The following is my comment responding to claims made on a local left-wing blog regarding my recent wind report.

As often is the case, especially when it comes to environmental issues, claims of dishonesty or misinformation never can be backed up.

Instead of reasonable discourse, disagreements about issues turn into disparaging personal attacks.

The wind issue is going to get ugly. First, a wind power zealot last week suggested that anyone opposed to wind power is like Al-Qaeda. This left-wing blog post doesn’t reach that level, but it shows the level of discourse that is going to exist from wind proponents.

My comment:

Since NCenvtl makes claims that I was dishonest, I’m responding to this post and a previous comment.

I. Sulfur Dioxide and Nitrogen Oxides

Claim: I didn?t mention that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) attributed existing regulations as the reason why wind power would not have a significant impact on emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide.

From my Report : ?The National Academy of Sciences has stated that wind power would not significantly reduce these emissions, largely due to existing regulations on conventional sources of electricity.?

BTW: Even if I didn?t include this, it wouldn?t make a difference regarding the conclusion NAS makes about wind power and emissions.

II. Wind is Unreliable

Claim: The claim appears to be that while wind power is unreliable, so are other sources of electricity.

First, the capacity factor of wind power is about 30 percent of its nameplate capacity. To simplify things, a wind turbine would be expected to generate over a course of a year about 30 percent of its ?maximum capacity.?

Since nuclear power was featured in the post, according to the United States Energy Information Administration, nuclear power has a 90 percent capacity factor.

Capacity factor alone though doesn?t completely describe the reliability problems with wind power. Its intermittency and variability makes it more difficult for grid managers. These grid experts must ensure that electricity generation supply and demand is in balance at all times.

NCenvtl tries to argue that traditional power plants were the cause of the near-blackout in Texas.

I?ll let one of NCenvtl’s own articles describe what happened in Texas: ?A drop in wind generation late on Tuesday, coupled with colder weather, triggered an electric emergency that caused the Texas grid operator to cut service to some large customers, the grid agency said on Wednesday.?

There isn?t anything ambiguous about this statement.

From my report, citing a Fort Worth Star-Telegram article (discussing the Texas near-blackout and the problems with wind?note that ERCOT is the Texas grid operator):

?Kent Saathoff, vice president for system operations at ERCOT, said Tuesday?s event illustrates the inherent challenges associated with using wind power. Because the wind sometimes stops blowing without a moment?s notice, engineers at ERCOT must remain nimble enough to respond to instability that can result from the resulting power dip on the grid, he said.?

Even the article that NCenvtl uses to try and blame traditional power plants for the Texas near-blackout explains that the drop in wind power precipitated the problems. Normally the grid could handle the problem caused by wind, but the traditional power plants did not react to the drop in wind power like they normally do.

Finally, NCevntl argues that nuclear power is no better because that same day in Florida, a ?NUCLEAR power substation blackout in Florida triggered rolling blackouts across the state.? [EMPHASIS added by NCenvtl].

The problem wasn?t nuclear power, it was a problem at an electrical substation. Therefore, it was a grid issue, not an energy source issue. Also, other power plants shut down as well, not just nuclear. These plants that shut down acted as they were supposed to. Again, from NCenvtl?s own article (quote from Florida Power & Light?s president):

“In a fraction of a second, the demand was far greater than the power plants that were online generating electricity could handle,” he said. “When you have that kind of imbalance, we have a system that kicks in and it starts turning people’s lights off, essentially balancing the demand with what’s available.”

III. Birds and Bats

Claim: ?The study does find that more research is needed into methods of mitigating future deaths caused by avian collisions but does not mention what the JLF says it did in its Carolina Journal Article. It appears Mr. Bakst made that one up.?

Huh? I have no idea what this means.

The GAO study, as I explain in my report, found that mitigation efforts to date have been a failure. Here is the GAO quote (which is not made-up, if that’s what was being suggested):

?A recent 4-year study conducted by the California Energy Commission in Altamont Pass tested some of these mitigation efforts attempted by industry and suggested possible future mitigation strategies. This study found that some of the strategies adopted by industry, such as perch guards on turbines and rodent control programs that reduce prey availability, were ineffective in reducing kills. Another study compared the differences between turbines painted with ultraviolet reflectant or nonultraviolet reflectant to see whether one would act as a visual deterrent, but the study found no evidence of a difference in mortality between the two treatments.?

If that’s not enough, in my report I explain:

?In 2007 testimony, Dr. Michael Fry of the American Bird Conservancy stated ?Unfortunately, to date, collaborative efforts to successfully address the impacts of wind projects on birds and wildlife have been a failure.?”

Claim: ?The fact that JLF only references this wind farm [Altamont Pass, CA] in its report is telling.?

From my report (again citing the GAO report): ?A 2004 study conducted in West Virginia estimated that slightly over 2,000 bats were killed during a 7-month study at a location with 44 turbines.?

My report provides estimated annual number of bird (not bat) deaths at wind farms across the country:

?There is an estimated 33,000 bird deaths a year due to wind turbines, but as the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has explained, ?This may be a considerable underestimate.??

IV. Noise

Claim: ?It [My report] references a report by the French National Academy of Medicine and the United Kingdom Noise Association that recommend sitting wind energy facilities at lease 1 mile from homes. Luckily, there are no homes in the ocean so this warning can be easily heeded.?

Again, huh? Even for the coast, there is such thing as on-shore wind turbines, and homes that could be within one mile of these turbines. My report also is concerned with all wind power plants, not just those on the coast.

V. Citation

Claim:: ?First of all, what type of report fails to cite any authority for the claims that it makes?” This is from his comment.

This statement makes me wonder whether NCEnvtl knows that a CJ article is not the report. Here are the “non-existent” citations from my report:

End Notes (I listed all the citations–41 of them–but will spare this blog).

Daren Bakst