Radio story 2

Wind turbines in Ontario have the potential to kill thousands of bats every spring and fall.

Bat biologist Juliet Nagal is studying the migration patterns of bats along Ontario’s shores so that she can suggest locations for turbines that would be less harmful to the nocturnal creatures.

Nagal, 28, works for EchoTrack Inc., a company that tracks migrating birds and bats using radar which detects height, speed and direction. Microphones allow for species identification. The focus of Nagal’s research is to find out if bats are migrating in the same pattern as birds along Ontario’s shores.

Birds will follow the shoreline, and only cross it when it is totally dark, said Rhonda Millikin, president of EchoTrack.

“We don’t know if the bats are doing the same thing, but that’s one of the questions we want to find out,” she said. If the province allows wind farms off the shores of Lake Erie, EchoTrack’s research will provide insight into how far off the shore they should be, Millikin said.

Depending on the placement, some wind farms can kill thousands of bats in the fall season and some will only kill a handful. “It really comes down to how the wind turbines are placed,” Nagal said.

“Unfortunately for wildlife we like to put wind turbines where there’s lots of wind and lots of wind is what animals use to migrate,” she said.

The overall effect of one wind farm killing up to a thousand bats is not known. This is because the total population of a species is impossible to determine, since bats don’t hibernate in clusters. “No one can say for sure how many it’s okay to kill,” Nagal said, adding that it is even more important to try to protect the bats because their population is unknown. “Because we don’t know how many of them there are we should be extra careful to kill as few of them as possible,” she said.

Nagal set up her radar and microphones at Port Burwell on Wednesday just before sunset on Lake Erie. After dark, bats could be seen flying over the lake and shore on the radar screen.

Nagal began tracking the bats in August. Wednesday was day 62 of work in a row for the biologist. She usually goes out in the spring and fall to track migration patterns. She finds a site, sets up the trailer with the radar and equipment, faces it north and sets up the acoustic system to track the bats. Now that the weather is colder, Nagal’s field work is coming to an end and she will begin analyzing the data she collected.

Nagal also does mobile acoustics, where she drives every road in a project area, stopping every kilometre to record, listening for bats, she said. The goal of the mobile acoustic system is to see if she can pick up any species that are not found in the set radar positions.

If there are any known caves in an area, Nagal gets to go visit them. “That’s the fun part because we actually get to handle (the bats),” she said.

The danger to bats from wind turbines is different than for birds. To be killed, birds actually have to be hit by the blade of the turbine, while bats do not, Nagal said. Some are hit by the blade, but because bats’ lungs are highly pressurized in order to perform echo-location, they implode when they fly close enough to the blades of the turbine, Nagal said. “They just have to fly through something that’s invisible to them and they’ll die,” she said.

It is important to know the impact of windmills because bats are extremely important ecologically, Nagal said. “They eat huge numbers of crop pests every year, moths and beetles especially,” she said. Without bats crops would require a lot more pesticides, she added.

Nagal said she thinks windmills are great if they are placed in good locations. “The best thing is that if there are any windmills in your area, ask the company if they’ve thought of this,” she said. Some companies will use acoustics to determine the number of bat activity, but that doesn’t show how many bats are in that area exactly, Nagal said. “It could only be five bats that happened to be feeding in that spot all night long,” she said.

“With radar you know a wider area than just acoustics,” she said. Through radar technology they are able to determine where there are high concentrations of bats and recommend placing the turbines in locations away from those areas.

“If we understand what the animal needs in the environment then we can help the company mitigate for that risk,” said Millikin.

Nagal is hopeful that these efforts will help decrease the rate of bat mortality due to wind farms. “The forest would be a sadder place without bats,” Nagal said.

In search of climate consensus before the December 2009 summit

Part I   …

By Bill Kovarik

Editor, Appalachian Voice

So this is the speed of light.

We laugh as the solar-powered boat glides silently down the Spree River through the heart of  Berlin, Germany. As monumental buildings drift past, our captain, Arno Paulus, points out a series of 64-year-old bullet holes in the stone walls alongside the river.

It’s a sobering moment in the new Berlin, a city where ghosts still flit through the Tiergarten and where hollowed-out churches still draw crowds on the Ku-Damm boulevard.

And it’s because of this past, Paulus says, that Germany has a moral obligation to help change the world.   “We can do it,” he says, “but we can’t do it alone.”

And so our journey starts with a photovoltaic boat tour as a kind of tribute to the new Germany, grimly aware of its history but determined to set the example for a remarkable future.

Its all part of the “road to Copenhagen” climate change tour that also includes  formal meetings with German officials and informal talks with German scientists.

I’m among seven American journalists who have been invited to Germany and Denmark by both governments, to see first hand the commitments and the costs, as the world considers what might be done at the international climate summit planned for Copenhagen in December of 2009.

Appalachian Voice was very welcome, one German official says diplomatically, because Appalachian coal is so well known in Europe.  But Europe is in the process of closing down its coal fired electrical plants, and he hopes that we will convey this message: that change need not be disruptive; that new jobs and economic stability can come from renewable energy; and most of all, that the world needs American leadership.

That leadership could take a page from the European example.

With more than 15% of Germany’s electric supply coming from wind, hydro, biomass and solar, the renewable energy and conservation sector has grown to over 280,000 jobs – nearly ten times more than those employed in coal mines.  The program is projected to grow to half a million jobs by 2020.

The reason for all this is to comply with international carbon reduction treaties, such as Kyoto and the anticipated Copenhagen treaty.   Germany has reduced CO2 by nearly 20% so far, and is willing to reduce 30% as compared to 1990 levels, and possibly more, if the  Americans will join the effort.

Not all of this is to be taken at quite face value – As much as half of the reduction in CO2 came rather easily, from shutting down inefficient steel mills in East Germany after the wall came down.

But in a way, that’s part of the point. By shutting down the inefficient mills and turning to renewables, they are creating cleaner new industries with more long term employment.

Rather than costing money, the government projects the climate protection plan will increase GDP by over 50 million Euros.

One reason that renewable energy has grown so quickly in Germany is that the subsidies work through a “feed in tariff” mechanism.  At present, wind energy receives about 13 cents for onshore and 19 cents per kw for offshore production. The rate is higher offshore because Germany wants the turbines further out than is usual, where there is little danger to bird life.  Also, solar photovoltaic panels receive a 48 cent per kilowatt hour subsidy.

The rates are high, but they reflect new production, European prices for electricity, and the avoided costs of environmental impacts from other technologies. The fact that they don’t have to clean up ash spills, for instance, is worth a few cents at least.  Also, the rates are continually reduced as costs for new energy production from renewable energy come down. Photovoltaic panels for instance cost about half of what they did only five years ago.  Wind turbines, too, have become more reliable and easier to set up and operate, and “smart grid” renewable energy systems are being built with the enthusiastic cooperation of the utilities.

The    “feed in tariff”  is a structure that is being adapted around the world.  While something like it was used to start wind farms in California in the 1980s, Germany and other European nations have spent a decade developing the complex program.

The feed in tariff means that anyone can buy a set of photovoltaic panels, or a windmill, and get help and technical advice, and then collect a check every few months based on how well the panels perform.   Individuals and companies of various sizes – and not just the government or the utilities – are making investments and innovations because there is a predictable rate of return based on performance.

The feed in tariff is set so that there is about a ten to 12 year payback period for the equipment, after which, the checks keep coming and the owner of the panel continues to make money.

—-

The most sobering moment chasing Copenhagen is a dinner with climate scientist Stefan  Ramstorf, who asks us to imagine that each person on earth has been allotted only 110 tons of carbon dioxide for the rest of their lives. This CO2 budget is fixed at the point where irreversible climate damage occurs.  If we spend more than 110 tons of carbon dioxide each, we will change the planet’s climate drastically.

How quickly are we spending up our accounts?  Americans are spending their CO2 allotment at the rate of 20 tons per year, while Europeans are spending it at the rate of 10 tons per year. In some developing nations containing most of human population, people are spending their allotment at the rate of one ton per year.

The problem for Copenhagen, Ramstorf says, is to find a way to get the big spenders to buy some of that CO2 from the developing nations by helping to  building their renewable energy economies.

Just down the street, at the Soviet monument,  there is a palpable sense, still, of revenge for the atrocities of war, for the dreadful suffering and the extinctions of millions.

By mistake, we got off the bus in front of a nearly endless field of gray concrete blocks, and we thought it was very startling  before we even knew it was a monument to the murdered peoples of Germany, especially the Jews.

So Berlin seems like a sober city, a place of deep reflection on the plight of humankind. And as such, perhaps, it is a good place to go in search of the future  — the future of renewable energy, the future of climate change strategies, and maybe, the future of the human race.

The devastation, and the recovery, is an amazing testament to the resilience of humanity in the face of catastrophe.

In fact, one of the greatest environmental and human rights catastrophes in history is underway In the coalfields of Appalachia.

A quick overview of the human and environmental costs of coal would include:

MINING: Modern mining methods leave a sterile and poisoned land behind. A video describing the problem of Mountaintop Removal Mining (MTR) is available on YouTube. A slide show also provides aerial views.

Worker safety is also an issue in mining. Coal companies claim that injury rates are lower for surface / MTR mining than underground, but investigators question that claim.

PRETREATMENT Preparing coal for power plants leads to enormous water pollution and public safety problems. Preparation usually involves large amounts of water which is then stored in coal sludge dams that pose imminent threats to people downstream. Waste water is also injected into ground, poisoning well and making people sick. For more information: The Sludge Safety Project

AIR POLLUTION: The area downwind of a coal-fired electric power plant is called the “cone of death.” Dramatic increases in mortality and lung disease show that the direct cost of coal fired power must be measured not only in terms of cheap electricity but also lives sacrificed. For more information: The Sierra Club clean air pages.

ASH DISPOSAL: Water pollution from coal ash is far worse than has been depicted. The collapse of a coal ash dam into the Tennessee River last December involved the release of over a billion gallons worth of coal ash containing at least 519 tons of arsenic, 2,682 tons of barium, 2 tons of cadmium, 207 tons of chromium, 73 tons of cobalt, half ton of mercury, 30 tons of selenium, 3.5 tons of thallium, and 475 tons of vanadium (according to toxicologist Shea Tuberty at Appalachian State University). More information: I Love Mountains

First, the bad news:

Americans assign a lower priority to climate change than people of any other country, according to a World Public Opinion poll.

Asked how high a priority their government should place on addressing climate change, most want a high priority–on average 7.33 on a 0-10 scale. The highest mean levels are found in Mexico (9.09), China (8.86), Turkey (8.34), and France (8.03). Only three nations had means below 6. The lowest was the United States (4.71).

The good news? Majorities in 15 of 19 nations surveyed think their government should put a higher priority on addressing climate change than it does now. This includes the largest greenhouse gas emitters: China (62% want more action), the US (52%), and Russia (56%). Germany has a 47% rating, but with the middle position (about right), public opinion there is about like the US.

Polling Report is one place to keep track of polling on environmental issues. One of the most telling recent polls was a CNN survey of Americans in April 2009. According to that poll:

54% think the government can slow or stop climate change
27% think the government cant do anything about it
17% say its not happening at all.

**
(** It’s interesting that this number, 17%, comes up in other public opinion polls. A Sept. 2008 poll for the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition also found that 17 percent of West Virginia residents said global warming is “not a problem.” )

Now the really bad news: Americans are losing their appreciation for science. In a Pew Center poll released in July, fewer Americans volunteer scientific advances as one of the country’s most important achievements than did so a decade ago (27% today, 47% in May 1999).

This is one of many indicators that Americans are headed down the road that Carl Sagan warned about in his 1995 book, the Demon-Haunted World:

“I have a foreboding of … a (future) service and information economy … when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority … The dumbing down of America is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media ..”

One of the most bizarre features of the fight over Appalachian coal mining and MTR is the outright theft of graveyards. We’re not talking about tomb raiders who steal FROM the dead. We’re talking about people who steal cemeteries, wholesale, by the drag-line and bucket-load.

Many coal field graveyards have been damaged, and many are no longer accessible, with some to perhaps all graves missing.

Since one acre of ground can contain 10,000 tons of coal, worth $500,000 or more, a cemetery can be a fairly significant piece of ground for a coal company, and not a very significant issue for a bulldozer.

Its possible to use standard underground mining techniques to get the coal from underneath cemeteries, and even though this causes subsidence of the land, at least the land is still there. But this method is slightly more expensive and time consuming, and the coal industry has increasingly used the direct method of simply tearing up the cemetery and throwing it, graves and all, down into the valley fills.

This is illegal, of course. But the thing to recall is that in coal country, government is not much more than a subsidiary of the coal industry.

I wrote about this last year for Earth Island Institute and Antrim Casky recently wrote a terrific piece for Climate Ground Zero. There are many more instances of graveyards disappearing. There is also this video about the ongoing attempt to protect one graveyard:

There’s more. Bob Kinkaid notes: The coal companies that do mountaintop removal consider our forebears as part of the waste… They push their remains into the valley fills …

Yet another issue surfaced with the construction work recently at the Coalburg WV cemetery.

It has bitterly fought all labor and environmental standards that, inch by inch, have been imposed by Congress.

Now the industry seems to be waking up to its unpopularity, and its interesting to see the reactions. At a recent “Coal Summit” in Bluefield, VA, Bill Raney, president of The West Virginia Coal Association said:

“We seem to be the only country in the world that treats our natural resources like liabilities.”

You have to wonder, why do they think that is true, when Europe has decreased its coal consumption so much?

One outspoken equipment manufacturer, Walker Coal Co. has this to say:

“It is troubling that coal’s opponents, using our courts and sympathetic political influences, have placed bugs & insects (benthic macro-invertebrates) at a higher moral standing than the citizens who need lucrative, dependable JOBS.”

That’s an interesting argument, but actually, observers have never once seen people in the coal fields arguing on behalf of bugs and insects. Their arguments have more to do with their children’s health and their grandparents graves.

It’s always interesting to see the coal industry attempting to portray itself as a victim.

“We’re under siege,” Mingo County coal executive James “Buck” Harless of International Industries recently said regarding the actions of the Obama administration. “There’s a mass movement against coal.”

Rather than taking steps to deal with the root causes of that unpopularity, industry spokes-people pretend that they are some kind of oppressed minority. They imagine that they are being persecuted over bugs and insects.

How hard could it have been to come up with more responsible and constructive approaches to the industry popularity problems?