The contents of this report are the results of a survey of state fish and wildlife agencies as well as independent research. The results were made available for review by the States to verify the results and contents. All efforts were made to ensure the accuracy of the information and all information contained within is believed to be accurate as of April 11, 2007.

For those who think developers' feverish promotion of wind energy is about saving the planet, think again. The old adage follow the money explains their zeal much more than do its purported benefits. Worse, the enormous investment returns available to wind developers for an unreliable energy source that offers negligible emissions benefits stem largely from federal and state subsidies paid for by taxpayers and rate payers. Go figure.

The work described in this report was funded by the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (Permitting, Siting and Analysis Division) and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (Wind & Hydropower Technologies Program) of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. The authors are solely responsible for any omissions or errors contained herein.

This chapter provides guidelines for the marking and lighting of wind turbine farms. For the purposes of this advisory circular, wind turbine farms are defined as a wind turbine development that contains more than three (3) turbines of heights over 200 feet above ground level. The recommended marking and lighting of these structures is intended to provide day and night conspicuity and to assist pilots in identifying and avoiding these obstacles.

While officials in the US DOE spend millions of tax dollars each year to help the wind industry and pay for lobbying on behalf of wind industry projects, President Bush’s statements about wind energy seem to have become more measured. Perhaps White House and Executive Office of the President staff have cautioned him not to believe the claims from DOE and other wind advocates and to recognize the truly tiny role that wind energy will be able to play in supplying US energy requirements – and even that at great cost to taxpayers and electric customers.

However, “Increase our use of wind and solar energy” or something very similar seems to remain as a sort of “throwaway line” in the President’s speeches and messages. Similar lines are often uttered by governors, members of Congress and state legislatures, and regulators who are faced with pressure from constituents to “do something” about high energy costs and the fear of energy supply shortages. In these situations, relying on popular wisdom and referring to “wind and solar energy” may be the best they have to offer.

However, as demonstrated clearly by EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2007, neither source offers any possibility of supplying a significant share of US energy requirements – even when looking as far into the future as 2030. Specifically, EIA projects that, by 2030:

• Wind will supply 4/10 of 1% of US energy consumption and 89/100 of 1% of US electric generation.
• Solar energy will supply 9/100 of 1% of US energy consumption and 12/100 of 1% of US electric generation.

The latest annual energy forecast issued by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) indicates that, by the year 2030, wind energy would supply less than 1% of US electric generation and about 4/10 of 1% of total US energy consumption.
This forecast, which likely overstates the potential contribution of wind energy, helps show that officials of the wind industry and US Department of Energy are misleading the public, media and government officials with their claims that wind might supply 20% of US electricity.

Rube Goldberg would admire the utter purity of the pretensions of wind technology in pursuit of a safer modern world, claiming to be saving the environment while wreaking havoc upon it. But even he might be astonished by the spin of wind industry spokesmen. Consider the comments made by the American Wind Industry Association.s Christina Real de Azua in the wake of the virtual nonperformance of California.s more than 13,000 wind turbines in mitigating the electricity crisis precipitated by last July.s .heat storm.. .You really don.t count on wind energy as capacity,. she said. .It is different from other technologies because it can.t be dispatched.. (84) The press reported her comments solemnly without question, without even a risible chortle. Because they perceive time to be running out on fossil fuels, and the lure of non-polluting wind power is so seductive, otherwise sensible people are promoting it at any cost, without investigating potential negative consequences-- and with no apparent knowledge of even recent environmental history or grid operations.

Eventually, the pedal of wishful thinking and political demagoguery will meet the renitent metal of reality in the form of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (85) and public resistance, as it has in Denmark and Germany. Ironically, support for industrial wind energy because of a desire for reductions in fossil-fueled power and their polluting emissions leads ineluctably to nuclear power, particularly under pressure of relentlessly increasing demand for reliable electricity. Environmentalists who demand dependable power generation at minimum environmental risk should take care about what they wish for, more aware that, with Rube Goldberg machines, the desired outcome is unlikely to be achieved. Subsidies given to industrial wind technology divert resources that could otherwise support effective measures, while uninformed rhetoric on its behalf distracts from the discourse.and political action-- necessary for achieving more enlightened policy.

Today, we adopt an interim greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions performance standard for new long-term financial commitments to baseload generation undertaken by all load-serving entities (LSEs), consistent with the requirements and definitions of Senate Bill (SB) 1368 (Stats. 2006, ch. 598).2 Our adopted emissions performance standard or “EPS” is intended to serve as a near-term bridge until an enforceable load-based GHG emissions limit is established and in operation.......
Under SB 1368, the EPS applies to “baseload generation,” but the requirement to comply with it is triggered only if there is a “long-term financial commitment” by an LSE. The statute defines baseload generation as “electricity generation from a powerplant that is designed and intended to provide electricity at an annualized plant capacity factor of at least 60%..........
Pursuant to SB 1368, the performance level of the EPS must be “no higher” than the emissions rate of a CCGT powerplant.11 However, the statute does not specify the emissions rate for a CCGT. Based on our review of emissions rates associated with a broad range of CCGT powerplants of varying vintages, we adopt an EPS emissions rate of 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) per megawatt-hour (MWh).

Editor's Note: This provides interesting insight into the rationale behind establishing 1,000 pds of CO2/MWh as an Emissions Performance Standard (EPS) for baseload generation. Please note that in Figure 1 "Net Emissions Comparison Data' the net emissions accorded 'wind electricity' should have been accorded to 'solar thermal with Gas Assist'.