion of Ontario’s smog originates in the USof A… It then goes on to quote some much debunked studies that lay the cost of our health care at the feet of “local” coal plants,,, See reports by Ross McKitrick weebly do com… (previously cited and available as links on this site) that discuss how the reports were based on faulty models that claimed that more people died as a result of air pollution than were in the health care system ans subsequently dies…

        And that is why you should actually read and understand the papers and provide the quotes yourself…

        just sayin’…

      • Obama listens to Greenpeace,the UN and the uber rich who want to make money from the governmnet subsidies given to the new “green” economy to produce products that people don’t want. This includes wind, solar panels and EVs.
        EVs are nice cars but if they can’t be made and sold without subsidies then they should not be made. The new “green” economy involves a lot of transfer of money from the poor to the rich.

      • The uber rich, as you call them, will always take advantage – for most of them, that’s their nature.
        That doesn’t mean that everything they want done is bad, but it does mean that the little people have to hold them accountable – and to not be co-opted. I see you’re doing the former; not sure how you’ll prevent the latter.
        Some things can only be done efficiently by large industry – independent village blacksmiths couldn’t have given us the machine age. But I’ve always supported regulation and oversight and foresaw some of the present issues with industry overseas when the globalization trend started way back when.
        If nascent or developing industries shouldn’t be subsidized, then do any qualify? How do you prevent the incumbents from squelching any tech that threatens their bottom line?
        Legendary inventor Stan Ovshinsky probably regrets ever getting involved with Chevron since it’s pretty clear they’ve obstructed the widespread use of large-format NiMH batteries in EVs

      • Good ideas and great products the public wants don’t require subsidising. There is a group of uber rich who desire to vastly increase their wealth through government subsidies. Not all uber rich do this. Washington is handing out billions like candy for “green” technologies that produce few jobs. Money is being diverted from worthwhile projects and products into those that produce very few benefits if any.

  27. OK Folks — it’s a “Kodak Moment: Derek said:

    If you think Obama can do anything against the fossil fuel and other powerful corporate interests, you must have been living under a turbine for the last few years.

    Clearly Derek believes that living under a wind turbine is harmful to your health. Wrap that one up folks and take it to the Premier. ROTFLMAO!

    Gotcha!

    • Great work DR on slaying the Kraken. Only one problem, you did it before he could detail his love for offshore IWT’s pertaining to the above posts other than a Christmas bonus from Windstream.

      • Derek is not a Kraken — he is a pussycat — note that the studies he quotes generally make the opposite point of that which he is trying to prove.

        I managed to write three Android apps and do a software install while replying to his comments. Not exactly a challenge to deal with his points… We need to have a good look at the high school education system… 😉

        Maybe we can make it right…

      • Not bad!! Getting better but should someone named “Robin” be prodding a cat? It does have both teeth and claws – and notoriously go from tranquil to vicious in an eyeblink.

      • Oh DR ….. thats an online threat?? Derek you do have issues not only understanding the environmental and financial consequences of constructing turbines offshore and onshore as another poster puts it “to mechanize people in their beds” still can not enlighten us on how the Windstream offshore project will benefit the electrical grid in reliable way and reduce mercury levels and improve shipping safety in the great lakes while being cost effective. You say you are only “me myself and I” and not vested with the wind industry. I surmie me myself and I is the number of voices in your head confusing the realities of this issue. Can this story apply to shipping radar also?
        http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/05/wind-farms-disrupting-radar-scientists-say/

  28. The birds are dead and the means justify their demise because…?

    Future Press Release from Billy Goat Gruff Wind Power:

    Billy Goat Gruff Wind Power is please to announce it’s new program of providing country meat for our local communities. Due to the forward thinking of various governmental agencies we now have offerings of selective avain species from our various installations. Meet our trucks for the daily Naturally Harvested selection.

    Considering attending our workshops where you can craft dream catchers, ceremonial headdresses, and healing rattles. We will be using organic claws and feathers for your creations. Please stop by our interpetive centres and view our extensive taxidermy collection a must see for the ecotourist. Group tours are available with appropiate security clearence.

    Coming soon- Offshore installations will soon be adding to the benefits realized from clean wind energy. No longer will commerical and sports fisherman need to search for where the fish are! Our installations will define the “go to zones” with a combination of light, vibration, water turbidity and alternations in the water floor bed. An added benefit will be the decreased Laker ship traffic- think of the marine fuel savings! Greening our watershed one revolution at a time.

    Billy Goat Gruff Wind Power where our moto is “Let our trolls bridge the problems into solutions”
    We excel at media manipulation and public opinion formation.

    ( What da ya think… could I change professions and become a “Spin Doctor”?)

    • Yes, you are now qualified to become a certified ECO-NUT journalist and a member of the GTA MSM media.

Comments are closed.