Now what will T. Boone Pickens do?

Murphy’s Law in Action – Which to choose? Save the bats or save the planet? This presents an environmental quandary. – Anthony

Wind Turbines Give Bats the “Bends,” Study Finds

Brian Handwerk

 

for National Geographic News

August 25, 2008

Wind turbines can kill bats without touching them by causing a bends-like condition due to rapidly dropping air pressure, new research suggests. Scientists aren’t sure why, but bats are attracted to the turbines, which often stand 300 feet (90 meters) high and sport 200-foot (60-meter) blades.

The mammals’ curiosity can result in lethal blows by the rotors, which spin at a rate of about 160 miles (260 kilometers) per hour.

But scientist Erin Baerwald and colleagues report that only about half of the bat corpses they found near Alberta, Canada, turbine bases showed any physical evidence of being hit by a blade.

A surprising 90 percent showed signs of internal hemorrhaging—evidence of a drop in air pressure near the blades that causes fatal damage to the bats’ lungs.

In humans, the condition is called the bends and can affect divers and airplane passengers during ascents and descents.

(Related story: “Military Sonar May Give Whales the Bends, Study Says” [October 1, 2003])

The “Bends”

“As a turbine blade goes around, it creates lift—like an airplane’s wings—and there is a small zone of [dropping] pressure, maybe a meter or so in diameter, on the tips of the blades,” explained Baerwald, a doctoral candidate at the University of Calgary, in Alberta.

“Bats fly through this area, and their lungs expand, and the fine capillaries around the edges of the lungs burst.”

The bats’ lungs subsequently fill with fluid, and the animals essentially drown.

“We compare it to divers—they are pretty much dying of the bends,” Baerwald said.

Bats have no natural defense against the unnaturally dramatic pressure changes.

“Bats can actually detect pressure changes, but we’re talking large-scale, relatively slow changes, like the coming of a storm front,” said Baerwald. “This is something entirely different.”

Most bats that fall victim to turbines are migrating species, such as hoary bats, eastern red bats, and silver-haired bats.

There are not enough data to determine how wind turbine fatalities might be affecting populations of these slow-reproducing mammals.

Birds are also killed by blows from wind turbine rotors (see a related story), but their rigid, tubelike lungs can better withstand air pressure changes.

The study appears this week in the journal Current Biology.

Curiosity Killed the Bat

“They are the first to have done a large scale look at this [damage to the bat lungs],” Bat Conservation International (BCI) biologist Ed Arnett said of the researchers.

“It’s fascinating information,” said Arnett, who is not involved with the study.

“But ultimately it might not matter so much how [the bats] die but what is attracting them to the turbines in the first place.”

Preventing the bat deaths has challenged experts for years.

“We’ve partnered with industry and federal agencies to raise and spend about two million dollars looking for a solution,” said BCI founder and president Merlin Tuttle.

Laurie Jodziewicz, of the American Wind Energy Association in Washington, D.C., said where the turbines are placed may be the key.

“Bats are not being [killed] at all the wind projects all over the country—it is happening in some places and not others,” she said.

“We’re trying to determine before construction what areas might be risky.”

Turbines create drops in pressure drop during normal operations, so the problem could possibly be addressed by changing when the turbines run, according to BCI’s Tuttle.

“A large portion of the kills occur at the lowest wind speeds,” he said, “and at those low speeds [the turbines] are not generating appreciable electricity anyway.”

Bats also are at particular risk during migration periods in late summer and early fall, when many turbine related fatalities occur.

Arnett, Baerwald, and others are currently conducting tests to see if raising the “cut-in” wind speed at which rotors begin to turn will save bats—particularly during peak migration periods.

“It won’t eliminate the problem, but it’s a good step in the right direction,” Tuttle said.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
158 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
manacker
August 28, 2008 10:45 pm

Hi Ricorun,
Sorry, the numbers still show that wind farms, and to a much greater extent, solar energy, still have a very long way to go to become truly competitive with nuclear, natural gas or coal. These are the facts of life today, despite rosy articles about these renewables becoming “almost competitive”.
I am not arguing that they might not some day do so.
They just have not yet done so. By a long shot.
So let’s let companies try to develop these new fields, maybe even with some taxpayer R+D support, at the same time let the utility companies construct new plants based on proven nuclear technology and coal-fired plus gas-fired plants.
And (for motor fuels) let’s explore all avenues that make sense to break away from reliance on oil imports. More US offshore drilling, development of the vast oil shale reserves, syn-fuels from coal, bio-fuels, etc. No taxpayer money required here. Just let the energy companies do their thing without strangling them with bueaucratic federal regulations.
Regards,
Max
That’s what makes sense.
Regards,
Max

manacker
August 28, 2008 10:57 pm

Hi Ricorun,
Back to your query, “One more sort of nitpicky thing… you suggested that a combined cycle gas/steam turbine plant has an on-line factor of 92% while also being flexible enough to provide “peak power”. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the on-line capacity factor represents the percentage of the nameplate capacity that the facility could produce if it runs at maximum production all the time. In which case it wouldn’t be very flexible, correct?”
No, Ricorun, you’re wrong on that assumption.
A gas-fired plant can produce power at an on-line factor of 92% (if that is what the grid requires), or it can be used as a “peak demand” generator, since it can be turned on and off fairly easily. So it is extremely flexible.
A solar plant does not have this advantage. It has an on-line factor of maximum 25%, not based on the demand of the grid, but on the availability of the sun.
Wind plants have the same problem based on availability of the wind, although somewhat higher on-line factors approaching 40% have been mentioned here, for isolated cases such as West Texas or certain locations in Hawaii.
Neither wind nor solar are competitive today on a large scale, although each can make sense for certain niche areas, particularly with some taxpayer subsidies.
Regards,
Max

Jack Simmons
August 29, 2008 2:04 am

Here is a really promising solar energy company, discussed earlier on this site.
http://www.nanosolar.com/
If they can get installation costs down to $1 per watt, I’ll take a serious look at installing it on my house.
Will still need something for the night.

Jeff Alberts
August 29, 2008 10:22 am

Manacker said:

So let’s let companies try to develop these new fields, maybe even with some taxpayer R+D support, at the same time let the utility companies construct new plants based on proven nuclear technology and coal-fired plus gas-fired plants.
And (for motor fuels) let’s explore all avenues that make sense to break away from reliance on oil imports. More US offshore drilling, development of the vast oil shale reserves, syn-fuels from coal, bio-fuels, etc. No taxpayer money required here. Just let the energy companies do their thing without strangling them with bueaucratic federal regulations.

Extremely well said, Max. I couldn’t agree more.

manacker
August 29, 2008 5:25 pm

Hi Jack Simmons,
The Nanosolar thin film solar panel concept for building medium-size power units (2-10MW) sounds good. Thanks for link.
They mention getting costs for the panels themselves down to $1,000 per nameplate KW.
A 11MW solar plant being built in Seville, Spain is scheduled to cost $53 million or $4,800 per nameplate KW, almost 5 times the Nanosolar figure.
The much smaller domestic solar panels of 5KW cost around $35,000 today (installed) or $7,000 per nameplate KW. This should come down as more are produced.
So if the $1,000 per nameplate KW is really a correct figure for the entire installation (not just the delivered panels), this is a major improvement.
At 25% on-line factor it still leaves solar much less economical than gas-fired stations, at $770 per nameplate KW with a 92% on-line factor, but it brings it closer, particularly for smaller scale plants.
But if you can get a 5KW home system installed for $5,000, this would be a fantastic deal. Depending on where you live, you might even get the government to pick up a big piece of the tab.
Regards,
Max

August 29, 2008 7:47 pm

The government is distorting the market [as usual] by giving a 10% tax credit for wind & solar. Boone Pickens, the Texas oil scamster, is capitalizing on this free handout.
Note that oil companies’ profits are around 9%, and the gov’t’s tax grab is much higher than what oil companies earn.
The free market always solves any shortages before they become critical, to the constant astonishment and dismay of the Luddite Malthusians. The only reason we are so dependent on foreign oil is due directly to Congress, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the enviro lobby. They are solely responsible for high gas prices. That unholy alliance is totally responsible for the fix we’re in now; they are 100% to blame, not CO2, not the Arabs, not American workers. It is a conspiracy, pure and simple. Anyone with eyes and a brain can see it.
Unleash American industry and know-how, and watch $1.60/gal gas come back [it’s happened before. In 1998 oil was close to $10/bbl].

manacker
August 30, 2008 9:33 am

You’ve got a point there, Smokey.
Let’s hope the US congress can get out of the way and not block Shell (and others) from developing the oil shale deposits (plus lift off-shore drilling ban).
Oil shale is projected to be very profitable at $60/barrel, so gasoline prices could come down.
Combine this with developing more fuel-efficient automobiles and this would give the USA a secure supply source of oil for the next 100+years, without the need for major imports.
Long before this starts to run out there will be new developments that will enable the long-term shift away from oil. These innovations will be driven by industry (oil companies plus others) and will not require massive government intervention.
Regards,
Max

Carol
November 3, 2008 5:37 pm

“Bats are not being [killed] at all the wind projects all over the country—it is happening in some places and not others,” she said…
I wonder if the areas where the wind projects are killing the bats are located near cell phone towers or power lines or some other source of EMR?

1 5 6 7