Winter 2004 Conservation Perspectives: Electronic Field Guides and Citizen Science: Steering Society in a More Earth-Friendly Direction

Keywords: Renewable energy, wind power, wind turbines, WTG, offshore wind farms, European wind projects, U.S. wind projects, bird, seabirds, environmental impact of wind turbines, North American coastal waters.

A variety of technical and economic factors are converging to cause a dramatic worldwide increase in wind power development. These include the fact that rotor-driven turbine technology underlying the conversion of wind power to electrical power is far more efficient than it was even five yeas ago. The three-bladed turbines that are now the standard in the industry have matured to the point that they deliver 95% of their theoretical maximum efficiency in converting wind to electrons. The other factor is purely economic and pertains to the rising cost of fossil fuel in all of its forms. Compounding rising cost is the fact that in the United States, demand for electricity rises at the average annual rate of 1.5%. Together, technical advances and economic drivers, including the recent renewal of the Production Tax Credit (that allows the sellers of wind power to avoid taxes on the first 1.87 cents of income – a significant tax avoidance of anywhere from 30-50% of gross income), are making wind power a particularly attractive proposition.

While many environmental benefits accrue from this essentially pollution-free electricity source, wind power sites also have the potential for environmental risks that need to be understood, minimized and mitigated. Some of these risks are, ironically, environmental risks such as impact to birds, bats, and other wildlife. Also, a perception exists by some that a wind power facility represents a deterioration or an industrialization of scenic resources. Hence, there is an element of good news/bad news when it comes to wind power. The bad news is that wind projects do impact or are seen to impact the environment. However, the good news is that compared to the cumulative impact of conventional thermal or fossil fuel-based power generation, wind power is by far the superior environmental choice as an energy source.

Wind power projects seem to be the perfect embodiment of the now-famous paradigm of Buckminster Fuller; “think globally; act locally.” And the paradigm holds up pretty well as long as it refers to someone else’s wind project. When the wind project is off the Danish or Irish coast, we tend to regard it as global thinking and local action at its very best. However, when the wind project is proposed for our town, our mountain ridge, or our coastal waters, oftenglobal thinking vanishes and all that remains is local action -- action to try everything in our power to thwart the project. And because of the need to locate wind projects close to population centers, NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard), conflicts will only intensify.

The NIMBY problem is one of both perception and of reality about the direct beneficiary of a given wind project. Many environmental projects directly benefit the local, hosting communities. Nature preserves, parks and recreation lands, pollution abatement systems, and habitat restoration are examples of projects that enhance the quality of life at the local level. The challenge of wind projects can be a difficulty in demonstrating the local benefits that accrue to anyone other than the developer, the landowner (if they are different), and the recipients of a few jobs created by the project. Other than a few local (and often short-term) economic benefits, wind power projects are truly global; they benefit the entire planet through their impact on cleaner air and cleaner water and through their reduction in greenhouse gases. While Buckminster Fuller started us down the road of thinking globally, we often do not feel sufficient global altruism to overcome the NIMBY opposition to wind projects.

According to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), wind energy is currently the world’s fastest-growing energy source on a percentage basis, and as such represents significant economic and environmental potential to both the public and private sectors. According to AWEA, global wind power capacity has quadrupled in five years, from 7,600 megawatt (MW) in 1997 to an estimated 31,128 MW at the end of 2002, representing an annual average increase of 28% (AWEA 2004^a). Wind energy facilities now power the equivalent of 7.5 million average U.S. homes (16 million average European homes) worldwide. While it is true that the U.S. lags behind Europe, the U.S. did add 1,700 new megawatts from wind in 2002. This brings the total for the U.S. to 10 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) annually, enough to power 1.3 million average U.S. homes, which translates into an average annual increase of 18% for the 5 years leading up to 2003 (AWEA 2004). Whether here or abroad, wind power is economically, technically, and environmentally the most attractive option for producing power from renewable sources.

Engineering, economics, and public perception have converged to fuel the global rise of wind power. On the engineering front, research and development (jumpstarted during the 1970’s when fuel prices skyrocketed due to geopolitics), are yielding new, highly efficient designs for wind turbine rotors and generators. Today’s larger, more efficient wind turbine generators (WTGs) produce more electrons at all classes of wind speed and at significantly lower wind speeds than WTGs did just a few years ago (Ackermann, T. & Söder, L., 2000). Currently, WTGs exist that can produce the same power output in Class III winds (14.3-15.7 mph) that previously required Class IV winds (15.7-16.8 mph) (Henderson et al., 2001). Because the previous generation of WTGs required higher wind speeds, developers were constrained to build wind parks in the windiest locations. In many regions, this forced developers up onto ridges and into direct conflict with scenic and wildlife interest. With the ability to site WTGs at lower wind speed classes, developers can pick and choose among potential sites and may be able to avoid environmentally sensitive areas.

After years of being on the economic fringe, wind power is finally an attractive proposition that is poised to go mainstream. However, in order to compete with fossil fuels including coal and oil, mainstream wind power relies on state and federal incentive programs. One financial incentive is the federal wind energy Production Tax Credit (the PTC was renewed by Congress in September 2004 and awaits an expected signing into law by the President). The state equivalent to the PTC is the renewable portfolio standard (RPS), that establishes firm targets for what percentage of a state’s power must come from renewable energy sources. Together the PTC and the RPS help to level the playing field relative to traditional fossil fuel-based power generation. Thirteen states (Arizona, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Rhode Island and Maine) have passed legislation that establishes an RPS, and similar legislation is pending in several other states (AWEA 2004^b). The standards differ from state to state but all establish target levels and a timetable for integrating renewable energy into the state’s energy portfolio.

The United States and Europe account for 90% of the world’s wind power generating capacity. Due to long-term government subsidies and a reliance on “demonstration” projects as a means to introduce wind power to Europeans, Europe hosts 75% of the world’s wind generating capacity, whereas the U.S. accounts for 15%. Wind power development in the U.S. has been exclusively onshore to date. In addition to hosting land-based wind farms, Europe has installed twelve wind parks offshore. Horns Reef, in the North Sea off Denmark, is Europe’s largest and most recent offshore project with 80 WTGs and 160 MW output. According to the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA), as another example of Europe’s willingness to look offshore for power, the United Kingdom’s Department of Transportation and Industries issued a report identifying “strategic zones” designated for offshore wind development thereby paving the way for future wind projects. As a follow-on announcement to this, the UK government released proposals in July 2003 for the next generation of offshore wind farms to provide up to 6GW of new energy generation by 2010 -- enough to power 15% of all households in the UK (BWEA 2004).

Europe represents a very useful model for wind developers in the United States who could follow the European lead by:

Extending and stabilizing the PTC and RPS and any and all government subsidies. As discussed above, these financial incentives are absolutely necessary to allow wind power to compete toe-to-toe with coal and oil. In fact, many U.S. wind projects are on hold because the Federal PTC is in legislative limbo.

Making a commitment to public-private demonstration projects. While many European wind projects have been started as public-private demonstrations, the U.S. has yet to take advantage of this approach to introduce wind to stakeholders.

Looking for suitable offshore sites near to load centers. While numerous offshore sites in the U.S. have been proposed, only two projects, one off the coast of Cape Cod, MA, the other off Long Island, NY, have reached the point where they are receiving input from the public and regulatory agencies.

While most of the growth in wind power is happening onshore in terrestrial landscapes, trends in Europe indicate increasing moves into nearshore and offshore environments. This trend is primarily due to two factors: 1) wind speed at offshore sites is higher and wind blows more consistently than it does onshore, and 2) the proximity of these sites to human population centers, that are ready markets for electricity.

In Europe, the majority of offshore wind power development is currently occurring in the northern European countries of Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Germany and the United Kingdom. These nations, along with the European Union (EU), have recognized the potential for adverse impacts on birds, fish and wildlife and are required to conduce pre- and post-installation environmental studies on faunal impacts. The impact analyses mandated under the European Union (EU) rules are similar, but not identical, to the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); like NEPA they impact the regulatory fate of offshore wind projects.

Examples/highlights of environment impact studies performed at some of Europe’s offshore wind projects include:

Soerensen and Hansen (2001) report that “Within the European Union (EU), the general rule is that developers of offshore wind facilities must carry out a project-specific environmental impact assessment (EIA). The EIA must cover the time from installation until dismantling of structures.” Issues related to birds include; collisions with wind turbines and ousting of birds from traditional feeding/roosting grounds. Specific species of special concern include: divers, grebes, shearwaters, petrels, gannets, cormorants, shags, gulls, terns, auks, marine ducks such as eiders, as well as migrating songbirds and shorebird species that may be passing through the vicinity of the turbines in migration and daily activity.

Musters, Noordervliet, and Ter Kews (1996), reported bird casualties at five turbines installed at Kreekrak sluices in Zeeland Province, Netherlands. They searched every other day and conducted scavenger studies to estimate removal. During the study they found 26 birds of 17 species. Assuming a constant rate of collisions and recovery of bodies all year, they estimated that at full capacity of 20 turbines, mortality would be between 7 – 142 per year, or 0.01 birds per turbine.

Still and Painter (2002) reported the results of bird monitoring at Blyth Harbour, U.K. At that location nine turbines were operating along a 1.2 km breakwall. Mortality surveys were carried out from Jan. 1993, when the plant was commissioned, through July 1995. They conducted surveys on adjacent beaches to assess the background numbers of dead birds, and locate wind farm casualties. They found 31 casualties attributed to the wind farm, or fewer than 1.34 turbine strike victims per year.

Noer et al, (2000) studied bird/wind interactions at Horns Rev, located off the northeastern coast of Denmark. At that location, 80 turbines have been installed in an area of 27.5 square kilometers. Towers are between 60 and 70 m high, with a distance of 500 m between turbines in rows. The area is a major staging and wintering grounds for large numbers of waterbirds and seabirds. Common species include eider, common scoter, common and sandwich terns, guillemots and razorbills. The authors have calculated that fewer than 1% of the total numbers of most bird species would be found in the area of the wind farm. Therefore, they concluded that the area is of limited significance to waterfowl and seabirds.

Large-scale offshore wind developments (projects of more than 100 turbines) are being proposed for the eastern seaboard at Cape Cod, MA, Long Island, NY, Southern Maryland, and Maine; in the Canadian Maritime provinces of Price Edward Island, Quebec, and New Brunswick; and in the west at Queen Charlotte Islands in British Columbia. The debate about offshore wind projects has begun. These projects, like their counterparts in Europe, will have to address the potential impact to a variety of seabird and shorebird species. Wind energy projects, both in the US and Europe , have considerable experience regarding the impact of land-based wind facilities to migrant and resident land birds and bats. The nearly 20-year history of the effect of wind turbines on birds and bats has been summarized by the National Wind Coordinating Committee (NWCC). On land, according to the NWCC, “both migrating and resident birds and bats sometimes die in wind farms as a result of collisions with wind turbines and meteorological towers (and their supporting guy wires)” (NWCC 2004).

The impact to seabirds and shorebirds at offshore wind parks, however, is uncharted territory for U.S. developers, environmental regulators, and local municipalities. Above the waterline, risks include: collision of seabirds and passerines with wind turbine generators (WTG); reluctance of seabirds to feed and/or fly within the wind park (avoidance); disturbance to birds while inside or near the wind park. Impact on food resources may be either positive or negative. For endangered and threatened birds, all of the risks take on a heightened level of concern. For example, several endangered or threatened birds migrate or nest along the Atlantic Flyway, including roseate terns, piping plovers and peregrine falcons.

Below the waterline, possible conflicts include collision with wind turbines by marine mammals, avoidance of their previous habitat, and disturbance to fisheries, and the possibility of artificial reefs developing around the submerged portions of the WTG. Artificial reefing, in turn, might alter trophic structure in ways that could be either positive or negative.

Environmental impact to birds and bats aside, offshore wind is developing more slowly in the United States than in Europe because there is less shallow water on the narrower continental shelf of North America in which to install WTGs. This is particularly true off the west coast of North America where water gets prohibitively deep within a few kilometers of shore. Therefore, offshore developers in the U.S. must propose their projects on sand and gravel banks and shallow ledges – the same places that birds and fish congregate. Hence, the chance for conflicts between humans and fisheries or birds is much higher in U.S. coastal waters than it is in Europe.

The next several years present an opportunity for marine and conservation biologists to anticipate, examine, and respond to the potential conflicts that might arise between offshore wind power facilities and coastal fauna. Approaches to this issue include, but are not limited to: 1) siting, operation, and management to reduce risk of bird and animal collisions with offshore turbines and support structures; 2) improving our understanding of the trophic impacts of the submerged structures; 3) mitigating the impact to wildlife during installation and removal; and 4) designing appropriate monitoring programs to assess the impact and overall performance of offshore wind and wildlife.

Although wind power is on the increase in the United States, less than 1% of our energy currently comes from wind power. To increase this number, each of us will need to understand the inclusive environmental costs and benefits of the wind power relative to all the other energy choices that are out there. In so doing, when a wind project shows up in our town, we will be able to make an informed choice and truly be able to make Buckminster Fuller proud.

The views and opinions expressed in all articles that appear in "Conservation Perspectives" are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of NESCB.